The Many Stages Of Climate Denial

Stage 1: Denial. Once the proud front line of the anti-warming fight, pretty much everyone has abandoned this absolutist position except for some guerillas too far gone or out of touch to get the message. What does it mean for Exxon? Business as usual.

Stage 2: We didn’t do it. Sure the glaciers are thinning like Cheney’s hair, but that’s because of the sun. Or maybe volcanoes or just the natural world shifting around all on its own. Some influential thinktanks still hang onto this line, although others have given up trying to come up with a plausible mechanism that doesn’t involve CO2. What does it mean for Exxon? Conveniently, business goes on as usual.

Stage 3: How I learned to stop worrying and love the heat. So what if CO2 is heating the planet? Relax, it’s good for you. Though bold, this tactic contradicts what people can see with their own eyes and makes a laughingstock out of anyone who seriously tries it. It’s a desperation move. What does it mean for Exxon? Year end bonuses, a humanitarian award is named in Exxon’s honor.

Stage 4: Spectering. In this stage denialists acknowledge that CO2-driven warming is a major problem. The real magic at this stage comes in taking “leadership” on the issue away from people who might do some good. First comes the calls for more research, preferably multi-decade studies and climate models that are no good unless they correctly predict every sunny day in Seattle for the next hundred years. Then cut the research budget, shuffle resources away from Earth observation and edit any report that makes it through. When that fails to keep a lid on public opinion, throw together a blue ribbon panel made up of petrobusiness executives and petrolobbyists to come up with some incredibly weak tea proposals. See: late-period George Bush (I and II); John McCain. What does it mean for Exxon? Voluntary guidelines. That’ll show them.

Stage 5: Apathy. At some point most denialists will acknowledge that warming is real, we caused it and maybe we should have done something serious back when solutions were still practical. But gosh, the problem has grown so severe, gasoline over $5 a gallon, stagflated recession, war and a national debt crisis mean that can’t realistically deal with it any more. Oh well, mea culpa. Try to hide your shock when denialists jump to 5 as the other fallback positions become untenable. What does it mean for Exxon? A red-eyed James Inhofe and the thirteen other Senate Republicans will beg Congress to focus on the future and not who sold their country out for a palmful of silver. Majority Leader Feingold will thank Inhofe for his input and vote to rename Capitol urinal pucks ‘Inhofe Cakes.’ Public opinion will waver between hearings and opening a wing at Guantanamo, but the energy crisis will be too severe to do much besides some very stern letters.

And there you have the wisdom of Exxon’s strategy. They don’t have to win, they just have to gum up the works long enough that solutions are no longer practical. Better luck next time, Miami.

131 replies
  1. 1
    Paul says:

    It might fall under #1, but Obfuscation is also a major response. A well known, respected SF writer whose fiction I admire has been throwing up stuff about “a new ice age” and that our Co2 emissions are the only thing preventing one from occurring.

  2. 2
    4tehlulz says:

    In before “Hack”

  3. 3
    SGEW says:

    Nice. Nice nice nice. ‘Inhofe Cakes’ is a particularly sweet (?) touch.

    Hey, have you ever checked out Greenpeace’s research site about XOM’s funding? Sure, they’re biased, but the funding research is sound. (Plug in a name of a “climate scientist” who denies AGW, and find out how much $ they’ve gotten from XOM, and what connection they have with other deniers).

    Do you ever think we’ll reach Stage 6: Criminal Prosecution for Crimes Against Humanity?

    . . . Hey, I can dream, can’t I?

  4. 4
    Tim C says:

    Wow. Be sure to check the link under guerillas cited in Stage 1. Fascinating information about Japanese soldiers holding out for decades on Pacific Islands, unaware the war is over.

  5. 5
    Dork says:

    Certainly, this is a harbinger for very bad things to come for Democrats.

    I’m about to invest heavily in boats and air conditioners.

  6. 6
    Xenos says:

    Serves Miami right.

  7. 7
    Veeshir says:

    Damn Science.
    It just keeps making global warmmongers look stupid.
    I’m sure Exxon Mobil owns science and all it’s subsidiaries (like math), so you can ignore.

    On the other hand, check out a graph of solar activity cycles next to a graph of average temperature of the Earth.
    It’s funny how closely they match. Why, it’s almost as if the Sun were the biggest component in what drives the temperature changes of the Earth!!

    I know, that’s hard to believe. Why, looking at the Sun for the temperature of the Earth is like coming home, noticing it’s too hot and then looking at the thermostat!! We all know you should first check the pilot light on your stove, that’s much more important for the temperature of your house.

  8. 8
    4tehlulz says:

    Or not.

    It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun’s output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.

  9. 9
    SGEW says:

    On the other hand, check out a graph of solar activity cycles next to a graph of average temperature of the Earth.

    Right right right. Th’ solar cycles thing. Here, give this essay called Fun With Correlations! a read.

    Fun stuff indeed.

  10. 10
    Cassidy says:

    Global warming is a myth perpetuated by pants wetting ninnies.

  11. 11
    Kirk Spencer says:

    Veehsir? That’s another Michael Asher article. Mr. Asher has been caught slicing and paraphrasing and adding words to what other say so as to push his position. And when he doesn’t do that, he quotes others (like R. Timothy Patterson) who do it for him. Heck, on the last big deal – the one from Watts? Mr. Watts went so far as to post a “for the record” objection on his site that, “That is not what I said, and Daily Tech has apologized and retracted.” (Though DT didn’t that I could find, WHATEVER they may have said.)

    But let’s look at the article to which you linked. In it, Mr. Asher links not to Dr. Tapper himself but to the IDB article which reports what Dr. Tapper says. Well, allegedly said. A basic bit of research – about ten minutes, gets you to someone who actually asked Dr. Tapper about it. And he received this response (quoted in full):

    Hi Tom,

    Thanks for the message. The stuff on the web came from a casual chat with someone who managed to misunderstand what I said and then put the result on the web, which is probably a big caution for me regarding the future.

    It is true that the beginning of the next solar cycle is late, but not so late that we are getting worried, merely curious.

    It is the opinion of scientists, including me, that global warming is a major issue, and that it might be too late to do anything about it already. If there is a cooling due to the solar activity cycle laying off for a bit, then the a period of solar cooling could be a much-needed respite giving us more time to attack the problem of greenhouse gases, with the caveat that if we do not, things will be far worse when things turn on again after a few decades. However, once again it is early days and we cannot at the moment conclude there is another minimum started.

    Thanks for the heads-up.

    Regards,

    Ken

    Bottom line – if you’re going to reference people, you pretty much should make sure they end up supporting you instead of looking like, well, like Michael Asher.

  12. 12
    SGEW says:

    Marvelous, Kirk Spencer. Good catch.

  13. 13
    4tehlulz says:

    By the way, the googlemobile only serves up one non-peer-reviewed article by Oleg Sorokhtin — the same one cited by the Telegraph. Otherwise, he pretty much is an unknown.

    You would think someone who is a skeptic would apply that same skepticism to someone they’ve never heard of, but what do I know.

  14. 14
    JGabriel says:

    Yesterday, I posted in a previous thread on this subject:

    Somehow, I’ve never understood the argument that funding research into, for instance, solar energy will lower our standard of living. Worst case scenario is that, even if Global Climate Destabilization does not occur, we would use less gas and oil, and have lower bills.

    Which is a good thing, given that we are going to run out of oil someday, anyway.

    Today, the New York Times chimes in, The Senate Shills For Big Oil:

    One of the major shortcomings in last year’s admirable energy bill was its failure to extend vital tax credits to producers of wind, solar and other renewable fuels. This was entirely the doing of the Senate, which caved in to the oil companies and their White House friends.

    […]

    What will it take to wake the Senate up? It should be clear to even the most obtuse members that a country that consumes one-fifth of the world’s oil but has only 3 percent of its reserves cannot possibly drill its way to energy independence.

    It should be equally clear that an industry whose five biggest producers generated $145 billion in profits last year can easily sacrifice $1.7 billion in annual tax breaks it does not need to help develop the cleaner fuels the country does need.

    More at the link above.

    .

  15. 15
    Tim F. says:

    Cassidy, it’s a sad day when your comment makes veeshir look thoughtful.

  16. 16
    James Inhofe says:

    Inhofe Cakes are the greatest hoax in the history of mankind!

  17. 17
    Rick Massimo says:

    I love the argument that since we didn’t create global warming, we don’t have to do anything about it. I’ll remember that when there’s a giant asteroid heading for the planet.

  18. 18
    Veeshir says:

    That’s the spirit, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.

    I really look forward to 5 years from now when “pollution is hastening the coming ice age!!!!” in a reprise of the 70s and 80s, back when people like that arch global-warmmonger, Erlich, were saying we were doomed unless we melted the polar ice caps.

    It’s funny how the temperature of the Earth has gone up and down in cycles for all of history but now? It’s all the SUV’s fault.

    Here’s a handy guide to all the things that global warmmongers claim global warming is doing.

    It sure is a shame about the Loch Ness Monster.

  19. 19
    4tehlulz says:

    Cassidy, you suck. You stole Birdzilla’s schtick; now we won’t be treated to his usual AL GORE DID GCC posting.

  20. 20
    SGEW says:

    Here’s a handy guide to all the things that global warmmongers claim global warming is doing.

    Bwa ha ha! Don’t you realize that that link directly undermines your argument?

    It’s just a big list of what you get when you google* “global warming”! Filled with links to media reports of substantive problems that global warming will cause! Look at all of those unfortunate ramifications and disastrous consequences! Surely this proves that it’s all a hoax! Why else would there be so many web hits?

    Oh my goodness Veeshir. What’s next? A link to the IPCC report as proof that it’s an international conspiracy?

    *Looks like it’s a yahoo search, actually.

  21. 21
    4tehlulz says:

    OMG ITZ A LIST OF KEYWERDZ U HAV CRUSHD TEH GLOBAL WARMONGRZ

    Seriously, you’re hurting your own cause Veeshir. STFU and let someone with an IQ greater than 10 make the denialist argument.

  22. 22
    Veeshir says:

    Did any of you actually read the stuff that global warming causes, according to that site?
    It killed the Loch Ness Monster, it causes brush fires (they never happened before apparently), a cold wave in India, earthquakes, massive flooding, Great Lakes dropping, hibernation ends too soon, hibernation ends too late, heavy snowfall, light snowfall, fish catches drop, fish catches rise, heat and cold waves in Europe.

    I repeat, it killed Nessie.

    And the funny part about SGEW’s comment? I have linked to the IPCC report to prove that global warming is silly.
    They claimed a less than one degree rise in a century, less than one degree fahrenheit. In one century.

    Question for you rocket scienti…errr… climatolotists, what was the margin for error on a thermometer 100 years ago? Do you think it might have been greater than 1 degree?
    I love this place, you guys are hysterical (in more than one sense of the word).

  23. 23
    SGEW says:

    As a side note, I do have to say that “global warmmongers” is a new one to me. Pretty snappy.

    I’m gonna go mong some warm. Don’t mind me.

  24. 24
    Birdzilla says:

    Al Gore David Suzuki and all the other green nuts can save us all by keeping their big mouths shut and cutting down on all that HOT AIR

  25. 25
    SGEW says:

    And the funny part about SGEW’s comment? I have linked to the IPCC report to prove that global warming is silly.

    I know your mind! I am inside your zeitgeist!

    Do I win something?

  26. 26
    Kirk Spencer says:

    Veeshir,

    I’ve actually followed about 30 of those links so far. They fall into two broad categories. First are the unsubstantiated opinion like the Acne link.

    Second are the substantiated, or even the actual study itself. The example here is the link to the (potential) agricultural land increase – one of several consequences identified by the Meteorological Service of Canada. (admin note – every time I try to paste this second linke, this comment compresses it to one link. Just follow Veeshir’s link and choose the second choice to see the map, and then find “back” on the page itself to go to the rather long report of which it is part.)

    Once more, Veeshir – if you link to something, I usually think it wise to ensure your link supports your opinion. Some of us actually not only read them, but FOLLOW THROUGH. And when your link disproves your position it makes me less willing to give you benefit of doubt the next time you state an opinion.

  27. 27
    Mary says:

    I DRINK YOUR ZEITGEIST!

  28. 28
    SGEW says:

    I DRINK YOUR ZEITGEIST!

    I DRINK IT UP!

  29. 29
    4tehlulz says:

    im in ur z3itg3ist, vi3wing ur w3rld

  30. 30
    JGabriel says:

    Veeshir:

    I have linked to the IPCC report to prove that global warming is silly. They claimed a less than one degree rise in a century, less than one degree fahrenheit. In one century.

    Another lie. The IPCC reports predict a likelihood of 3 degrees Celsius avg temp rise by the end of the century. About 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

    Furthemore, the IPCC reports are consensus reports, influenced by countries – like the US, China, and India – who have an active interest in downplaying the effects of cliamte destabilization. IPCC’s reports, contrary to what the denialists would have you believe, tend to report *best* case scenarios, not the most likely, nor the worst.

    The rest of your arguments, Veeshir, can be dismissed on the grounds that they rest on a foundation of lies.

    .

  31. 31
    Punchy says:

    Question for you rocket scienti…errr… climatolotists, what was the margin for error on a thermometer 100 years ago? Do you think it might have been greater than 1 degree?

    Nope. Thermometers pretty damn accurate in 1908. Prolly +/- 0.1, tops.

  32. 32
    Breschau says:

    I guess I always come back to the same point on this subject:

    Why would anyone whose interests are not directly tied to XOM or similar corporate interests fight so strenuously against the concept of climate change? Why is this such a strongly-held belief amongst groups like fundamentalist Republicans, who have no stake whatsoever in Exxon’s bottom line?

    I mean – let’s say the entire country came together and agreed that climate change and CO2 emission are big problems, and everybody worked together over the next 25 years to fix it. And then, in 25 years, we all discover it was a big hoax.

    So, our air is cleaner, automobile fuel efficiency has significantly increased, we’re much less dependant on foreign oil (less money to them damn terrorists, right?), and the utility bills have gone down significantly.

    But, Exxon might had made only, say $700 billion in profits, rather than $1 trillion.

    Oh, darn??

    Outside of the concept of “dem libruls believe it, so I don’t” — why be against this?

  33. 33
    Kirk Spencer says:

    Question for you rocket scienti…errr… climatolotists, what was the margin for error on a thermometer 100 years ago? Do you think it might have been greater than 1 degree?

    Calibration and Instrumental Errors in Early Measurements of Air Temperature

    Study of thermometers from the mid-1700’s (more than your 100 years ago) showed that while the low (near zero C) calibration was accurate within thousandth’s of a degree C, temperatures at the high could be off as much as half a degree C. The cause was identified as being due to the effects of humidity on the glass and markings (scorings of the stem). When relative humidity is measured at the same time – as became common practice in the mid-late 1800s – the accuracy at the “high” could be corrected to become as accurate as the “low”.

    So the answer to your question is no, the margin of error was a lot less than 1 degree.

    Next line of bs defense?

  34. 34
    Cassidy says:

    Cassidy, it’s a sad day when your comment makes veeshir look thoughtful.

    Ahh…learn to take a joke.

    Personally, I have no opinion on global warming. I’m not a very science oriented person, so a lot of the talk and models and numbers go above me. I don’t doubt that global warming is a scientific possibility, I just don’t have the knowledge to make an informed decision. Suffice to say, I content myself with trying to be a good steward…no littering, recycle, etc.

  35. 35
    libarbarian says:

    God made the world in 6 days and he can fix it in 6 hours if people would just cut out the sodomy.

    Jeez!

  36. 36
    4tehlulz says:

    why be against this?

    It’s the ultimate form of trolling. Instead of trolling the Internet by shitting up a discussion board, you’re trolling the entire human race by shitting up climate science.

    You also get the added benefit of screwing everybody by keeping us dependent on the Saudi royal family for energy, eliminating any hope of energy independence and a world free of Saudi-funded terrorism.

    tl;dr: it’s 3dgy faux contrarianism.

  37. 37
    SGEW says:

    Outside of the concept of “dem libruls believe it, so I don’t”—why be against this?

    Damn, you’ve stumped me. General knee-jerk conspiracy-theorist contrarianism, maybe? (i.e., “Everyone thought Galileo was wrong! Therefore the fringe scientists must be right! 9/11 was an inside job!”)

    Oh, I keep pointing this out: there really are some grizzled old meteorologists out there whose personal data observations aren’t in line with the IPCC. They, personally, have a good-faith argument (based on their own meteorological data, which is, alas for them, rather irrelevant (and often proven to be inaccurate, poor ol’ guys)).

    Everyone else? Such as, say, certain (not all a y’all, chill) commentators who’ve posted here, questioning the AGW consensus? I think that the “libruls say X, I must therefore say Y” rationale is about all they’ve got.

  38. 38
    Cassidy says:

    Why would anyone whose interests are not directly tied to XOM or similar corporate interests fight so strenuously against the concept of climate change? Why is this such a strongly-held belief amongst groups like fundamentalist Republicans, who have no stake whatsoever in Exxon’s bottom line?

    Just speculation on my part, but anything that doesn’t involve the “big hand of God” coming down to fix things, won’t fly. The backbone of faith (fundamentalist or not) is that God has a plan and who are we to try and dick with it. One could argue that maybe us fixing the environment is part of God’s plan, but the counter argument is that we’d have done it already as God compels us.

    Secondly, for the fundies, I’ve heard it discussed that all this stuff only helps their belief in the Rapture. Who wants to put off the coming of Christ by 25 years?

  39. 39
    Punchy says:

    Why is this such a strongly-held belief amongst groups like fundamentalist Republicans, who have no stake whatsoever in Exxon’s bottom line?

    Because most are really fucking old, and wrinkleys HATE cold weather. See: Boca Raton, FL in January.

  40. 40
    Veeshir says:

    The IPCC reports predict a likelihood of 3 degrees Celsius avg temp rise by the end of the century.

    You said “predict”, I was talking about what’s already happened.

    As for this

    Outside of the concept of “dem libruls believe it, so I don’t”—why be against this?

    Ummm, because it’s laughable? I don’t believe in a god and I do believe in science.
    Global warming is a religion, pure and simple, complete with a prophet (the Goracle) and a vengeful god (Mother Gaia) who will visit plagues (see my link above to all the things global warming can do) on an imprius…err… impious world.

    I’ve even had people try Pascal’s Wager with me on global warming, “Yeah, but what if it’s true, it won’t hurt to…”
    That made me laugh darn hard.

  41. 41
    Veeshir says:

    And for teh funny, here’s what it can hurt.

    A 41 per cent surge in prices of wheat, corn, rice and other cereals over the past six months has generated a $US120 million ($126.5 million) budget shortfall that will force the USAID to reduce emergency operations, the report said.

    Huh, now what could have caused corn, wheat and other grains’ prices to rise?
    Ethanol maybe?
    And that rise is hurting our aid to poverty stricken Africa?

    Enviro-wackos preen smugly; poor, minorities hardest hit.

  42. 42
    SGEW says:

    Global warming is a religion, pure and simple, complete with a prophet (the Goracle) and a vengeful god (Mother Gaia) . . . .

    Okay, before everyone jumps down Veeshir’s throat about this:

    Yes, there are some people who are way too hopped up over global warming (Believe me, I know: I am associated with certain environmental activist organizations, and I have met quite a few young folk who are really really irrationally hysterical over the issue and have no grounding in the science whatsoever. Some of them really do talk about Gaia purging the Earth of the plague of humans in retribution for their sins. I often give them a stern talking-to.)

    However, Veeshir, you should ignore them, much in the same way that I ignore people who hyperventilate about the existential threat of “Islamofascists” (sic) who are this close to taking over the Western World and forcing us all to wear Burkas and gay marry, or something.* Does this mean that I reject the real threat of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists? Hell no, I live in lower Manhattan, and I remember what the fucking dust smelled like.

    Please separate those who argue out of uninformed ignorance (of the “Gaia will smite thee all!” or “Osama is hiding under your bed, booga booga!” variety), and pay attention to those who are discussing reality. Thanks.

    *And yes, there are far, far more of these people then there are those who follow the Global Warming “religion.” Have you been trolling the EarthFirst! message boards or something?

  43. 43
    4tehlulz says:

    Ethanol maybe?

    yeah, I’m certain that high fuel prices and fertilizer (based on oil) have nothing to do with it. It’s all ethanol.

    minorities hardest hit.

    Like you give a fuck.

  44. 44
    SGEW says:

    minorities hardest hit

    By the way: I’ve seen this quote on quite a few right-wing sites (RedState comes to mind, but I can’t remember specifics). Is there a provenance to the quote?

  45. 45
    SGEW says:

    Never mind, I found it.

    Lame.

  46. 46
    JGabriel says:

    Veeshir:

    Huh, now what could have caused corn, wheat and other grains’ prices to rise? Ethanol maybe?

    […]

    Enviro-wackos preen smugly; poor, minorities hardest hit.

    Aaand… yet more lies.

    Your so-called “enviro-wackos’ have been off the ethanol bandwagon for a decade or two – everyone knows that burning ethanol is just as bad for the environment as oil and gas.

    Continued US subsidies for ethanol are the result of heavy lobbying – primarily by Archer Daniels Midland, who make an enormous amount of money off of corporate ethanol welfare.

    As for the rise in prices, that’s a combination of diversion from food to ethanol production, as well as the decline in the value of the dollar. That’s a result of the wonderful Bush and Republican fiscal policies we’ve been hearing about for the past 7 years.

    .

  47. 47

    Question for you rocket scienti…errr… climatolotists, what was the margin for error on a thermometer 100 years ago? Do you think it might have been greater than 1 degree?

    Do you even have the faintest clue how a modern thermometer works?

    Guess not — because you know what? It works exactly the same way as a thermometer from the time of Anders Celsius…in 1724. Yeah, that Celsius, the one who defined the Celsius temperature scale.

    You know, those clinical thermometers you use to measure body temperature to significantly less than the +/- 0.1 degree F they display (less than half a degree C)? Yeah, those go back to 1866, and they are LESS accurate than other thermometers, trading off speed for accuracy.

    Are you getting my point here? If not, let me make it clearer: beyond the fact that you’re a slimy liar, you’re also an idiot.

  48. 48
  49. 49
    Veeshir says:

    and pay attention to those who are discussing reality.

    But if I did, I would have to ignore Balloon Juice and I love you people, you make me laugh.

  50. 50
    Kirk Spencer says:

    Huh, now what could have caused corn, wheat and other grains’ prices to rise?
    Ethanol maybe?

    Or maybe inflation due to recession? Or reduced total production of these grains? And maybe the shortfall is also influenced by the fact the current administration chose to reduce USAID funding?

    I happen to despise that rhetorical trick. ‘There are a host of possible reasons, but I will just pretend that none but THIS exist or matter – which just so happens to support our position.’

    You’re rapidly approaching my personal standard for dishonest debate, Veeshir. You cite sources which have had to retract due to misquoting. You infer that “so many results” cannot possibly be true, and fail to follow through to see if perhaps some or all might have legitimacy. You use an assumption of historical inaccuracy to support an opinion – an assumption that is easily disproven. And now you’re falling back on rhetorical tricks to confuse the issue.

    I have seen this behavior in other subjects. When facts show the argument is invalid, instead of changing opinion, the challenger changes the line of resistance. And when, finally, a line isn’t slapped down there’s a pretense none of the rest happened.

  51. 51
    4tehlulz says:

    I like how ADM has become a bunch of enviro-whackos. Someone should let them know so that they can change their mission statement.

  52. 52
  53. 53
    TenguPhule says:

    Why, it’s almost as if the Sun were the biggest component in what drives the temperature changes of the Earth!!

    Wait, I smell a DugJ.

    Spoof! Spoof!

  54. 54
    Tim F. says:

    Veeshir, what JGabriel said. You must have missed the point years ago when most environmentalists realized that ethanol was an expensive waste.

  55. 55
    Tim F. says:

    And by the way, everyone can stop explaining away the link between ethanol and food prices. It’s real, which is a double shame since ethanol is a pointless political exercise that costs more than it produces. If Iowa didn’t grow corn we would have long since moved on to something more useful.

  56. 56
    4tehlulz says:

    The price hike due to ethanol is real, in corn, but to explain all grain inflation, including the entire inflation of corn prices, as exclusively due to ethanol is mistaken at best and an outright lie at worst.

  57. 57
    Kirk Spencer says:

    Tim F.,

    Like 4tehlulz says. The rhetorical trick I mentioned is:

    Set {B..} (possibly) causes A. B is stated as cause of A – but the rest of the set is ignored. By implication if not satemetn

    It’s rhetorical trickery – the defense when caught is twofold. First, the one you stated, “There is a link between B and A.” Second, the one we’ve not yet seen, “I didn’t SAY it was the ONLY cause.” Nope, it’s just built upon as though it was, and if the trick isn’t caught and challenged, bravo for me.

  58. 58
    JGabriel says:

    Kirk Spencer:

    You’re rapidly approaching my personal standard for dishonest debate, Veeshir.

    You’re a far more generous man than I, Kirk Spencer. Veeshir passed the standard for honest debate way the hell back in his first post on this thread. Where’ve you been?

  59. 59
    JGabriel says:

    4tehlulz:

    The price hike due to ethanol is real, in corn, but to explain all grain inflation, including the entire inflation of corn prices, as exclusively due to ethanol is mistaken at best and an outright lie at worst.

    Actually, it is a factor in other crops as well, due to diverion of fields from those crops to corn for ethanol.

    So, it’s not a lie. Some people may be focusing on it too heavily, or might not be as aware of the other econmic factors – but it is an important factor, and needn’t be dismissed as vehemently as your rhetoric would suggest.

    .

  60. 60
    Kirk Spencer says:

    JGabriel,

    I ascribe to the belief that ignorance is more common than malice. And further that at least some of the time the ignorance is not willful. So for a while I give benefit of the doubt.

  61. 61
    Punchy says:

    And that rise is hurting our aid to poverty stricken Africa?

    FAIL. Brown people don’t count, remember?

  62. 62
    SGEW says:

    Brown people don’t count, remember?

    What d’ya mean, we don’t count? Aren’t we 3/5ths, or something? That counts!

  63. 63
    Breschau says:

    Ummm, because it’s laughable?

    Really?

    So, our air is cleaner, automobile fuel efficiency has significantly increased, we’re much less dependant on foreign oil (less money to them damn terrorists, right?), and your utility bills have gone down significantly.

    Exactly which of those outcomes are “laughable”?

    You may or may not be a troll, Veeshir – I haven’t decided yet. But, I am being completely sincere in my questioning: what, exactly, is the downfall of trying to address the problem of climate change, in terms of the public, the planet, individual citizens — basically, anybody not tired directly to the oil industry’s profits?

    I don’t believe in a god and I do believe in science.

    Okay – so why do you ignore the huge numbers of scientists who believe in the dangers of climate change, and give credence to the relatively small number of scientists that doubt it (and who are consistently shown to have received funding from the oil industry for their research)?

    Oh, and I forgot to include this link the last time. Cynical, but fairly amusing.

  64. 64
    JGabriel says:

    Kirk,

    I try to do that too, though, clearly, I sometimes fail.

    .

  65. 65
    Tim F. says:

    I don’t believe in a god and I do believe in science.

    Apparently veeshir’s “belief” takes roughly the same form as Christian belief in the devil. Climate scientists work on something that’s real, but evil.

  66. 66
    Veeshir says:

    I really, really love this place, if you people didn’t exist, some satirist would have to make you up.

    Why is it that when global warmmongers get called on their BS numbers, they have to retract and it’s always a “mistake”. Like when NASA proclaimed to great fanfare that 1998 was the warmest year on record and then, when someone noticed that they had fudged their numbers, they retracted them, quietly, and now, they admit that 1934 was warmer. Or the hockey stick nitwits who fudged the numbers so any input made the hockey stick? Do you even wonder why, when they plug 1970s numbers into global warmmongering computer simulations, it’s supposed to be 145 degrees outside today?

    So question, what was driving global warming in 1934?
    Other question, if the temperature has increased less than one degree fahrenheit in the last century, and is now at record levels (which it isn’t, 1934 was record), what was causing it to be so warm 100 years ago? I mean, it was nearly as hot as today!

    so why do you ignore the huge numbers of scientists who believe in the dangers of climate change, and give credence to the relatively small number of scientists that doubt it (and who are consistently shown to have received funding from the oil industry for their research)?

    So by your criteria, why should I give credence to scientists who make money from grants for studying the effects of global warming?
    If there were no global warming, those grants would dry up.

    Hmmmm, so maybe I should study their ‘facts’ and ‘science’ and make up my mind based on that.

    Nahhh, the other guys work for a huge corporation, they’re sitting in their corporation building, acting all corporationally, I can’t believe them.

  67. 67
    Breschau says:

    Hmmmm, so maybe I should study their ‘facts’ and ‘science’ and make up my mind based on that.

    Yes, you should definitely try that sometime. Let me know how it goes.

    Ah well, I tried to engage in an actual discussion in the hopes that you weren’t a troll. Too bad. Done with you now.

  68. 68
    jenniebee says:

    Huh, now what could have caused corn, wheat and other grains’ prices to rise?
    Ethanol maybe?
    And that rise is hurting our aid to poverty stricken Africa?

    Enviro-wackos preen smugly; poor, minorities hardest hit.

    This is unconscionable. The ethanol move is an environmental disaster that was pushed through not as a serious attempt to fix carbon but as yet another handout to Archer-Daniels Midland. It has as much to do with environmental protection as the “Healthy Forests Initiative” or the “Clear Skies” newspeak BS.

    “Enviro-wackos,” as you call them, are not preening smugly – those of us who actually follow the science have known for decades that between the deforestation, the processing costs and the petrochemical fertilizers, ethanol doesn’t pay for anybody or anything but big agro-business.

  69. 69
    JGabriel says:

    Shorter Veeshir:

    If you guys all watched Fox News, you’d be *so* much more well-informed! As it is, only *I* have the *Truth*!

    W00T!!1!

  70. 70
    4tehlulz says:

    If there were no global warming, those grants would dry up.

    lol. Climate science funding ends if global warming is disproven. ‘k.

  71. 71
    Punchy says:

    Other question, if the temperature has increased less than one degree fahrenheit in the last century, and is now at record levels (which it isn’t, 1934 was record), what was causing it to be so warm 100 years ago?

    Wow. This just HAS to be spoof. Nobody could be as fucking retarded to think that a one-year anomoly 75 years ago disproves the very real increase in temps in the last 15 or so years.

    Seriously, you’d have to be pure comedy to actually try to make that argument. Then again, in the past I’ve severely underestimated the dishonesty that flows from the likes of those who argue humans rode triceratopses to the local Quik Trip.

  72. 72
    Tim F. says:

    Here’s me being snarky:

    Apparently veeshir’s “belief” takes roughly the same form as Christian belief in the devil. Climate scientists work on something that’s real, but evil.

    Here is veeshir confirming my fucking snark:

    So by your criteria, why should I give credence to scientists who make money from grants for studying the effects of global warming?
    If there were no global warming, those grants would dry up.

    Thanks a lot, veeshir. Fringe conspiracy theorists like you make parody impossible. DougJ must be weeping right now.

  73. 73
    jenniebee says:

    Like when NASA proclaimed to great fanfare that 1998 was the warmest year on record and then, when someone noticed that they had fudged their numbers, they retracted them, quietly, and now, they admit that 1934 was warmer… So question, what was driving global warming in 1934?

    Veeshir doesn’t know the difference between the US and the world as a whole. But then, that’s a common feature of a certain kind of mindset.

    Citing a blog posting on DailyTech.com, Oliver later stated that “five of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II.” However, this statement is true only for temperatures in the United States; according to NASA, all 10 of the warmest years globally in the instrumental record have occurred after 1989…

    In the global or hemispheric mean, the differences were imperceptible (since the US is only a small fraction of the global area).

  74. 74
    Tim F. says:

    By the way veeshir, kindly link your arguments. I understand that you have a problem with linking to things that refute your own point but you know what? That’s why we do it. People can only fix a misinterpretation if you show where your ideas came from. We’re here to help.

  75. 75
    Veeshir says:

    Nobody could be as fucking retarded to think that a one-year anomoly 75 years ago disproves the very real increase in temps in the last 15 or so years.

    No, according to the IPCC global warmmongering report, the globe warmed by less than 1 degree fahrenheit over the last century. That’s the total global warming that’s going to end life on Earth.

    Question for the climatologists, since the science is settled, I have a few questions that I would like answered.

    What is the optimum percentage of CO2 in our atmosphere?
    What increase (as a percentage) will lead to what increase in temperature over how many years?

    If the science is settled, those questions should be easily answered.

  76. 76
    Cassidy says:

    From the environmental side, what is the near obsession with global warming, etc. I think the Earth might be made of sterner stuff. Sure, we should all do those little things that add up and having policies that reduce our emissions and whatnot are good things, but in the long view of things, we’ll (humans) all be gone before we can really trash this place.

  77. 77
    Tim F. says:

    I think the Earth might be made of sterner stuff.

    …and one more person misunderstands why climate will be a problem. I blame the peckerwoods at Greenpeace.

  78. 78
    Cassidy says:

    I just have faith Tim…that humans aren’t the epitome of evolution and are largely a evolutionary mistake. I think you seriously overstate our ability.

  79. 79
    LiberalTarian says:

    Hm. Sounds like GE’s response to PCBs in the Hudson (and everywhere else).

    Corporations don’t have souls folks, and they don’t deserve the rights of individuals if they do not have a conscience.

  80. 80
    Tim F. says:

    humans aren’t the epitome of evolution and are largely a evolutionary mistake.

    Do you honestly hope that people will go extinct? Even though you just said it fairly plainly I still want to be absolutely clear before I laugh my ass of at you.

  81. 81
    Cassidy says:

    Hope no…believe that we will, absolutely.

    I find it funny that I’ve largely agreed with the whole good steward thing, but since I’m not parroting you, you’re attacking. Defensiveness is a sign of weakly held beliefs and opinions.,

  82. 82
    Tim F. says:

    Hope no…believe that we will, absolutely.

    See my stage 5 above. Apathetics like you are as useless as the denier crowd.

    In fact, I find it plainly hilarious that you insist on running on the fumes of hope in Iraq but give up this easily on humanity as a whole.

  83. 83
    DBrown says:

    Veeshir,
    I am a scientist with an advanced degree in physics and unlike you, I have only a poor understanding of this confused ‘made up’ subject called science. When scientist make mistakes or really, their models are only accurate to within the error bars (damn, gravity does not have the same force on the moon as the Earth the whole thing about Newton is made up), I realize that some assumptions are incorrect (like the moon has a tiny bit less mass), but you cut to the heart and realize that NASA is making up data just to prove that global warming is occurring. You are just too smart and the world of real scientist will just have to accept that ‘belief’ in science is all that matters, not the foolish idea of empirical experiment and peer review that us poor, uneducated scientist foolishly follow.
    Before you speak, learn real science. Your examples (even if they were all valid and they are not) only support that scientist doing work on GW by peer review do it right and GW is not just real, but as close to a fact as science can just about get. If you can disprove the data, do so and get a Nobel; otherwise, what comes from you is just warm gas.

  84. 84
    CFisher says:

    So… what stage is:

    “I’ve heard so much BS, hyperbole and outright lies that I don’t know if there is a problem, but I fully expect the solutions our “leaders” will eventually enact will, in all likelihood, make things much, much worse?”

  85. 85
    Fe E says:

    CFisher Says:

    So… what stage is:

    “I’ve heard so much BS, hyperbole and outright lies that I don’t know if there is a problem, but I fully expect the solutions our “leaders” will eventually enact will, in all likelihood, make things much, much worse?

    That’d be stage nought: I’m an idiot.

  86. 86

    Veeshir? Final reproof – you are batting zero.

    I know Beck played ‘gotcha’ with the correction, but he did it by (as noted by some above) casually swapping “global” and “us” numbers, and even then ignoring subsequent reports.

    As of Feb of last year, 1998 was the second hottest year on record (globally). Number one was 2005. 1934 isn’t in the top ten.

    And if I’d noticed that ‘deprecation of the opposition’ earlier (“warmmongering”), I’d have called you on your BS faster. You’re not interested in honest debate, you just want people to swallow your agenda.

    Nope.

  87. 87
    Cassidy says:

    In fact, I find it plainly hilarious that you insist on running on the fumes of hope in Iraq but give up this easily on humanity as a whole.

    Quote please? Hate to make you look retarded, but I’ve been a pretty consistent opponent of Iraq. Also, unlike you, as someone who has been there and will be going back, I am all for leaving those people to their own little, murderous devices.

    Hint: What you’ll actually find is me not giving a shit if the Iraqi’s kill themselves to the last man.

    Apathetics like you are as useless as the denier crowd

    Shorter Tim: You don’t think like I do…so you suck!

  88. 88
    Tim F. says:

    “I’ve heard so much BS, hyperbole and outright lies that I don’t know if there is a problem, but I fully expect the solutions our “leaders” will eventually enact will, in all likelihood, make things much, much worse?”

    Look at it this way. Who do you suppose benefits from people like you who give up in frustration? Let’s try an analogy: imagine instead that you just buried a relative with lung cancer because the “debate” about smoking and cancer prevented you from making her quit. Something that I did recently, although it wasn’t me who didn’t know to ask her to quit (too young, not my place). Qui bono?

  89. 89
    Tim F. says:

    You don’t think like I do…so you suck!

    Cassidy dear, if you think that the only thing that I care about is whether you agree with me that warming is a problem then you seriously misunderstood everything that I have written. Tell me again what exactly you think that we should do to deal with warming. The answer you will give me is nothing. In that case do you suppose the case could be made that you and I disagree on the single point that actually matters? Take some time to think on’t.

  90. 90
    Cassidy says:

    give up this easily on humanity as a whole.

    FYI, I gave up on humanity quite some time ago. The majority of you (people) don’t rank far above cattle to be perfectly honest.

  91. 91

    OK, Tim, then I’ve got a challenge for you. You know what I think we should do about GCC (and I’m not talking about the compiler, srv). I believe that we need to accept a need to transition our electrical grid to fission plants, accept the need for breeder reactors, and invest vast sums on concentrated solar, while simultaneously spending a lot on conservation and taxing consumption.

    You know, also, that I think my plan would work, but has no chance of being implemented.

    What do you think is a reasonable approach which would both be implemented and have an effect on our contribution to climate change?

  92. 92
    Brachiator says:

    Today, the New York Times chimes in…

    Yesterday, the NYT also had an interesting story that dovetails with an earlier Tim F post on people who mistake current weather for anything remotely connected with climate trends. The full story here: Skeptics on Human Climate Impact Seize on Cold Spell

    One of the major shortcomings in last year’s admirable energy bill was its failure to extend vital tax credits to producers of wind, solar and other renewable fuels. This was entirely the doing of the Senate, which caved in to the oil companies and their White House friends.

    It will be interesting to see what comes out of Congress if a Democrat becomes president.

    What will it take to wake the Senate up? It should be clear to even the most obtuse members that a country that consumes one-fifth of the world’s oil but has only 3 percent of its reserves cannot possibly drill its way to energy independence.

    I agree that the idea that the US can drill its way to energy independence is nutty. But another way of looking at US energy consumption is to note that the US consumes one-fifth of the world’s oil and is responsible for 30% of world GDP (2005 stat based on market exchange rates).

    The idea that nations are like little children and that each should only consume his or her “fair share” of energy doesn’t really work.

    It should be equally clear that an industry whose five biggest producers generated $145 billion in profits last year can easily sacrifice $1.7 billion in annual tax breaks it does not need to help develop the cleaner fuels the country does need.

    Or you could provide tax breaks for developing cleaner fuels in more fuel efficient cars.

    But the industry is not going to “sacrifice” any tax breaks it currently gets. It’s up to Congress to have the guts to formulate a coherent energy policy.

  93. 93

    The idea that nations are like little children and that each should only consume his or her “fair share” of energy doesn’t really work.

    Exactly! And that’s the point of the NYT article. If India or China ever make significant transitions towards producing a fraction of worldwide GDP proportional to that which we produce — and they will do so soon — then we’re going to have to bid against them for energy supplies, and they will be able to outbid us.

    We don’t want to be in that world.

  94. 94
    JGabriel says:

    Veeshirs Throughout History:

    Early American Veesher:

    Look at all these mastodons! We’ll never run out of food!

    Veesher of Sumer:

    What water problems? We’ll just irrigate more!

    Veesher of Vesuvius:

    That volcano? Pfft, it’s five miles away. Don’t be such a wussy.

    Late Renaissance Navigator Veeshir:

    We don’t need no steenking Galilean charts. What was good enough for Ptolemy is good enough for me!

    Hey, where’d that iceberg come from?

    (Crash!)

    Veeshir of the Incas:

    There’s only a hundred of those Spanish guys. We’re so gonna whup their asses.

    What’s that you say? They’re carrying diseases? Ooh, watch out, I’m gonna sneeze! Man up, you fraidy cats.

    French Aritocrat Veeshir:

    Who gives a damn what the peasants think? What are they gonnna do, rise up and behead us all? I laugh in the face of your economic theories and your concern for the poor! No, I spit in them!

    WWII Japanese Veesher:

    A bomb? With the power of the sun? That can kill 100,000 people in one shot?

    Damn, you’ll just believe any old propaganda, won’t ya?

    2002 Veeshir:

    WMD! Cakewalk! Flowers!

  95. 95
    Cassidy says:

    The answer you will give me is nothing. In that case do you suppose the case could be made that you and I disagree on the single point that actually matters?

    Someone has a reading comprehension problem (Hint..starts with T, ends in F.). You’ll see from my first reply what I do and what I think about global warming. I have no disagreement with environmental policies, as long as they aren’t some BS snake-oil crap.

    I never said we should do nothing. I just don’t understand the disconnect from reality that the enviro fringe has: The all powerful Mother Earth is too weak to self-correct! Seems ignorant and narcissitic in all honesty.

  96. 96
    4tehlulz says:

    We don’t want to be in that world..

    Not particularly, no….

  97. 97
    Thursday says:

    Cassidy said:

    I just have faith Tim…that humans aren’t the epitome of evolution and are largely a evolutionary mistake. I think you seriously overstate our ability.

    Look, Bright Eyes: humans will survive eating shit sandwiches if we have to. We’ll live underground in bunkers; we’ll live with gas masks and oxygen tanks; we’ll live with soaring temperatures and half the world dying of thirst. We’ll survive with iodine pills and anti-radiation suits and 40-year lifespans. We’ll survive (some of us, anyways) by adapting the environment around us far beyond anything considered liveable by folks living now.

    This does not mean it’s a good thing.

    It’s not if we’ll survive that’s the concern: it’s how we’ll live.

    As for the high-school-cool cynicism of “we ain’t so hot”, leave it for the teen agers and do something useful. Not only are we not “the epitome of evolution”, but nothing is because evolution doesn’t have one. If you don’t understand that, then stop using the word until you do, okay?

    Thanks.

  98. 98
    Cassidy says:

    Right….next “bright” one.

  99. 99
    JGabriel says:

    Thursday:

    … humans will survive eating shit sandwiches if we have to. We’ll live underground in bunkers; we’ll live with gas masks and oxygen tanks; we’ll live with soaring temperatures and half the world dying of thirst.

    Well, half of us won’t.

    Hmph. Guess that makes me a ‘glass half-empty’ kinda guy.

    .

  100. 100
    SGEW says:

    I blame the peckerwoods at Greenpeace.

    Aw, man. Really? Blamin’ GP fer Cassidy?

    That’s harsh.

  101. 101
    Thursday says:

    Cassidy –

    OMFG! You’re SO right! I immediately rescind my entire argument.

    JGabriel –

    That’s the problem. Way too many of us accept “well, it’s good enough for me” or “the problem is waaaaay over there” as an argument for inertia. We can solve big problems, but we don’t bother trying if the problem is too vague. Besides, so long as it’s the RIGHT (richest) 50%, where’s the problem?

  102. 102
    JGabriel says:

    A question.

    Why does it seem like most of the people who are climate destabilization ‘skeptics’ are also people who failed to bring that same level of skepticism to the Bush administrations Iraqi WMD claims?

    Just seems like there’s some sort of skepticism disconnect there. Why, it’s almost enough to make one think that there skepticism might be more situationally based – say ideologically – than, for instance, having an evidentiary basis.

    Not that I would ever suggest such a thing.

    Nope, not me. Nuh-uh.

    .

  103. 103
    Punchy says:

    What increase (as a percentage) will lead to what increase in temperature over how many years?

    Ah…the old “I must know EVERYTHING before I accept anything” ruse…

    See, proud strong Veeshir doesn’t flinch when he sees a man with a gun following him. Before he becomes afraid, he needs to know what ammo is inside, if the man has bad eyesight, and if he’s got a criminal record. Only after knowing all that, and after being shot 3 times, does Veeshir realize he should have been weary of the very sight of the gun itself, minutes earlier. But now…well, too late.

  104. 104
    Cassidy says:

    OMFG! You’re SO right! I immediately rescind my entire argument.

    You know, it doesn’t take a nuclear holocaust for you to dress up in leather and ride around in dune buggies. You can live out your “Road Warrior” fantasies with no more harm than being called eccentric.

    And really, if leather chaps are your thing, you don’t have to hide behind some political argument. There are plenty of clubs out there for that sort of thing.

  105. 105
    Cassidy says:

    Oh Tim dear…any time you want to respond, you may. I know it sucks to be pointed out that you’re wrong, but I think you’re man enough to do it, even when you are shrill.

  106. 106
    Dork says:

    The majority of you (people) don’t rank far above cattle to be perfectly honest.

    There’s the Cassidy we’ve used to!

    I agree with JGab above. In order for GW to be “proven”, they want data points, graphs, CO2 v. warming correlations, sunspot effects, solar wind charts, methane concentrations, and the sixth iteration of the cosecant value of a double constant squared plus 3.98. For proof of Iraq’s WMD program, they needed some pictures of a black & white shack taken from a satellite and Condi Rice’s threat of a mushroom cloud. Good enough!

  107. 107
    CFisher says:

    That’d be stage nought: I’m an idiot.

    Oh noes! I’ve been flamed by some1 on the internets!! Whatev4 will I do?

    Look at it this way. Who do you suppose benefits from people like you who give up in frustration?

    The status quo, of course. This does not make me particularly happy, and makes me even less happy if Anthropogenic Climate Change actually is occurring.

    However, as far as vast sweeping comprehensive climate change legislation, well, my gut tells me from our past experience that the idiots in charge are likely to give us a bill that:

    1. Costs a bloody hell of a lot more than they say it will.

    2. Creates a vast Climate Change bureaucracy that will probably exist, happily violating our rights and sucking up dollars, probably up to the point when Global Warming is being caused by our sun turning into a red giant.

    3. Hands out billions of dollars to special interest groups without oversight who won’t accomplish anything.

    4. Have vast unintended consequences that are probably worse than the problem we’re treating.

    5. Does not solve the problem.

    I think there are some clear steps we can take, but their impact on the problem would appear to be limited. But okay, that’s fine, some of those ideas, such as raising auto emission and mileage standards are good ideas anyway and are long overdue.

    Other ideas have unintended consequences that could potentially be worse and require a cost/benefit analysis. Debates on building more nuclear power plants (which I would be in favor of, but which do generate hazardous waste) and CFL lightbulbs (which contain hazardous amounts of mercury, but reduce energy demands) are worthwhile.

    So, while I am an agnostic on the issue, I do think we should take the practical steps we can.

    I just don’t know if I trust our government to get anything right these days, and really, can you blame me?

  108. 108
    Cassidy says:

    There’s the Cassidy we’ve used to!

    And you disagree? If Tim dies today, does it really affect my world? Seriously…sadness, life cut short, blah, blah, blah, back to my coffee and cigarette.

    The majority of people rank right alongside cattle with me. What’s so bad about this?

    I just don’t know if I trust our government to get anything right these days, and really, can you blame me?

    I don’t.

  109. 109
    Fe E says:

    CFisher:

    You’re welcome, I knew you were longing for someone to take the bait so you that you could moan and wail. Consider that my (very) early xmas present to you.

    You’re still stuck at stage nought though: “Gosh, this could be hard and when people who hate government are in charge of government, government works badly, ergo we’d better not try try and deal with anything. Fucking government.”

    Here’s a crazy thought–get involved. After all this is supposed to be a participatory democracy; throwing your habds up in the air only feeds the incompetence of the 21st centruy.

  110. 110
    Thursday says:

    Cassidy said:

    You know, it doesn’t take a nuclear holocaust for you to dress up in leather and ride around in dune buggies. You can live out your “Road Warrior” fantasies with no more harm than being called eccentric.

    And really, if leather chaps are your thing, you don’t have to hide behind some political argument. There are plenty of clubs out there for that sort of thing.

    Oh, junior… You have no idea who you’re talking to here, do you? I chase those amateurs away!

    And…

    […]my gut tells me[…]

    Truthiness in action! Or is that Truthiness inaction? Well, same effect.

    And my favorite…

    I know it sucks to be pointed out that you’re wrong, but I think you’re man enough to do it, even when you are shrill.

    Coming from someone whose total response to being told his catastrophic *ahem* misuse or misunderstanding of evolution and the utter uselessness of his feeble, teen goth nihilism is…

    Right….next “bright” one.

    You’ve brightened up my day, Sunshine; but I’ve got to go back to work. Have fun dressing your GI Joes in black!

  111. 111
    Brachiator says:

    The idea that nations are like little children and that each should only consume his or her “fair share” of energy doesn’t really work.

    Exactly! And that’s the point of the NYT article. If India or China ever make significant transitions towards producing a fraction of worldwide GDP proportional to that which we produce—and they will do so soon—then we’re going to have to bid against them for energy supplies, and they will be able to outbid us.

    We don’t want to be in that world.

    Why not? There is nothing that particularly mandates that the US, or the West, will always be Numero Uno, the Big Dog, the Head Cheese.

    I just have faith Tim…that humans aren’t the epitome of evolution and are largely a evolutionary mistake. I think you seriously overstate our ability.

    As for the high-school-cool cynicism of “we ain’t so hot”, leave it for the teen agers and do something useful. Not only are we not “the epitome of evolution”, but nothing is because evolution doesn’t have one. If you don’t understand that, then stop using the word until you do, okay?

    What Thursday said. Evolution does not have a design, purpose, goal or direction. No goal means that there are no “mistakes.”

    On the other hand,

    Do you honestly hope that people will go extinct? Even though you just said it fairly plainly I still want to be absolutely clear before I laugh my ass of at you.

    While I don’t particularly hope that humans go extinct, there ain’t nuthin’ that guarantees us a permanent seat at the table of life.

  112. 112
    Dork says:

    If Tim dies today, does it really affect my world?

    Here’s what I’ve never understood — if one dislikes the commenters here so much (cattle), and, while not wishing death, are at least quite indifferent to the co-blogowner dying, why visit this website so much?

  113. 113
    Cassidy says:

    What Thursday said. Evolution does not have a design, purpose, goal or direction. No goal means that there are no “mistakes.”

    Really…so weeding out weak genes, adapting to challenges, and stregnthening the species is not a goal? Maybe there is no endstate, but each round of evolution has a goal.

    Coming from someone whose total response to being told his catastrophic ahem misuse or misunderstanding of evolution and the utter uselessness of his feeble, teen goth nihilism is…

    Not really into gloom cookies. Not my kind of cattle. You faux superiority is cute, though. You fit right in with them. Are you going to start reading poetry and talking about how much pain you feel now?

  114. 114
    CFisher says:

    You’re welcome

    Actually, I was just mocking an anonymous commenter trying to get to me by posting an insult.

    I was responding to Tim’s more thoughtful comment.

    You’re still stuck at stage nought though

    No, I’m just not hopelessly idealistic or naive.

    Truthiness in action!

    If you have evidence that the folks in charge are secretly geniuses or are anywhere close to being competent, I’d be happy to read it.

  115. 115
    Goseph Gerbils says:

    The ethanol move is an environmental disaster that was pushed through not as a serious attempt to fix carbon but as yet another handout to Archer-Daniels Midland.

    Bingo! The Aussies have a lovely, evocative word for this sort of scam – it’s a rort, pure and simple.

    Even if ethanol’s the answer (and there are other solutions – diesel engines can be tuned to burn just about anything that doesn’t have lumps in it) corn is a hideously inefficient crop to obtain it from. On a quick Google we find, for example, “more fossil energy is used to produce ethanol than the energy contained within it“.

  116. 116
    Cassidy says:

    Here’s what I’ve never understood—if one dislikes the commenters here so much (cattle), and, while not wishing death, are at least quite indifferent to the co-blogowner dying, why visit this website so much?

    I don’t dislike anyone here, except for a very small few. You mistake a lack of empathy for some sort of negative feelings. As a fellow human being, I wish you the best of luck, find a good job, put your sperm in the right hole, don’t get fat, live a long life, etc. But in the end, nothing any of you say or do, or don’t do, affects my world.

  117. 117
    Punchy says:

    put your sperm in the right hole,

    /waiting….waiting….waiting…not gunna be the crude one….where the hell’s Jake when you need him?

  118. 118
    Brachiator says:

    Really…so weeding out weak genes, adapting to challenges, and stregnthening the species is not a goal? Maybe there is no endstate, but each round of evolution has a goal.

    Nope. There ain’t no such things as weak or strong genes. Organisms adapt to environments, not challenges. Evolution does not care about strengthening the species.

    Let’s go to one of the numerous Evolution FAQs:

    Natural selection is defined as the differential survival and reproductive success of certain individuals in a population under a given set of environmental conditions.

    Certain members of a population are more likely to survive and reproduce when compared to others because they possess features that render them more successful in the local environment. According to Darwin’s theory of evolution, selection cannot favor traits unless they increase the fitness of the bearer of those traits relative to that of competing individuals.

    Thus, individuals, rather than species, become the units of selection. For example, the elaborate tails of male peacocks help individual males compete with other males for access to females. There is no reason to suspect that these elaborate tails benefit the entire species. In fact, the tails are rather cumbersome and male peacocks with showier tails are likely to be more susceptible to predation than are individuals with simpler tails.

    More here for those interested: Misconceptions of Evolution

  119. 119
    dbrown says:

    In a nut shell ‘CFisher Says’ in conclusion that we should not do anything about GW because the Government will not succeed … that is his argument, or his hope?
    Now lets see- the US Government has developed most of the basic science/engineering to send men to the moon, make radar possible, created missiles that can travel halfway around the Earth and hit a target within 10 meters, was the force behind developing microchips, all modern computers, jets that can take off from a ship at sea, then fly over a thousand miles round trip and deliver a bomb within meters of any target on Earth at night in a storm, create cures for more diseases than anyone could name, provide great advances in all areas of basic physics and our understanding of the Universe, the oceans, climate, meteorology, … the list is almost endless. Hell, it hasn’t done too bad a job in Iraq if the AO bush the brain dead and cheney the ass licker hadn’t done all in their power to fuck the troops over. Yes, I would like the US Government to handle the problem of GW and I’d bet my future on it; you, however, are a typical whining, overfeed, mentally lazy naysayer who has never tried to challenge their mind with real doubt and then try challenging themselves by looking at all points of view and reading facts, and not swallowing half truths, and bullshit provided by other closed minds that have only the virtue of agreeing with their pre-conceived idea’s. Liberation of the mind only occurs with knowledge that is learned through hard work and study of all facts available – try it and grow. Your life will improve and so will others from your efforts

  120. 120
    JGabriel says:

    DBrown:

    In a nut shell ‘CFisher Says’ in conclusion that we should not do anything about GW because the Government will not succeed … that is his argument, or his hope?

    Neither. It’s simply stage 5 of the inexorable process laid out by Tim in the post at the top of this thread.

  121. 121
    CFisher says:

    In a nut shell ‘CFisher Says’ in conclusion that we should not do anything about GW because the Government will not succeed … that is his argument, or his hope?

    Actually, oh great open mind, had you read my second to last post, I was verbalizing my train of thought and reached the conclusion that there are several small feasible goals we could work toward that are worthwhile and do not require a belief in AGW to validate them (i.e. you could probably get some Republicans to sign off and vote for them) and we should focus on those, and not look to the government to provide an overwhelming comprehensive piece of Climate Change legislation that will probably not work.

    I’d bet my future on it;

    Yeah, pal. Good luck with that. Time to start shopping for real estate in Antarctica.

  122. 122
    dbrown says:

    In your second post you said “If you have evidence that the folks in charge are secretly geniuses or are anywhere close to being competent, I’d be happy to read it.”
    I have shown that the govenment is beyound competent and really, have great talent if not geniuses; but what does it matter if bush/cheney assholes are not? As for betting my future, I was a jet pilot in ihe military and every day bet my life on the competance of those in charge and both for me and the country it turned out well.
    As for Antarctica, I’m sure you can get a ship to go and check it out – the view I hear is great.
    Relative to re-pubic’s, hell would freeze over before they ever did anything that would really have any impact on GW but please, give some real examples (and credit, please) and explan how they will have a significant impact in dealing with the real GW problem and I will agree that you are, in fact, on to something (which I hope is true but after bush-dumb ass, I doubt they will work but I am open to good ideas, so teach rather than complain.)

  123. 123
    Dread says:

    In your second post

    That was my third post.

    But yes, if you truly wish to bet your future on the idiots in charge, more power to you.

  124. 124
    Darkness says:

    I’ve gone beyond the “what if” of global warming into the, let’s live somewhere warming/flooding proof with lots of resources and thank god we never had children. This is part of my enjoy life scenario that started about 5 years into the Bush administration when it was clear that their espoused modus operandi of “I’ve got mine, f*ck everyone else” meant that if you failed to do likewise, you’d get screwed. Life has been much less stressed and worried since taking up this presidentially promoted mentality. I’d recommend it to all.

    So, I ride a bike because it saves a crap load of money and keeps me in shape. It may save some cute baby walrus or polar bear somewhere, and that’s fine if it does.

    But the ethanol thing has me pissed off again when I had fallen into such a Bush-inspired zen state of fuckeveryoneelsenothingmattersbutwheremynextbeeris. What a rip-off, robbing-everyone-blind joke this scheme is. Yeah, lets burn 3 gallons of ethanol in energy (at best) to make 4 gallons of ethanol that only has 55% of the energy of gasoline. Sheesh.

    I don’t have time this evening to search for data on it, but here’s an interesting article link on ethanol and grain prices. 2006, 16% of U.S. grain production went into ethanol. Doesn’t sound insignificant and 2007 was presumably higher.

  125. 125
    DBrown says:

    WellDread,
    Assuming you are Mr/Ms CFisher then I am wrong and stand corrected (I am relieved that this incredibly important misunderstanding on my part about third or second of fifth or what ever post has been addressed);
    (In correction)Then I was referencing to your third post (if that is the case, it would help if you posted using the name ID.)Then please answer my question and name the great ideas that repubics have to offer.

    As for trusting our leaders again, you did not read my post and should. I do not trust ass wipe bush/cheney nor the incompetents in the cheney presidency. New Orleans need look no further and see what happens on a national scale with these pigs in charge but that is off my point.
    As for trusting the government bureaucrats, and our Federal system, you appear to trust them far more than I. Every time you get in your car and drive it your are trusting their regulations and oversight that makes the car safe to drive; or the bridges and roads to travel over, or the jets to fly in, or the food you eat or the house you live in and the clothes you wear and the MD’s who treat you or the drugs you take or … all safe and effective because the government agencies protect you and inspectors have oversight of the endless supply chains/corporations that you blindly trust and live a rather good life – thanks to our State/Local and Federal bureaucrats.
    Apparently, you can not answer my question for what is wrong with trusting these competent people who make up 99% of the US Government and troops that make us safe and protect us and do a fanastic job versus your belief (founded on what facts?) that somehow I am incorrect in trusting them? Really, GW can only be addressed by our government and yes, I do trust our people to do the job right and in fact, outstandingly well when smart, competent people are elected and task them to do it(read, never a repubic dumb ass.)Please prove otherwise or is your problem with facts? If so, that is fine and your right in posting here but do not expect intelligent people to believe anything you say.

  126. 126
    Veeshir says:

    A heretic. burn him!
    Oh wait, global warming will do it.

    Nevermind.

  127. 127
    Kirk Spencer says:

    sigh. Veeshir, let me help you. The most respected group of people on the side of “global warming is overhyped at best” argument belong to ICECAP. As it happens, Mr. Coleman is a member.

    There is a lot of pap in there, but there are some legitimate counterpoints as well. The articles that tell you such and so government agency is falsifying data can probably be ignored – depending, of course, on how much of a conspiracist you are.

  128. 128
    Veeshir says:

    Good link, I like how they make fun of global warmmongers,using science.

    I usually don’t try to use that much science, it makes global warmmongers get even angrier than the poo-flinging monkeys above who accused me of lying, being a racist and being a tool of Big Oil. Of course, we’re sort of even on that last part, I think they’re tools.

    I am also happy that somebody respectable is actually going after the Goracle’s papal indulgences…. errr…. carbon credit scam.

  129. 129
    Red says:

    When do we get to hang them?

  130. 130

    Veeshir, is your attention span longer than the lifespan of a gnat?

    I’m the one who consistently slapped you down for your ignorant posts above. I’m also the one who took mercy and showed you a site that has some countering science – though still with way too much dishonest posturing. You just insulted me. I’d been polite up to this point – no longer.

    You are an ignorant, pigheaded fool who by his own admission is more interested in polemic than science. It is quite apparent you have made your judgment and are unwilling to consider any countervailing information. You have projected – every single flaw you accuse the “warmmongerers” of doing you are guilty of yourself. And it saddens me that I’ve wasted time and effort in honest (from my side) debate with the flawed pretender of sapience that is you. No more.

  131. 131
    Whammer says:

    Kirk, I’m thinking you are too kind about that Icecap site — largely looks like the SOS to me……….

Comments are closed.