Thursday, April 5, 2012

"... the global warming faith licences the closet totalitarian... "

19 comments:

  1. As soon as anyone refers to global warming as a "faith", you know they're not worth reading. That is, unless you're a moron.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They expect us to take it on faith. I know this because any time I ask questions they get angry and tell me that the debate is over and the science is settled.

      Sounds like dogma to me. Not that dogma is always bad but it's religions that formulate them, not science.

      Just stop foaming at the mouth long enough to have discussion, m'kay?

      TRISH

      Delete
    2. ...any time I ask questions they get angry...
      Sounds like dogma to me.

      I had the same experience with bachfiend! He is really deep in FOGMA!

      Delete
    3. Actually, from what I've seen, Bachfiend debates that AGW is real and, rather than shouting that there is no debate. He's kind of the exception, not the rule.

      TRISH

      Delete
    4. I don't have a problem listening to the theory of man-made climate change. Just don't shout at me that I should stop using my faculties and simply accept what the "experts" have told me. Especially since I can find experts who say the opposite and many of the "experts" such as Al Gore and Rajendra Pachauri are not really experts at all.

      Science requires debate, discussion, and dissent. Climate change wackos accept none of the above and cannot therefore call their obsession "science". What is it then?

      Joey

      Delete
    5. As time passes and you look back on this moment, you'll realize that much of global warming alarmism is based on faith. Many alarmists hope and pray that the world is going to hell in a hand basket, they want to beleive tha humanity is evil and that the future is bleak.

      A perfect example happened last fall with hurricane Irene which was huge and was supposed to be a killer storm. The news media went ballistic, hoping for death and destruction but instead was disappointed, it didn't cause the hoped for deaths. There was no excuse for this behavior, but in light of the faith of global warming it actually makes sense. The faithful want evidence to support their faith.

      Delete
  2. Again, anyone who sees the Emperor without his cloak is a 'moron', 'sick', mentally deficient and worthy of institutionalizing.
    This time the voice of the call for locking up the 'denial' (what a LOADED term!) lobby is coming from the mouth of a woman who looks like she just escaped from some sort of asylum.
    It is almost (ALMOST!) funny. It would be hilarious, if it was not so widely accepted by the sheeple of the academe and not such an opportunity for their handlers in the political sphere.
    More blood and tears for 'mother earth' to make the (GM) crops grow.

    Anon,
    Could you explain why the OTHER planets in our system are warming? Is that CO2 from your Prius as well? Maybe it is 'overpopulation' doing it? Too bad those Martians and the inhabitants of the Jovian moons haven't got a planned parenthood to 'help' them out, eh?
    Must be a bunch of 'right wing Christians'...or worse still like those dreaded Africans Sanger, Darwin, Huxley et al warned us about!


    How about the multitude of ice cores, Anon? Why do they show temps rise THEN CO2 increase? Where the dinosaurs burning coal, or driving SUV's? I bet they matched their paint with their feathers (or is it scales again, this month?). Maybe it was woolly Mammoth mega-fauna farts? Or early man burning some logs? Still, that would not explain the warming occurring PRIOR to the rise in vapour and CO2...

    Re faith: Maybe 'faith' is not the right word. Maybe faith is just too rational to describe what you folks 'believe'.
    Maybe 'dogma' or 'writ' would be better suited. Conditioning, in my opinion, is the real descriptive.
    But call it whatever you like, just don't pretend AGW is some sort of established truth or fact.
    It is, at it's very best, a theory. A theory that cannot withstand scrutiny. A theory pressed on by means of distortion and lies in the face of reasonable resistance because it is a means to an ends: CONTROL.
    Control of what? RESOURCES and the very means and compounds that are necessary for LIFE.

    You note the opposition to your ideas, when framed polemically, are 'not worth reading'.
    That must create a very large mental set of books, essays, and papers for your 'to burn' list. A growing corpus of thought for your bonfire in honour of Gaia.
    Oops! Better recycle them this time, or you could exceed your 'footprint' quota and may be sent for re-education and / or sterilization.
    You would not want to be mistaken for a crazy 'moron' or a 'denier'.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Michael,

    Not once, in all your threads, have you addressed the science of global warming. It's all conspiracies on the part of leftist/liberal/socialist/communist/scientist evildoers (depending on which paranoid fantasy is currently running through your brain).

    Have you ever considered that the denialists might have an agenda leading to a conspiracy on their part too? Pepe's favorite site 'Plant Fossils of West Virginia' run by Monte Hieb is easy. He's a coal mining engineer, who also promotes coal as the ideal energy source. Richard Lindzen is a known contrarian, who also insisted that cigarette smoking is harmless.

    We know that AGW is happening:

    1. The Earth is still warming. This was confirmed recently by Professor Muller et al, who set out to show it wasn't by examining all the data sets and doing their own statistical analysis.

    2. The troposphere is warming and the stratosphere is cooling. This is the 'smoking gun' of global warming due to greenhouse gases, which trap heat in the lower atmosphere and prevent it radiating outwards. If global warming were due to increased solar output, then the stratosphere would be warming at the same time as the troposphere.

    3. Atmospheric CO2 are increasing at the rate of 2-3 ppmv, with the carbon isotope signal of that of fossil fuel, with lower C13. So humans are responsible for the increase in CO2 levels.

    Therefore humans are responsible for a large part of the recent global warming due to their burning of large amounts of fossil fuels.


    What we don't know is the magnitude and speed of any warming that will occur. Not with certainty.

    CrusadeRex,

    The ice cores showing an increase in atmospheric CO2 after warming at the end of glaciations isknown and has been extensively discussed by climatologists. The end of glaciations is due to the Milankovich cycles, small variations in the Earth's orbit and tilt, resulting in increases in insolation, melting of snow and ice and a decrease in albedo, causing large warming of the oceans, which lead to an outgassing of CO2 (because gases are less soluble in warmer water) increasing atmospheric CO2 and providing an added positive feedback to warming.

    We don't know if the other planets are warming. We've only been looking at them for decades. Mars is problematic, because the measured points are so few, and it has weather with large planet wide dust storms.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @bach:

      It's nice that it's all settled. Maybe now AGW activists can stop censoring lying and breaking the law and threatening and hiding things? Why act guilty when you've been right all along.

      It's just been a silly little misunderstanding. All we need to do is to hand over control of our lives and our economies and our governments to AGW activists (Save the Earth!) and all will be well.

      Delete
    2. Michael,

      You still haven't answered the science. It's still all a conspiracy to you.

      It's a conundrum. Humans currently use 16 terawatts of energy (the equivalent of each and every one of us burning 20 100 Watt globes 24 hours a day). We need to double energy supplies by 2050, because the global population is going to increase to at least 9 billion from 7 billion and many countries want to get out of poverty by getting access to cheap energy.

      Some estimates of climate change suggest that no more than 3 terawatts of energy can come from fossil fuels else we're in dangerous global warming temperatures. Where we get the extra energy is a big problem, with or without AGW.

      Currently, fossil fuels get enormous public subsidies. At least 450 billion dollars per year globally. Indonesia spends more, $20 billion, on petrol subsidies than it spends on public education. Are you consistent and also complaining about your wallet being opened to pay for this too?

      And ... We don't need to worry about saving the Earth. It will do nicely regardless. Life will survive somewhere whatever we throw at it. The great worry is what is going to happen to humans.

      Delete
    3. @bach:

      I am not a climate scientist, and neither are you.

      This is not a debate about climate science. It is a debate about scientific integrity and public policy and human rights.

      With respect to global warming, the scientific integrity sucks, the public policy sucks, and respect for human rights sucks.

      I would no more debate climate science with you than I would debate investment strategies with Bernie Madoff.

      My intent is to stop you and yours.

      Once you are stopped, real scientists can sort out the truth.

      Delete
    4. Michael,

      I'm an interested layman. I'm quite capable of looking at the science and deciding whether it's reasonable.

      Your thinking that your ignorance of climate science prevents your commenting on the science of AGW hasn't stopped you commenting on a whole host of other topics about which you're equally if not more ignorant. Including philosophy, theology, history, politics, economics, evolution, neuroscience (a bit of a worry for a practicing neurosurgeon), meaning of words, etc etc etc.

      In many of these areas of your ignorances, you just accept the word of experts who support your worldview.

      Delete
    5. My views on the various topics you've listed are a mix of a little bit of knowledge, lifelong experience with truth-telling and lying that has given me a bullshit-detector that I generally trust, and of course theological and philosophical tenets I have come to see as true.

      In other words, I'm just like you.

      AGW may be real, or not. AGW hysterics are frauds and crooks. If it turns out that AGW is true, that truth will bear no relation to current AGW hype, which is pure transparent fraud.

      It's like when you see those obviously dishonest con men on TV telling you that they'll send you the secret to being a millionaire if you'll sent them $29.99 in two easy installments.

      Perhaps some of their ideas have a little bit of validity, perhaps not. But they're obvious crooks, and I wouldn't send them a dime.

      AGW scientists are obvious frauds, and I don't believe a word they say. If they said that the sun is shining, I would insist on looking out the window to check.

      Delete
    6. "So humans are responsible for the increase in CO2 levels. Therefore humans are responsible for a large part of the recent global warming due to their burning of large amounts of fossil fuels."

      Correct, humans are responsible for adding CO2 to the atmosphere, but you cannot conclude that we are responsible for recent global warming. it is unsupportable. There is no way to distiguish human influence from whatever naturel influences there are, we simply don't know them all. Since warming has been happening since the turn of the last glaciation, in what year did humanity take over? We should be able to answer that simple question.

      And besides, humanity contributes 3% of the earths annual CO2 emissions, and CO2 contributes only 1/5th of the earths greenhouse effect. How does our 3% dominate the other 500%? Its impossible.

      The only way to jusitfy it is to fabricate feedback mechanisms. Smoke and mirrors.... wooo wooo feedabcks..wwwooo woooo..smoke and mirror feedbacks.. be scared...woo woooooo

      Delete
  4. Bach,
    Re CO2: Cause and effect.
    Re: Planetary warming. Dodge it all you want, but the data is growing. The whole system is undergoing changes - observable changes, and the Earth is a participant in that system.

    The problem with your position is that is that it is based on recursive logic. When you note that warming comes BEFORE CO2 output, then blame the CO2 for magnifying that process the pattern becomes clear: The cause comes before the effect, but the effect is the cause. C02 increases as the planet warms, and thus warms the planet. What you describe is a CYCLE of events. What happens to C02, Bach? Is it heavy? What happens when the C02 DROPS to very low levels? Does that cool, and does that cooling lead to other cooling factors? What type of organisms thrive on CO2? Are they important in these cycles? What are the effects of these organisms on climate?
    All these questions are legitimate, and the truth of the matter is the science and techniques to monitor them are in their infancy.
    Killing off human beings and taxing the life out of the few nations who investigate these things is not a way forward.

    Anon,
    Check your sources.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CrusadeRex,

      Climate is complex. There are positive feedbacks and negative feedbacks. Greenhouse gases are a positive feedback. Increasing GHGs will cause warming and decreasing GHGs will cause cooling, so you're right in that statement.

      You're setting up a classic straw man argument. In effect asserting that AGW accepters think that GHGs are the only factor driving climate, so that if you can pick some case in which changes in GHGs wasn't the precipitating factor, then you've proved your case.

      That isn't true. What we are doing now in burning enormous quantities of fossil fuels (adding 8.5 billion tonnes of carbon in CO2 to the atmosphere each year) isn't natural, and has never been done at such a rate before (the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum 55 million years ago due to an outgassing of sub oceanic methane involving about as much carbon but took thousands of years and resulted in only a 'minor' mass extinction).

      I know many of your comments rely on hyperbole (eg suggesting dinosaurs were driving SUVs). Ice core samples only go back at most 800,000 years, so that's as far as we have fine temperature/CO2 records, and only a proxy for temperature with O18 levels, but I concede that in the Jurassic, as global temperatures went up then CO2 levels would have followed because that's what the physics indicates.

      Read my comment to Michael. We are being taxed already. Public subsidies for fossil fuels amount to $450 billion per year. Answer my comment about why we know that AGW is happening.

      Delete
    2. CrusadeRex,

      Also, what you call a cycle of events are actually feedback loops. A very well understood concept in systems analysis.

      In climate science, the feedback loop works on warming leading to increased GHGs leading to warming leading to further increasing GHGs leading to ...

      In a feedback loop, you can have one component or other start the process. We are currently starting our feedback loop by burning enormous amounts of fossil fuels.

      Delete