It’s come to this. From Orson Scott Card:
In last Sunday’s News and Record, columnist Andrew Brod heaped ridicule on those who dare to contest the religion of global warming. What is his proof?
He doesn’t think he needs any. In fact, he’s against proof. He likes it when governments make massive changes without any evidence that those changes are necessary.
He spends his whole column citing political documents like the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which is known to have doctored its reports to conform with ideology, deliberately ignoring the statements of its own scientists that weren’t in line with the desire warnings.
He mentions “migrating maple trees” and “stranded polar bears,” though completely outside the scientific context that these things happen regardless of whether humans have anything to do with climate change—they are irrelevant to that question.
He thinks that the news that only 19 percent of Americans believe that humans bear no responsibility for climate change is somehow proof of his claims, while the fact that the number of Republicans in Congress who share that view is increasing is merely proof that Republicans are idiots.
Let’s think about that: Brod thinks that ordinary citizens, who only know what they’re told by the media, can be trusted to know what they’re talking about. While Republican congresspeople, who have access to the reports of all the scientific experts, with large staffs that can research these matters for them, are obviously wrong.
Brod mentions in passing that “The news media pay less attention to global-warming skeptics than before.” Yet he seems not to make the logical inference that maybe this is why only 19 percent of Americans believe that humans have no particular influence on global climate—they haven’t been told about the evidence.
Maybe if the media were reporting accurately on the state of the pertinent scientific research, those poll numbers would change.
[my emphasis]
Since I’ve been writing about this kind of rhetorical will to power by way of narrative control for some time now, I’ll spare you yet another flourish detailing the mechanisms of its evils.
Instead, I think it is worth pointing out the increasing arrogance—and, more frightening, the institutionalized acceptance—with which known falsehoods are pertetuated on behalf of what people of a particular ideological stripe believe is the “greater good”. It’s TRUTHINESS FOR TRUTH’S SAKE—a rhetorical position that not only undermines representative government by feeding those responsible for choosing elected officials incomplete or false data (making it difficult to secure an electorate that hasn’t been memetically poisoned), but one that, at base, shows a fundamental distrust and fear of those it pretends to champion, artificially denying citizens even the opportunity to reach their own informed conclusions.
Which anti-liberal position becomes easier to rationalize once you (ironically) are able to convince yourself that rationalism is passe, that “proof” is an inconvenient roadblock to making changes required by your faith, and that rhetorical consensus—manufactured consent, anyone?—is, in fact, the equivalent, in a world of the linguistic turn, of “truth.”
Contingency, irony, and solidarity—with a heavy emphasis on the “solidarity.” Though it’s doubtful Rorty would have advocated for solidarity to be reached by a careful purging of inconvenient facts, a silencing of critics, and a full-on takeover of the means for disseminating information by those cynically committed to seeing their agendas enacted on faith alone.
And yet progressives like to ridicule the “faith-based community” as hopelessly anti-intellectual, and label themselves the “reality-based” community without worrying for a second that their “reality” is nothing more than a projection of their will onto a populace they are able to gull, dupe, manipulate, hoodwink, and indoctrinate.
Continues Card:
Brod is one of those who claim that whether global climate change is really caused by human activities, and whether or not it’s really harmful, we ought to make massive changes in our public policies in order to try to prevent it.
I notice he doesn’t mention the consensus, even among true believers in anthropogenic climate change, that none of the proposals for preventing global warming are likely to accomplish anything in any reasonable amount of time.
Instead, he says, “According to a recent study by the British government, which recommended an array of taxes and emission controls, the costs may be moderate, on the order of 1 percent of global income per year.”
He then makes the statistically idiotic extrapolation that this exact percentage would apply to American households—only a few hundred bucks a year.
But “global income” costs would not be evenly divided because the changes would only take place in high-energy-use countries. So Americans would bear a far higher percentage of the costs. In the thousands, not the hundreds, of dollars per household.
Brod is deliberately misleading you when he tells you those statistics mean it would only cost Americans a few hundred dollars per household, and he knows it.
How many thousands do you want to spend this year on preventing global warming? And after you find out that there’s no proof that humans even cause it, or that it’s even a bad thing, how many thousands do you want to spend “just in case”?
Two thousand? Surely you can afford two thousand. What about five thousand?
You’re not writing your check. I guess you’re not such a true believer after all.
Brod also ignores the fact that the British government report was issued in support of policy changes that are, by any rational standard, pathetic. The changes they are making are ludicrously inadequate to change the levels of greenhouse gases to any significant degree. Given that the results will be near zero, any costs, however divided, might seem exorbitant.
Brod likens this to insurance, but it is not. Insurance is designed to pay you money after a loss. It does not prevent a loss. The valid comparison is to protection money: Somebody comes to you and demands you pay money “or you might have a fire.” You pay the money so that they won’t burn you out of business.
That’s what the global-warming protection racket is about: Hey, we can’t prove anything is actually happening, but look how many people we’ve got to agree with us! You’d better make a whole bunch of sacrifices which, by coincidence, exactly coincide with the political agenda of the anti-Western anti-industrial religion of ecodeism—or global warming will get you!
Brod actually admits precisely what he’s doing, when he says: “Fortunately, people finally seem to understand the fallacy of requiring proof.”
Think about that. He calls it a fallacy to require proof.
Science is worthless without good, solid, reliable evidence. It isn’t even science.And as you look through Brod’s entire essay, he offers not one shred of proof about anything. He only offers politics as usual—my team has more votes!
But his team has no facts. If his team had facts, he would use them. They don’t, so he can’t.
I wonder if Brod, in his job as director of the University of North Carolina at Greensboro’s Office of Business and Economic Research, he has that same attitude toward proof—that it’s a fallacy to require it.
If so, what value does his “business and economic research” have? Why would anyone who thinks that requiring proof is a fallacy be hired to do his job? Of course he can’t say with certainty what will happen, but my bet is that he makes darn sure he provides plenty of proof that his projections of the future are based on solid evidence about the past.
That is precisely what is missing in the claims about global warming.
But Brod thinks it’s a good thing that the media aren’t telling you about global-warming skeptics.
How far does this go? What else does he think the media shouldn’t be telling us about?
I think back to another time when the media—this time in England—were committed to concealing facts from their readers and listeners. It was back in 1937, 1938, and 1939.
When Chamberlain and the appeasers in the British government were selling out Austria and then Czechoslovakia, most newspapers declined to tell their readers about the Jews who were murdered in Austria after the Nazis took over; they didn’t bother to tell them anything that might cause them to doubt Neville Chamberlain’s program of appeasing the dictators.
The media also didn’t think it was worth reporting how badly armed the British military was, or how heavily the Germans were rearming. After all, that might promote “alarmism” or pro-war fervor, and “everybody” knew that Chamberlain’s appeasement program was going to bring peace.
The poll statistics were just as good as the ones Brod is citing. Huge majorities of the public “believed” in appeasement just as huge majorities believe (to some degree) in anthropogenic global warming. But what they believed and what was true were, just like today, very far apart—precisely because the media concealed the truth.
As a result, when Chamberlain came back from Munich brandishing “peace in our time,” the British public loved him.
Seven years later, with six million Jews and six million other death- and slave-camp victims gone and eastern Europe doomed to be enslaved by Communist governments imposed by the conquering Russians, not to mention many cities in England in ruins and many thousands of soldiers and civilians dead, it would have been hard to find anybody who appreciated the British media’s having kept the truth from them about those lonely “appeasement skeptics.”
Isn’t it funny how the public has a “right to know”—except when the media decides not to tell them?
Again, this rhetorical position wouldn’t be near so dangerous were we not taught from an early age that the news media strives for “objectivity” (or, in some extreme cases, “neutrality”), and that consequently we should be able to trust the basic facts they “report” as a foundation upon which to build our own conclusions.
But in fact we are taught such things, even as the news media has relaxed its standards and taken to more openly advocating for particular public policies—a position born of a worldview that requires them to “frame” things in a way they believe will best “help” people understand the “story” the facts “are trying to tell.”
All of which leads to a troubling conflict of interest—and sets the stage for a pliant public to be manipulated by an unscrupulous press that has convinced itself that its methods, while dubious, are sound in the long run if in fact they bring about the results their ideology demands.
In short, they are proselytizing—and without the inconvenience of having to identify themselves as religious zealots.
Concludes Card:
[…] you don’t hear much about science that gets politically incorrect results. You don’t hear much about global warming skeptics—or the fact that within the scientific disciplines actually involved in long-term global climate research there is a broad consensus growing—against significant human causes of global warming.
But Brod approves of the public being deliberately misinformed. He doesn’t want us to look for proof. He wants us to simply do what we’re told and think as we’re told. He says “at least the debate is moving in the right direction” precisely because he thinks there is no debate at all! That’s the right direction!
“Instead of pointless arguments about whether we have proof of global warming, we’ve started arguing about the costs and benefits of particular policies.” But this is also false, and he knows it.
He does not want to discuss the costs—he merely dismisses them or denies them or misuses shaky statistics to trivialize them. He does not want to discuss the benefits, because there are almost none and he doesn’t want us to know that.
He concludes with this outrageous statement: “I concluded my 1995 column by saying that it wasn’t to late to ‘buy insurance’ against the future costs of global warming. It’s still not too late. But it will be soon.”
Think about those claims: “It’s still not too late” and “It will be soon.” You will search his essay in vain for the slightest shred of evidence that it is not too late or that it will be soon.
In the real world, where people still like to have proof before they make drastic policy changes, the experts who believe in anthropogenic global warming generally agree that none of the proposed “solutions” will make any difference.
Meanwhile, the interesting science—i.e., the science that actually works as an explanation—is overwhelmingly heliogenic: The sun is directly and solely responsible for the overall patterns of warming and cooling that have dominated Earth, during and between ice ages, for millions of years.
No wonder Brod doesn’t want us “requiring proof.” He wants you barefoot and ignorant, folks. So does the rest of his team.
Welcome to the brave new world of progressivism.
And don’t worry, it’s not—as some conservatives will try to claim—“totalitarian.” Especially after “totalitarian” is redefined as those who would seek to put their selfish, individual needs and desires above the good of the group.
h/t Dicentra, who writes: “Up is down. Black is white. Potsie is the Fonz”—so that I don’t have to.
Which I appreciate, incidentally, because that gives me an extra minute or so to burn leaves in a show of civil disobedience. Because Jeff likes nothing more than STICKING IT TO THE MAN!
As I said below, I strongly suspect this is simply the handiest stick for people to beat the free society with: it is no accident (as Pravda used to say) that the people who are most agitated about climate change (which is the latest term, as the evidence for warming appears to be thinning) are leftists. This affords them an opportunity to pursue the real goal, which is forcing other people to modify their behavior.
The real question, to my mind, is WHY? Orwell came up with a vague line about a “hypertrophied sense of order” in “The Road to Wigan Pier,” but I don’t know that anyone has ever figured out the source of the authoritarian personalities who are attracted to socialism and its associated causes.
Finessing the world to mirror one’s ego comes to mind.
the fallacy of requiring proof
My jaw is still in my lap, and my tongue cleaves to my teeth. You know you’re a pathological liar when you can’t tell the difference between your true agenda and the lies you tell to cover it up.
Again, I’m compelled to repeat:
“When your world view is made up entirely of round holes, your mind is a lathe that can turn everything into a cylinder.” â€â€James Lileks
Pretty brassy, eh?
While he is at it, he might as well demand a virgin sacrifice and an offering of silver to stop the Sky Dragon from swallowing the Moon. Same level of thought, and same level of expectation for his own part.
Orwell had the perfect term for what the language was that came out of this sort of lovely ‘any word meaning exactly what I say it does’ sort of deal: Duckspeak. I hear a *lot* of it, with people throwing the old meanings away on many terms and applying old terms to their brand-new meanings and hoping to carry the old implications with it.
As for GW… took a look at it once and then the overview of my views a second time. Can’t seem to find it in the long-term data, but do notice very highly variable inter-glacial temperature swings due to natural causes during previous inter-glacial periods. Seems that the actual global climate isn’t driven too much by mankind… oh, well… call me in ten thousand years when the real data shows up.
“My jaw is still in my lap, and my tongue cleaves to my teeth. You know you’re a pathological liar when you can’t tell the difference between your true agenda and the lies you tell to cover it up.”
Can you see your reflection in that mirror?
And in anecdote I know for a fact not to be apocryphal, a man with whom I was acquainted once asked a co-worker of his, who had just cut an audible fart, “You got a duck in your pants, Bob?”
Coincidence? I think not.
Speaking of ducks.
Isn’t that exactly the sort of behavior that such progressives insist was what got us into George Bush’s Grand Evil Stupid Mistake for Oil? Proof was so important then, I’m younger than that now.
Keeping in mind that Dr. Brod is a true intellectual. If requiring proof is fallacy, I wonder if the good Doctor (of retail furniture economics) realizes that he’s just affirmed every religion in existence.
The reason why folks like this do what they do is because they are meddlers. A good portion of any society consists of busybodies who can’t just mind their own business, and enjoy telling people what to do. Just go to any Homeowners Association or PTA meeting to see this on display.
The danger comes when enough of these people reach the higher levels of power. A leader will eventually arise from them and play to the dark and petty sides of their personalities. This is how dictators arise. The problem with the Enviro and Progressive crowd is that they are playing this game on a global scale. As such they can concentrate their influence on those nations too weak to resist them. That is why they must be challenged at every turn.
The key is to never give up the search for better information. Men such as this can’t back up their opinions with fact. So in essence they become the enemies of science that they accuse many conservatives of being.
You know, people talk about Islam needing a reformation, but I think academia needs a Martin Luther. Someone to go back to meaning and truth and education, someone to reform the universities and academic establishment in the world. They’ve clearly lost all sense of what it means to learn and teach.
This reminds me of the speech Spiro Agnew of all people gave:
Just as true today, if not more so. Except now those students are the presidents and deans of these colleges and universities.
Yeah, that makes sense; I remember reading an essay somewhere on the web that suggested envy was another source, on the grounds that capitalists were better off, happier, etc. I sort of buy that, too, but the interesting aspect of it is its historical novelty, relatively speaking. It’s not a phenomenon that really manifests itself much before Marx, is it? My guess is that the intellectuals who would have given it force were toiling too hard in Grub Street. A class that now has plenty envies and hates a class that now has plenty more.
I notice a trend in media reports about national issues: reporters rush to dictate a collective experience of current events. In other words, “we” are all supposed to collectively feel a certain way, together, about this or that event – because, say, Keith Olbermann says so.
But, interestingly, not all events are collectivized in this way.
Which opens a portal through which to examine media bias. It is an edifying exercise to consider which current events the MSM exempt from their collectivization impulse. These are the issues they downplay for fear that they may activate Americans to behave collectively in directions that the media disapprove of. Some examples are the 9/11 attacks (specifically the footage of tumbling Trade Center victims), Diane Feinstein’s corruption scandal, the metastasization of Islamist terror-groups under Clinton, and the effects of Bush’s tax-cuts on the economy and treasury.
Now, consider a few of the collectivizing events that they keep alive year after year: Katrina, global warming, abortion rights, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, and “undocumented” migrants. The favor shown these issues by the media demonstrates that dumbed-down federalism, socialist management of the energy markets, voting Democrati(ic), American moral defeatism overseas and open borders are a few of the collective efforts that the media approve of.
Sounds alot like the Democrat(ic) Party’s and Soros’ joint-agenda, huh?
Translation: “I know you are, but what am I?”
I have a problem with the idea of ‘Truthiness’ (even used ironically) in that it asserts that truth is a virtue rather than a GOAL of virtue.
What you’ve done then is take away the key goal of something such as Sincerity, or reduce all goals to ‘the truth’ while ignoring both what is aesthetic and what is universally good.
To make this clear, you cannot LIE for TRUTH and call it GOOD.
The problem with ascertaining the ‘root cause’ of Leftist bullshit such as this is that there is no root cause, but rather it is a scattering of everything, a kind of spiritual ENTROPY.
To wit, Its like saying everyone who is dying is dying of the same thing. Certainly all of their hearts will eventually fail, but heart failure was not the original cause.
Does that make some sense?
Bing, Bing, Bing
You get the prize.
The biggest problem with the whole anthropomorphic global warming debate is that they start by ignoring the earth’s history and the astrophysics. You can tell that because geologist and paleobiologist tend to be the ones that are the voices of skepticism that are getting ignored.
I don’t debate that humans have an effect on or can increase the rate of reaction when it comes to CO2, but when you see nary a word about the effects of methane as a green house gas in the debate, you know they are cooking the books.
If you really want some fun, let the global warming types tell you that this will lead to sea level changes and continental transgression and then ask them to explain how this is different than the cyclothems that gave us all the coal in Pennsylvainia. Typically, the look is sheer panic. They don’t know and they don’t reference a lot of their data to earth history mostly because they don’t want to. They just want to tax you and bully you into income redistribution.
“the fallacy of requiring proof”
Degrees should have expiration dates.
ask them to explain how this is different than the cyclothems that gave us all the coal in Pennsylvainia.
Sheer panic? Probably because they don’t know what a cyclothem is.
Another way to ask it: “Where did all this carbon we are burning come from in the first place?”
I still have faith that my fellow cheapskate citizens will, once they see how the environmentalist busybodies will impoverish them with taxes and restrictions, rise up in the mother of all tax revolts.
Think of a anti-enviro Howard Jarvis.
Backed up with a timer wired to a block of semtex attached to said degree.
Even the Senate, not exactly cheapskates when it comes to other people’s money, rejected Kyoto. Pretty much unanimously – I think there might have been five abstensions.
At some visceral level (i.e., I believe it, but I can’t prove it), I feel like the global warming craze is cresting. I’m not sure why – perhaps it’s that it has reached the point where a lot of the people who would ordinarily just ignore it can no longer do so, and are asking questions that can’t be adequately answered with the prepared spiel. Whatever the case, I think it’s just about at the point where it breaks and recedes. I’m just concerned about the damage it might manage to do in the period that’s left before it all washes out to sea.
Yes, I know I worked that metaphor a little too hard. At least it’s not mixed, OK?
A few weeks ago Shepard Smith had some guy on Fox News that was basically saying “global warming consensus” and Shep was nodding like a bobblehead doll. They had no one on for the skeptic’s side and it seemed out of character for Fox.
Then today I read this quote by Rupert Murdoch: “TODAY, I am announcing our intention to be carbon-neutral, across all our
businesses, by 2010.”
So now I understand the one-sided interview by Shep. I’m left speechless.
Up is down. Black is white.
Don’t forget cats and dogs living together… not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Would a freshly aborted fetus work?
You know, judging by that Der Speigel article from an earlier post, even liberals are realizing that scientists have strayed too far into political advocacy. This may have irreptably damaged the persception of science and scientists, especially in the eyes of conservatives.
Because the climate change issue has become so politically tainted, there will be people who will never accept the evidence. Ever. They’ll argue with the scientist if they said the sky was blue because we have become so hyper-partisan that we can’t even agree on what facts are facts.
Check out this article from a couple years ago by Reason science correspondant Ronald Bailey.
Jeff, not that it would do any good, but this post provides a nice rebuttal to Diane Carmann’s article in the Denver Post this morning. That article is like a chapter-and-verse example of how to dupe an ignorant public into supporting a cause because “it’s inevitable, so you better start getting used to it.”
These people have no other rhetorical tools other than shifting the burden of proof and appeals to emotion (such as Bill Johnson’s sob story editorial on illegal immigrants after the May 1 demonstrations), but because we seem to live in a fundamentally ignorant age, these propogandists are able to gain more credibility than they could ever hope to deserve.
Nanonymous: yes, though it was an advisory vote rather than an actual bill. The tally was indeed 95-0.
Those not voting were Reid, Feinstein, Harkin, and Grams. The link record just says “not voting”, it doesn’t give a reason why.
Interestingly enough, such saints of the left as Kennedy, Wellstone, Boxer, and Kerry all voted for the bill.
I wonder why we always hear that Bush “abandoned Kyoto”, given that this vote took place during the Clinton administration?
Migrating Maple trees!
MIGRATING MAPLE TREES!
BORDER FENCE NOW!
only69, “The solution for the Population Explosion!”
Surely that’s a hypothetical question.
Hahaha! you stupid ass!
Everybody knows that neo-cons and vampires don’t have reflections!
Oh . . . that was redundant, wasn’t it?
TW: system17
Nudge nudge, wink wink.
esteban, fences will NOT stop Ents.
Something there is that does not love a fence . . .
HOLY CHRIST LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THAT THING!
’Hahaha! you stupid ass!”
Actually, it was about projection.
But, since you’re projecting……
“Hahaha! you stupid ass!”
That’s as much as a 10.5F rise in temperature quite a difference in the numbers if you ask me. The data that I’ve seen shows a change of only ~0.8C (1.4F) over the last 150 years, hmmmmm.
Ah, cleo! An island of humorless dimness in a sea of wit.
How can we miss you if you won’t stay away?
Card makes some good points, as does Jeff. But I just can’t this one slide:
Well, I don’t trust congresspeople of any party to understand this issue more deeply than ordinary citizens. True, they are better-educated on average; they have access to all the reports they could want, and they have staffers to help them locate and understand key details.
They also have, by definition, an axe to grind, which can sort of color their understanding of the science.
As for Brod, his comments bring to mind P.J. O’Rourke’s apology to Al Gore, way back in ‘97 or so, in the introduction to All the Trouble in the World: “Sorry, Al….It’s nothing personal. I just think you have repulsive totalitarian inclinations and the brains of a King Charles Spaniel.”
What a terrible slight to King Charles Spaniels. It’s true that within dogdom they rank rather low on the intelligence scale but they are extremely faithful to the last person to feed them.
Can the same be said for “no controlling legal authority” Gore? Certainly, O’Rourke had a very valid point regarding intelligence but loyalty should have been given some value in his assessment.
The occasional 1/4 pounder is sufficent to maintain the loyalty of a King Charles Spaniel, no one has any idea of the cost of Gore’s loyalty other than that it appears to be higher than the purchase price offered by the Chinese.
A politician who won’t stay bought is truly dishonest.
I don’t so much object to his not offering proof, he is not an expert witness and presumably even pointing to some of the writings that convinced him seemed extra baggage to him in an article that was not meant to convince skeptics.
But saying proof is not only unecessary but probably undesirable is silly of him – and a lot of others. And I hope this is not something he promotes in his actual area of expertise.
—
Personally, I think “Global Warming” aka “Climate Change” may be happening – but to blame it all on humans is asinine, to lay most of the blame on humans is risible, even to blame it all on CO2 is certainly questionable. We may be [comparitively minusculey] contributing, but causing?
Too, I remember the famous “hockey stick” did not show either the Medieval Warm or the following Little Ice Age – which immediately made it unacceptable to this college dropout. And the data, methodology, etc. was basically “eaten by my dog” and not submitted to outsiders (it was possibly re-constructed by critics, who showed that if their work was correct the “hockey stick” appears for almost any series of numbers) – a truly cardinal scientific sin. And I remember that leaving out these events was “justified” by the claim that they were “local” (North Atlantic) phenomena – which was debunked {albeit the religious ignored it] within months by data ranging from the lower reaches of South America to China showing the same phenomena at the same time. And on and on…
Is anyone surprised that semanduckleo chose this thread to emit in?
Holy.
Fucking.
Shit.
It appears Dr. Brod needs to be hooked to the leeches again for a good bleeding.
And Charles II was rather bright and adept to work his way through unsuccessful wars, secret treaties wherein he scammed France out of much money, more mistresses than you can shake a stick at (even if the stick was a redwood), and still keep his rear on the throne and his crown on his head.
The one male of the House of Stuart you would be embarrased to be related to; and the one you would want to go out with on a pub crawl.
getting22? No, I think Charles II got a lot more than that.
And his head on his neck.
I love this place.
Damn if I didn’t pull out Dirr and right there, on page 139, Acer mexicanus… “transplants easily .. prefers moist, well-drained soil, full sun, tolerates some shade…hard worker in the landscape…”
Then later … “stoloniferous… propagation easy with hormone powder”
WWTD*?
(What would Tancredo Do?)
As I recall, first I had faith and no doubt. When doubt came, faith receded. As time passed I had only doubt.
Then, through necessity, proof was given me. Doubt disappeared but faith did not return. Proof needs no faith. Oh, if only I had kept faith when doubt first came what glory might have been mine.
Now doubt has returned, doubt of the proof. Now faith is needed. What glory now, to be given doubt again so that faith may come again.
That’s the sequence so far, Semanticleo. Since you’re so much smarter than me, why don’t you tell me what comes next?
Rick Ballard:
Yeah, I felt bad passing that on because I understand King Charles Spaniels are among the most wonderful dogs out there. And I for one value loyalty over intelligence, as I know an awful lot of highly intelligent jerks.
For what it’s worth, O’Rourke went on to cite his research assistant as the kind of person who can find a definitive answer to the question of whether that comparison is unfair to King Charles Spaniels.
TheGeezer, re MikeyNTH’s comment:
Yep–that was great.
All that coal is petrified dinosaur poop. What kind of dinosaur is a cyclotherm? Does it have wheels and breathe fire? Maybe they caused global warming. It’s a good thing they are dead.
What I don’t understand is how my SUV is melting the Martian ice-caps.
Does anybody know if the answers are in Algore’s movie?
kifrz1:
HH: “Lileks, don’t you believe in doubt?”
JL: “I don’t know.”
Hey, Squid!
Don’t know if you noticed but Brod is “one of us”. Got his PhD at that other school just down Snelling and west for a few blocks from Hamline.
Who’da thunk it?
To get how this relates to institutionalized acceptance, you would of course need to read this post in the thread about concealed weapons. Duh.
Potsie is the Fonz?
I live near Cambridge, MA and I’ve been told that Chomsky is the Fonz.
It manifested out of our collective black, unredeemed souls. It’s the zero point theory of global warming…
All that coal is petrified dinosaur poop. </blockquote>
Actually, the dinosaurs are for sale in 1/4 lb form at your local golden arches. Coal’s just layer upon layer of lawn clippings, thus proving that Martha Stewart was busy in ancient times.
Oh, yeah, and earning money81.
Which provides a level of nuance somewhat lacking in Dr. Broad Brush’s screed. There is also a ton of data in that article about tempurature change but none about human effect upon said change.
Look, I am the anti-science geek. Much of this stuff makes me dizzy and nauseous. Beating me over the head with miniscule tempurature changes is not gonna do it. Demonstrate without equivocation the clear and unassailanble link between rising tempuratures and man’s activities or get out of my face. Also, please include some evidence that you have correctly predicted climate on a regular basis over a span of years!
The rest is all smoke, mirrors and arrogant, self interested bluster.
Aren’t we forgetting the great pickup lines created by this new “craze”? If I may:
“Wow! I believe in global warming, cuz you are HOT!!”
“Did the temperature just increase by .6 celsius? Cuz you are HOT!!”
“Somewhere Al Gore is sweating, cuz you are HOT!!”
“I’d like to strand my poler bear on your ice float.”
………I’m not sure what that last one means.
alpuccino;
South Philly Style:
“Hey, babe, you are smokin’ hot and I got yer Carbon Offsets right heeya!”
BJ,
Antioch College style:
“Like, if you’re not busy washing your armpit hair, would you like, go with me to the global warming sit in? We could get all charred and toasted. If you’re not busy.”
Actually, they need to demonstrate a cause and effect relationship to then make the statement that humans cause global warming. I’ve tried to point this out to people before, but they claim I don’t know anything about climatology and therefore am wrong. I don’t know climatology, but I know science. Cause and effect can be remarkably tricky to demonstrate in some systems, and the more complex the system the trickier it gets. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: correlation does not remotely prove causation.
T.W.: thirty32, as in if it gets any hotter, Holland will be below sea level by 3032. Oh, wait..
Al, South Philly?
Really? Me too. Where?
I’m dead center of Ohio, out in the country. There’s not a cheese steak withing 40 miles of my place.
……in fact, the only Philly Cheese Steak around here is Mickelson on the tube at Sawgrass.
So just for the record, none of you people think that global warming is happening and it’s not an issue worthy of our consideration? Maybe I’ve just been duped by a consensus of the world’s scientists?
Considering the cheesesteak shrines in S. Philly use Velveeta for pity’s sake, you should be glad.
The one and only time I agreed with John Kerry was when he was herded to Gino’s in Philly during the 2004 campaign for a photo food op. He supposedly looked as the Rocky wannabe ladled out the cheese-like goodness out of a honking big can and asked for provolone instead. For this, he was condemned for blasphemy.
In Delaware, we use real cheese, and the subs are called subs, not ‘hoagies’. Where they got that particular bit of stupidity from, I’ll never know.
Ronaldo:
Here’s a quick little test on reading comprehension. Compare this statement:
With this statement:
or this statement:
If you can’t see that you’ve completely mischaracterized the positions stated on this thread then I fear that nuance, critical thinking and reading comprehension have abandoned you.
Call 911!
If you are a loyal Goron disciple in the Church of the Perputual Flooding then your interest in looking at facts and assertations with an eye toward knowledge and understanding is non-existant, irrelevant to the fevered feeding of “man’s very existance is warming the earth.” Feel free to genuflect and moveon.org. However, if you are the least bit free of doctrinal mind conditioning and have something to add to the discussion then, by all means, have at it with the understanding that others may disagree to various degrees.
Lastly, you’ve completely missed the delicious irony in that you confirmed Jeff’s original conclusions:
Thanks for playing.
Let it out Hen………..let it out.
You have been duped by whoever taught you reading for comprehension.
Mine was an entirely innocuous comment so insults aren’t really necessary. I just asked a simple question: do you believe that global warming is an issue we should be considering? Most climate scientists do.
“Up is down. Black is white. Potsie is the Fonzâ€Â
And Brod is narrow …
Ehhh – just another wackademic with a bad case of mental trots. Is a Ph.D. a sign of mental illness?
Why do you think we are discussing it? The whole point of the thread is that the proAGW side refuses to discuss it and actively attempts to crush opposing views. As do you with your genuflection to consensus!!!
Quotes About Consensus
Quotes:
“Consensus is what many people say in chorus but do not believe as individuals.” – Abba Eban
“To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects.” – Margaret Thatcher
“A consensus politician is someone who does something that he doesn’t believe is right because it keeps people quiet when he does it.” – John Major
“It is not much matter which we say, but mind, we must all say the same.” – Lord Melbourne
“Talk about the flag or drugs or crime (never about race or class or justice) and follow the yellow brick road to the wonderful land of consensus. In place of honest argument among consenting adults the politicians substitute a lullaby for frightened children: the pretense that conflict doesn’t really exist, that we have achieved the blessed state in which we no longer need politics.” – Lewis H. Lapham
Maybe, now that the coldest February on record is over.
Oh well, put me down for “no”.
ronaldo,
Which piece of evidence convinced you? Let me know, because if your facts are compelling, I’m willing to believe.
(Note: “Most _______ do!” only works for elections for the student body president.)
TW: alone47. I’m okay with that.
And mine was a substantive response to your lazy, uncritical assessment of the thinking in this thread, none of which you bothered to answer in any way. the mild insults reflected the snarky nature of your comment/plop and were offered free of charge.
Which is exactly we are doing and have done over several threads going back years. That which is obvious to us eludes you because you didn’t ask the question in a way that reflects your real purpose and understanding:
Perhaps I’ve mischarcterized your inner muse but feel free to enlighten us poor deniers as to the truthiness.
BTW The original point of this thread was the imperative expressed to accept doctrine at the expense of critical thinking. For the greater good and all. Care to comment?
………and I refuse to believe it until Boston Legal does an episode where Alan Shore sues God for making the sun too flamey.
And…
Denny Crane offers to defend God.
Heh!
Actually, we are considering it, just more critically than the Goreophilic herd.
For the umpteenth time, consensus does not scientific fact make.
I don’t know why, but I think this will give me nightmares.
The dim and damp cellar contained but a single bulb encrusted with some sort of brown and dried scum that cast sinister shadows about the place like the blood streaming from a broken hematocrit cylinder on a centrifuge. The sweaty and shirtless laborer opened the door of the mysterious appliance and hot sparks danced from the fixture. Into that heated metal maw the man threw mangled statistics, outright lies, unquestioned propaganda, consensual facts, the Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf, and pork rinds.
He gazed momentarily upon the molten, loquacious putrescence and laughed, slamming the door of the box with surly demeanor. Now, he knew, he must wait to see what instabilities might emerge from the dialectic that might give him and his cronies the opportunity for power. He was not hopeful: after all, little portable dialectics his were not at all like the big jobs they had in the U.S.S.R., the kind that produced Lysenkoism and Russian wheat harvests.
BJ, do you recall a Twilight Zone episode where a man tries desperately to move his family north to the polar regions because the earth is heating up rapidly and people are dying in the streets and everything is getting really icky?
And then, after the last commercial break, we see a woman gently swabbing a man’s forehead with a cloth. She turns to a man putting a stethoscope into a doctor’s bag and says, “When will the fever break?” To which the doctor says, “Soon.” And then the woman asks, “Are you moving your family south?” And the doctor says, “Yes, to Florida. I hope you can stay warm enough to live…”
And then the camera shows a blizzard raging outside?
And then Rod Serling, puffing on a cigarette, points out the obvious irony of it all with a sophisticated laugh?
I apologize to all. Work is very boring. I will now go away.
Geezer, yea, I think so. Wasn’t his conviction that the earth was warming no more than a fevered delusion? Great example!
So lyrical, in a Lou Reed kinda way…
I would like to point out the the “consensus” does not include many esteemed scientists who either question the entire concept of Anthropogenic Warming (see Russian Solar Scientists) or those who questionn the “consensus” that man has not only a significant effect on cause, but also can acheive a measurable effect towards the “cure.”
Apparenty (according to Ronaldo) we are not considering the issue of Global Warming because we haven’t started from the baseline “a consensus of climate scientists say it’s so,” rendering our consideration of the “issue” to parrot speak.
Polly want a carbon offset!
Fixed that for you.
ha, so is it safe to say the consensus is that Ronaldo is a lazy ass?
DON’T ARGUE WITH OUR CONSENSUS!
Ronaldo, I’ve considered it and I want it. More Global Warming please! Can you make it happen for me?
TW: bill39
HA! My heating bills this year were OUTRAGEOUS! Hence, the need for more global warming!
I’ve considered it too Ronaldo, and I believe this whole “consensus of scientists” is just an elaborate Revenge of the Nerds scheme.
maggie:
I declare the consensus says Ronaldo is a midget Elf with halitosis and gout carrying a signed copy of Laurie David’s new book “You’re All Gonna Fry, You Freakin’ Idiots!”
DON’T ARGUE WITH MY CONSENSUS!!!
Lysenkoism had a consensus, too.
Al Gore is the new Lysenko. Thanks TheGeezer.
apb, 8:20 AM:
Not intrinsically, but there is a very strong correlation. It’s an excellent warning flag anyway.
Blue Hen,
“Wiz with” is a delight to the palate. And Kerry was not vilified for ordering a steak with provolone, as that is one of the acceptable array of cheeses, along with American and mozzarella. I don’t remember exactly what it was he ordered, but you’re right that it was blasphemous.
As for the etymology of “hoagie”, I could be wrong, but I think it shares that of “submarine”, as it was eaten by ship builders during WW2. In Philadelphia, that meant you worked in or around Hog Island, thus “hoagie” would be a corruption of “hoggie” or some such. I think that’s the common thought anyway, which, as we all know, could be dead wrong.
Mmmmmm. The epistemology of “hoagie”. Mmmmmm.
How about if I say an overwhelming majority of the world’s climate scientists believe that global warming is a serious issue that needs to be addressed? Is that better than saying “consensus?” Here is the thing; I’m not a climate scientist so I have to rely on the findings of that particular scientific community for their opinion on this matter and they seem to think that it is a serious problem, one that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. I just know what I read. Someone asked me to point to one piece of information that made me come to my conclusions, conclusions I’d happily change if I came across enough evidence to tell me otherwise. It wasn’t one piece, it has been a torrent of information. Here is where I get my information:
The New York Times
El PaÃÂs
Le Monde
The Los Angeles Times
The New Yorker
Harper’s
The Atlantic Monthly
Le Figaro
L’Express
The Washington Post
In these periodicals I have come across hundreds of reports from scientists concerning global warming. If there is some other source for news, please let me know.
Something that I have refused to relinquish in all of my studies and travels is my common sense. When I fly into Los Angeles (thank god that isn’t often) I look down on the nightmare of highways, some of which are now 18 lanes. 18 lanes and there is still bumper-to-bumper traffic! A child could see that and realize we must be fucking up our planet somehow. I don’t need to be a scientist to know that we should probably change our ways. I thought that one of the definitions of “conservative†was to error on the side of caution? Why wouldn’t we take the advice of the vast majority of the world’s climate scientists and at least consider some alternatives? If you have noticed, I haven’t insulted anyone on this forum nor do I think that I am more intelligent than any of you. I don’t claim to be smarter than anyone but I read and I have common sense.
Ronaldo, I believe you’ve merely defined “consensus”. And your list of periodicals is, well, unsurprising.
Patrick, I’ve been eating cheesesteaks in Philly off and on since the mid seventies and, even though I know it will get me excommunicated from the bedrock church of Gino’s and Pat’s…
I agree with Blue Hen. Don’t hate me…
As a college slug we were always at Pat’s or Gino’s for no other reason than they were open at 4:00AM (munchies never sleep.) At that time of the morning and in our, um, impaired condition, ingrediants played second fiddle to expediancy.
Then I discovered Jim’s Steaks on 4th St. with fresher meat and real cheese. That was the end of the Wharton St. crew for me.
Today Tony Luke’s cheesesteaks with sharp provolone are to die for and miles ahead of the cheap meat greasy lava cheese crew.
However, Philly hoagies are infinitely better than mere Delaware subs. BTW: Pablo would tell you that in Mass, if you want a hot sub you have to order a Grinder (sorry, Grind-dah.) This is in lockstep with the notion that if you want ice cream in your milk shake, you had best be ordering a Frappe.
Um, I wonder if Lorenzo’s in West Chester is open now…bye!
Why would I hate you, BJ? Gino’s and especially Pat’s are disgusting tourist swill. Jim’s was always my favorite, at least upon discovering it some drunken night a hundred years ago.
I will say, if you’re having a cheese steak at Tony Luke’s, you need an adjustment. Next time you go say this: “Roast Pork Italian, rabe, sharp”. You can thank me later.
Oh, Patrick! *swoon*
Yes, yes I have, Heaven on earth!!
One of the best reasons to live in the Philly area is DiBruno Bros. cheeses. They import those make-you-weep-like-a-little-girl extra sharp provolones, the same ones that Tony Lukes uses on his oh, so delictable Roast Pork Italian.
A new Italian market just opened up in Eagle, out where I live. He carries DiBruno products which has been a boon.
Pretty emotional – and supremely not logical – conclusion.
Problem identified. You see, as a scientist, I am often amused by the silly statements made by reporters with regards to certain scientific issues about which I know better. It happens far, far, far more often than you would think. So part of the big problem is that reporters don’t often tell you exactly what the scientists have actually demonstrated. Do you believe that it has been demonstrated that humans cause global warming? If so, it’s probably because some scienitific illiterate who writes for a news service told you that scientists have in fact proven it. They haven’t. Not a testable hypothesis (at least from a practical standpoint). I often ask the true believers for a reference to a peer-reviewed paper demonstrating a cause and effect relationship, but never get it (because it doesn’t exist). I even know reputable scientists who don’t think there really is any warming going on. I think there is, but blaming it on humans is pure fantasy from a scientific standpoint.
Ahh, yes, the inner child defense. So, Ronaldo, quit flying in airplanes. Quit driving your car. Quit heating your house. Because, obviously, your lifestyle is more important than the planet to you. That is, if you REALLY “feel” that way.
Nobody has ever said, “Ok, this fossil fuel shit is great. Let’s not EVER look into alternative fuel sources, which are cheaper, cleaner and actually renewable”. No one. All your “scientific” journals with absolutely NO reputation of being ideologically predisposed to a certain way of thinking are in a word…biased. The point, ronaldo, is that consensus means nothing when talking science. And more importantly, this is much more a story on economics than it is on the environment. I would gather you lean more towards the collectivist side of the aisle. I appreciate when people are honest in regards to where their principles stand. Say it proud! I’m a socialist or collectivist. I enjoy re-distribution of income! That may or may not be you, but, for the majority of your “enviro-religious” comrades, it is crystal clear.
tw: around68
Not quite yet. Give me another 30 years…
the fallacy of requiring proof.
Thanks, thanks a goddam lot. You know the freaking headache I get from reading this damned oxymoronic nonsense?
Seriously, I’m going to share this now, just because I can’t stand having a headache like this all by myself.
Ronaldo:
First of all, thanks for actually fleshing out your position and not just leaving a little sarcastic snark. We’re less than friendly to drive by snarks as we deal with them on a regular basis, as well as the dreaded straw man gambit.
Crimso has a better grasp on the science so I’ll delve into the sorts of things that bother me as an admittedly unscientific type.
It’s saying the same thing but not definitively. For instance how do you know that an “overwhelming majority” of climate scientists feel this way? What way? That Global warming is demonstrably true? That it is to a large degree man made? That it is or will be destructive? That we should engage in a massive spending/wealth redistribution to tackle it now? That we even have the ability to effect a global climate condition?
The nature of the periodicals that you read is to emphasize the negative. If someone (like a certain ex vice president) says that 90% of the world’s scientists now agree that Global Warming is real, largely man made and a deadly problem for our planet, those same periodicals are likely to print this with very little scrutiny. They may never get to the people who instantly start screaming that no data exists to back up his contention. Nor will they ever stop their continuous swooning over the movie even though many of Gore’s scientific supporters have admitted that the film used the most extreme examples to make it’s point.
That forcing of the message is exactly the point of this thread and of Jeff’s post. You’ve contributed to the sloppy critical thinking by, as Geezer pointed out, applying a purely subjective, local observation in reaching a conclusion about a planet wide condition.You then call it “common sense” to drive home the unassaliable truth of the connection. The message suits your own, pre held, locally observed views on humans interacting with the planet, so the message is easier to digest, spoon fed like tasty gruel to an orphan.
The other thing that you lack is historical perspective. We don’t have reasonable explainations for the Medieval Warming Period (in fact, the guy respionsible for the hockey stick graph delibrately short changed that warming period, as have others.) Erik called it Greenland for a reason and the Romans were growing grapes in Britian. Nor have I read a reasonable explaination for the decade long cooling cycle in the 70’s even while CO2 levels were climbing. The concept that we should do something “just in case” runs up against that old law of unintended consequences. Check out the history of DDT if you don’t think such a thing exists. There are several million people dead from malaria over the past 35 years who might want a “do over” on that decision.
The gorons will go crazy but I have a suggestion. Take a week and read Michael Crichton’s “State of Seige.” I realise that he’s not a climate scientist but he did do extensive research and provides a perspective about public relations, scientific studies, peer reviews and the the way money corrupts the process.
I don’t claim to know much for sure but I’m not yet sold on the certainty of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Idealism is charming but does not insure that we won’t do worse by attempting our own, personally and locally contrived application.
Ronaldo
A good place to see a different scientific viewpoint as opposed to the MSM Junkscience.com you should also read this page definations
Here’s a new theory. The excition frequency of water is 2.4GHz (a really really high frequency.) Your microwave oven heats your food by bombarding the food with radio frequency energy (at 2.4GHz) exciting the water molecules. The latest cell phones operate at 2.4GHz and ‘the rate of global warming is increasing.’ I believe that cell phones are microwaving our planet or at least contributing to the warming. This gives us the manmade link to GW (ok not really.) See what happens when you give a RF engineer too much free time………
Oops
JunkScience.com
definitions
excitation
Sorry, really should use a spell checker, fixed the links too.
TW type99, actually closer to 9.
I was suspicious of alot of the AGW reports anyway, but reading pop media accounts of the New Orleans levees and the Trade Center collapse, things I actually know something about, convinced me not to trust them at all. They are wrong an astonishing amount of the time/
BJTexs:
This may sound like an appeal to authority, and it’s not. But when I asked a climate scientist friend of mine about the Medieval Warming Period, she expressed skepticism that it ever existed.
Now, this may sound like the need to make an, um, inconvenient truth go away, but it’s not. In fact, when I quoted the line of one of the scientist/advocates (“we have got to do something about the Medieval Warm Period”), she was appalled.
This is just my non-climate-scientist’s gist of the explanation, but her take was that these observations, while real, were something of an anomaly: A large section of the populated world was experiencing warm weather, but proxy records for other spots in the world indicate no warm period.
I haven’t done enough reading in the primary literature (and, Ronaldo, not to pile on but none of those fine publications count) to know for myself, but I found interesting the argument that it depends on which set of records you trust.
[…] “root causes”. After all, such “evidence” only indexes the “fallacy of proof” that (constitutionally conservative) bourgeois ruling classes have traditionally used to maintain […]
[…] in reporting happens rather frequency — first, because I thought they’d embraced “the fallacy of proof,” and second, because, well, I have a search function here on the site, and Google has one that keeps […]