Dispatches from the Creation Wars

1

And I thought the more prevalent argument was to pray for McCain to win then die. That leaves Palin president and allows her to fulfill her own prophecy given that she's stated the end is coming "in her lifetime". Why else have the miraculous nomination?

Me? I'm going with the Nut prediction on the new date, but with Palin rather than the comet. All I'm asking for is the Slim Pickens' role.

Posted by: Michael Heath | September 17, 2008 10:09 AM

3

WND said:

NASA is predicting the next Solar Maximum will arrive in 2012 and will be the strongest in 50 years. At the same time, the sun will align with the center of the Milky Way for the first time in 26,000 years, on the exact date of the end of the Mayan calendar, Dec. 21, 2012.

First - The sunspot number will hit a maximum around 2012 according to NASA. I expect there will be some margin of error.
Second - So what? the solar maxima in the 1870's was the most severe in human memory, a repeat is likely in about 500 years time. The next one will be relatively mild, nothing to get your panties in a bunch over.
Thirdly - The sun rotates around the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy about once in 220 Million years. What exactly is 'aligning' with what here? I think they have confused the 'wobble' of the Earth's rotational axis here. Which has, of course, already reached it's maximum southern extension and is now steadily moving northward. (At the moment the perihelion and the southern summer equinox nearly occur at the same time, in late December. White Christmas! Hah!)
Fourthly - I'm not entirely certain but I thought the date of the beginning of the next Mayan calendrical cycle was sometime in 2016. (I could be wrong though). -DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | September 17, 2008 10:27 AM

5

If he is so sure, why doesn't he offer a money back guarantee?

Posted by: I am so wise | September 17, 2008 10:36 AM

7

I hope that the folks at Worldnutdaily will excuse me if I don't sell all my stocks.

Posted by: JStein | September 17, 2008 10:47 AM

9

wait... they're going to put us all through another election cycle before the world ends? eeeevol!

Posted by: kodiak | September 17, 2008 11:11 AM

11

since the Earth spins around in the Milky Way the whole time, and you can pretty much draw a line from anywhere in the spiral through the center, what do they mean that it will "align" with the center? I'd also like to know how his math works, and where he gets that 753 date, and why he ignores the Mayan 2012 date that others of his apocalypse-nutters like to use, but I guess since they aren't Jewish or Christian enough (although they did have pyramids, which are like the ones the Jews built, if you believe certain people) they can be ignored. Of course, I am not curious enough to actually pay for that piece of toilet paper in a binding.

Posted by: Badger3k | September 17, 2008 11:18 AM

13

When they pass out the kool-aid DON'T DRINK IT!
I wonder how long it will be before someone links 2012 or 2013 to when the LHC will find the god particle?

Posted by: mr P | September 17, 2008 11:22 AM

15

I saw this Mayan Calendar bullshit on the history Channel and couldn't stop laughing.

Before they even mentioned the date I was like "lemme guess - its near Dec 25th". Dec 21st? Close enough for the winter f-ing solstice - the shortest day of the year and the symbolic end and new beginning from pretty much every culture that knew anything about the stars.

Modern people piss me off.

Posted by: libarbarian | September 17, 2008 11:27 AM

17

You call that a "source?" The "Star Trek" movies had it first. Your source sucks.

Key word there being, "movies" which are of course discountable as being the product of the liberal and /or Jewish Hollywood movie industry. Flynn only established television as a credible data source. So I limited myself to that resource.

Posted by: Abby Normal | September 17, 2008 11:44 AM

19

Well, the people over at WND have clearly become devil worshiping heathen idolaters, giving credence as they do to other pagans such as the Mayan and Aztecs. I'm sure we'll see right wing pundits denouncing them as a dangerous bed of heretics any minute now *taps watch*.

Posted by: Julian | September 17, 2008 12:10 PM

21

The author, David Flynn, is one of those characters who writes about ancient mysteries, secret societies, UFOs, aliens and the like. It's a business for the guy and I doubt he believes even a single word of his own crap. Lucky for him, there are millions of people ready to believe every word of it.

Posted by: Dr X | September 17, 2008 12:16 PM

23

Let us not forget that several conservative Presidential candidates legitimatized WorldNetDaily by attending a debate early in the primary debate season that was hosted by its publisher Joseph Farah.

McCain did not attend this debate; given the radical transformation we've seen out of him recently, I'm less confident he avoid similar opportunities in the future.

Posted by: Michael Heath | September 17, 2008 12:44 PM

25

It sure seems like the world is ending on Wall Street right now. What a mess.

That could be the understatement of the week...

Posted by: Josh | September 17, 2008 1:05 PM

27

The center of the Galaxy is located in the constellation Sagittarius. The sun indeed will be passing through that constellation in December... er ... just like it does every December!

You're talking about apparent positions as seen by an observer on Earth, right?

Posted by: Josh | September 17, 2008 1:39 PM

29

@Michael Heath: Please tell me Palin did not say that. Every time I see her she freaks me out a little more. I can't believe Americans want someone who believes in eschatological prophecy running the country.

Posted by: Chris | September 17, 2008 2:09 PM

31

Also, I love how they say "Newton's end times calculations." Can you believe Newton taking a break from inventing calculus, the prism, the theory of gravity, etc. to "calculate" when the world would end?

Posted by: Chris | September 17, 2008 2:12 PM

33

Josh, Of course I'm talking about apparent positions;D I just wanted to keep my comment pithy and to the point. Anyway, what with precession, the sun is probably shining in the constellation of Capricornus on the 21st. Or is it still in Scorpius?

Posted by: Deacon Barry | September 17, 2008 2:19 PM

35

Oh, and Rexella Van Impe is hawt!

Posted by: Deacon Barry | September 17, 2008 2:22 PM

37

mroberts states, "global warming is a religion".

Please provide one peer-reviewed scientific publication from the last three years that convincingly falsifies that global warming is not occurring and even if it were, human-generated activities are not a significantly contributing factor.

Also, it would be interesting to understand your process for how you accept/reject peer-accepted scientific theories.

Posted by: Michael Heath | September 17, 2008 2:34 PM

39

Oh for cryin' out loud, the globe is warming. Get over it. The globe warms, the globe cools--it's what it does. I absolutely understand it if you don't like how political the "issue" is--that annoys the hell out of me too. But to deny that warming is taking place is along the lines of Bush saying that no one could have known the levees were going to fail when the geoscience community has been discussing the probability of that event for thirty years.

Posted by: Josh | September 17, 2008 2:36 PM

41

@Michael Heath: Please tell me Palin did not say that [Palin's stated belief that Jesus will come back in Palin's lifetime]. Every time I see her she freaks me out a little more. I can't believe Americans want someone who believes in eschatological prophecy running the country.

Posted by: Chris | September 17, 2008 2:09 PM

It's a heresay quote from a local school teacher and activist, however Salon has proven trustworthy in its stories: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/09/15/bess/index1.html

I believe I also heard her state it (primary source) in a video in her church but I'm not completely sure about that. If I did, it was probably at Talk to Action, which has the same source quote above (no time to search videos which they don't tag very well, got to get back to work).

Here is the money section of the Salon story:

Another valley activist, Philip Munger, says that Palin also helped push the evangelical drive to take over the Mat-Su Borough school board. "She wanted to get people who believed in creationism on the board," said Munger, a music composer and teacher. "I bumped into her once after my band played at a graduation ceremony at the Assembly of God. I said, 'Sarah, how can you believe in creationism -- your father's a science teacher.' And she said, 'We don't have to agree on everything.'

"I pushed her on the earth's creation, whether it was really less than 7,000 years old and whether dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time. And she said yes, she'd seen images somewhere of dinosaur fossils with human footprints in them."

Munger also asked Palin if she truly believed in the End of Days, the doomsday scenario when the Messiah will return. "She looked in my eyes and said, 'Yes, I think I will see Jesus come back to earth in my lifetime.'"

If true, that is terrifying. A person whose church has rapture fantasies, with a member that believes this will happen in her lifetime, miraculously gets the VP nomination to serve God, Israel saber-rattling with Iran, and she is clueless but decisive and committed.

Instead of worrying about who fathered her last baby, we have much more important questions for Gov. Palin that needs to be drumbeat, and this is one of them that deserves a thorough vetting, not just by questioning her, but publishing primary source material if it exists, and trying to validate or falsify Munger's claims.

Posted by: Michael Heath | September 17, 2008 3:07 PM

43

Wow, just wow.

I actually had a real, live, breathing person ask me Monday afternoon, in response to my statement that I am an unrepentant unbeliever, ask what I would do at The Rapture.

Posted by: bonefish | September 17, 2008 3:56 PM

45

Raging Bee, Jack Van Impe's wiki page doesn't mention a Jacquilena, only Rexella. It doesn't list the year they married, but it says they founded the ministry together (along with putting out a few albums). Check out the discography!

Presenting the Van Impes Crown Records CV-1003
Accorgan Artisty
Singing And Making Melody With The Accorgan
Marked For Death: Can America Survive? (1969)
From Nightclubs to Christ (1970)
The Coming War With Russia

I love that juxtaposition, Singing and Making Melody... MARKED FOR DEATH! [bumb bumb buuuum]

Funny the wiki page doesn't mention their rolls in Left Behind: The Movie or the Apocalypse trilogy.

Posted by: Abby Normal | September 17, 2008 4:41 PM

47

Global warming proponents always talk about a "consensus" in the scientific community that global warming is caused by humanity's industrial activities. Do any of them ever talk about the consensus of scientists who disagree and basically think the global warming religionists are out of their minds?

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Posted by: mroberts | September 17, 2008 5:34 PM

49

If true, that is terrifying. A person whose church has rapture fantasies, with a member that believes this will happen in her lifetime, miraculously gets the VP nomination to serve God, Israel saber-rattling with Iran, and she is clueless but decisive and committed.

Michael, in all your hyperventilating over this, I cannot possibly see what is so incredibly terrifying about Palin believing in the last days prophecies in the Bible. How many other presidents and vice-presidents in our history have believed in them? Do you actually think that just because she believes in them she is a more dangerous person? You have become absurd in your disdain for Palin. Get over it.

Posted by: mroberts | September 17, 2008 5:43 PM

51

Oops, *libertarian blogs. Or perhaps better, *blogs not written by wingnuts.

Posted by: Al West | September 17, 2008 5:51 PM

53

mrroberts - I didn't ask for a petition nor did I state there was a consensus. I merely asked for one, just one, peer-reviewed scientific publication from the last three years that convincingly falsifies that global warming is not occurring and even if it were, human-generated activities are not a significantly contributing factor.

Given that a research team finding conclusively against climate change due to humans would reward those researchers with fame and fortune beyond their wildest dreams, the incentive is certainly there. So, just one would be nice. I read about 20 relevant peer-reviewed findings a year that add to the theory since I started studying climatology in the 1980's. I'm asking you for just one from the last three years.

Also, it'd be great to understand your process for how you accept/reject peer-accepted scientific theories. Petitions? What Rush tells you? I loved Rush's volcano ash "theory", that was a hoot! The ditto-heads were terrorist-bumping on that one!

I'd warn you away from petitions. That's not science. Last time somebody sent me this petition I took the first random name I came across, Googled him, and discovered he was a WV coal mining safety engineer afearin' for his industry in the blogosphere, I doubt he even knew what a climatologist was.

The IDists have a petition as well, turned out to be a pretty much a complete fraud. I think they did end up with two actual scientists in the relevant fields that rejected that theory - those two could never find any evidence to argue against it though given they never even solicited for a project to support their position in spite of all that money the Pew people put up. I think the phrase is, "all hat, no cattle".

Science is not done by petition mroberts. So what say you? Convince us global warming is merely a religion rather than an actual scientific theory whose predictions have been falsified.

My bet - another classic case of projectionism by a conservative, no surprise there, it's become a defining attribute, not that liberals are perfect. But I've found liberals rarely project relative to the rate by conservatives.

Posted by: Michael Heath | September 17, 2008 5:58 PM

55

I didn't ask for a petition nor did I state there was a consensus. I merely asked for one, just one, peer-reviewed scientific publication from the last three years that convincingly falsifies that global warming is not occurring and even if it were, human-generated activities are not a significantly contributing factor.

Michael, how do you justify dismissing a list of 31,000 scientists, many of them climatologists and a large number of them with PhDs? Are all those people frauds and idiots? Seriously, answer my question here.

Posted by: mroberts | September 17, 2008 6:13 PM

57

Re mroberts

Petitions are a dime a dozen. There are petitions for denial of HIV/AIDS, denial of evolution, denial of CFCs and ozone depletion, denial of the relationship between lung cancer and smoking, denial of the big bang theory, denial of quantum mechanics, denial of relativity, denial of heliocentrism, denial of the germ theory of disease, etc.

The global warming petition also provides no information as to the qualifications of any of the signers to pontificate on the issue. However, I did find one interesting name on the list, namely Fred Singer who is a professor of Physics at the Un. of Virginia, Charlottesville. Prof. Singer is a world class denier who has also denied that CFCs cause ozone depletion and that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer. Not a very authoritative source. As Mr. Heath pointed out, scientific issues are decided by publications in the peer reviewed literature, not by petitions.

Posted by: SLC | September 17, 2008 7:12 PM

59

Silly wingnut. Everyone knows the world will end in 2009, after President Palin launches a nuclear strike on Iran and Russia to demonstrate her "muscular" foreign policy. Palin flees back to Alaska only to find it suffering from an undeniable form of anthropogenic global warming (the 10 megaton type). Prays for Rapture, but Jesus won't take her calls. Consolation: no longer will need tanning bed.

Posted by: hje | September 17, 2008 8:12 PM

61

mroberts - if one were to do a thorough vetting of a petition such as this (not one required to follow the law), one would quickly find that the number of signers is inversely proportional to the standards established to develop such a petition. We certainly found that to be true of the ID petition and my small sample I took on this petition also argued for the same. Therefore your large number causes me to suspect an especially absurd outcome.

Like I stated earlier, the first time I saw this list my first name to study was the WV coal mining safety engineer working for a private coal company, providing compelling standards of how easy it was to get on the list - how about none at least at that time. He was not a scientist, nor a climatologist, not even a manager, director, or VP for that matter and more importantly - someone who didn't even work on the subject matter.

Because I was rebutting a point made by my brother, who I love dearly, I took the time to vet three of the people's names who were PhDs. One of those was a scientist in the 1970s who published a research paper asserting global cooling was on its way. This was not surprising, during those years the research was running about 3:1 for global warming v. no change or cooling. That ratio has shrunk to zero as far as I know though I don't monitor this ratio. This scientist hadn't published a paper since 1978. Some people, even scientists, can't let go when their work is supplanted. His work was discarded due to a successful falsification finding which was discovered when we developed better methods to measure the volume of the oceans (as they heat, they expand, which they're doing, falsifying the old gent's life work). The other PhD was a Dentist professor, and the last was a lobbyist working for Exxon who was the guy acting as a shill for Sen Inhofe - who claims global warming is a Hollywood hoax. This Exxon PhD was not publishing, he was getting paid to insure our government focused on oil, which they did.

mroberts - I was snarky because of your religion claim regarding people who support a scientific theory. Even if there was a controversy about climate change in terms of how much humans impact that change, taking a thoughtful position does not make one a religionist. It irritates me when I get accused (even when lumped into a group like you did) of a trait I despise simply because I accept a peer-accepted theory. I am in no way religious regarding what I accept/reject.

Is there a consensus? I don't know. If there are they need to go out and actually do the work and produce some convincing evidence, something I haven't seen in years given that the measurement equipment and modeling is so much more advanced and continues to provide evidence we've been underestimating the affects of climate change. I do see some falsification of elements of global warming, like any scientific theory, it is a work in progress, those falsification efforts however were made by scientists who support the theory, just that our methods of measuring change are not an exact science yet (For example, will global warming lead to a colder Europe due to a change in ocean currents?).

If we learned anything so far, it is you who MIGHT be taking a religious approach towards denying it unless you can actually produce findings that adequately rebut this report, which is a summary of the peer-reviewed articles. I recommend you read this Wiki summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report#Climate_Change_2007:_Report_Overview

as well as reading the "Summary for Policy Makers", which is a 22 page non-technical report summarizing the actual scientific findings that you can find on that site, it's a PDF file; anyone interested in this subject should start there.

Posted by: Michael Heath | September 17, 2008 8:32 PM

63

mroberts - You're not doing yourself any favors with that petition. First of all, it would be a lot more believable if they included the signatories affiliations (university/research institution) and the field in which they got their degrees.
Second, it appears this is run by OISM - The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Going to their website doesn't inspire a lot of confidence: http://www.oism.org
Third, at the bottom of the petition site they link to a video by the Discovery Institute.
In short, this is a load of scientific denialist crap.

Posted by: Taz | September 17, 2008 9:31 PM

65

Sorry, I guess I screwed up that link. Here it is:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

Posted by: Taz | September 17, 2008 9:40 PM

67

I think you might mean HIV deniers SLC, I'm not aware of any Holocaust deniers in their ranks (unless Larry Fafarman has recently been promoted from lowly internet loon, which given the quality of their fellowship is not too implausible).

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | September 17, 2008 11:55 PM

69

Sorry to be pedantic but -
Mrroberts you can't talk to the 'consensus' of scientists who disagree with AGW because they are in the minority. A consensus = feelings/opinions of most people.
Although I suppose you could survey denial scientists and get a consensus of deniers.
But generally the consensus is that AGW is real, what that means, practically, is still somewhat fuzzy.
BTW 753CE is not half way between 753BCE and 2012CE.
2012CE = 2765auc*.
Hallway between this date and the founding of Rome (1auc) is sometime in 1382auc ({2765-1}/2 = 1382), which is 629CE.
Midway between 21 April and 21 December would be 21 August.
Did anything particularly praiseworthy occur to Christians on 21 August 629CE?
Curiously -DJ
*auc stands for Ad Urbe Condita, since the founding of the the city [of Rome]. Traditionally this was on 21 April, 753BCE. To convert western dates to auc, add 753 to the date if CE; and [because there is no year '0CE/0BCE'] add 754 if BCE. Remember also Romans counted inclusively thus the first year of the city's existence was 1auc

Posted by: DingoJack | September 18, 2008 3:59 AM

71

DingoJack:

Are you telling me those roman bastards co-opted the early christians' Christmas holiday, so that they could celebrate one of their pagan bacchanals?

Posted by: democommie | September 18, 2008 7:25 AM

73

Michael, how do you justify dismissing a list of 31,000 scientists, many of them climatologists and a large number of them with PhDs?

Where is the evidence that "many of them are climatologists?" I've been aware of this petition for a while, but haven't been able to find support for that statement. Maybe I just missed it. Can you provide a link?

And actually, the answer to that question matters a great deal, I think. I guess this opinion might be dismissed by some as me being an elitist intellectual or some shit, but so be it. I really don't much care if a PhD signs a petition on a scientific "issue" that is outside of their area of expertise. Or, let me augment that to say that their PhD does not add additional weight to their signature in that instance. I would weight their opinion as much as I would weight the opinion of, I don't know, a JD, on the same issue. They might be very smart people, but they most likely lack the training and background in the relevant literature to be able to offer a truly grounded opinion.

Science has moved too far and is too complicated and nuanced and at this point for us to really be able to critique work across subdisciplines, never mind across disciplines. I have colleagues who are seismologists, for example. My PhD and research experience does not provide me with the background to solidly critique their papers. Nor can they really punch holes in mine. Regarding climatology and paleoclimatology, if you move into degrees that are outside of geology or physics, then forget it. Unless they can demonstrate to me that they are extremely well read in the climate literature, then I don't really care what some cell biologist has to say about CO2 and temperature. Similarly, I could give a shit about what petitions they affix their signatures to. I don't think that statement makes me a liberal elitist; I think it's evidence that I actually understand the realities of modern science training, as well as its limitations. A PhD in one field does not make one an expert in everything.

Posted by: Josh | September 18, 2008 10:48 AM

75

1. It was sent with an article that was dishonestly portrayed as peer-reviewed.

Thanks for hitting that point, Taz. I was just composing a comment taking apart that article. Can I presume now that we don't need to go there? There is no indication that this journal is peer-reviewed (I couldn't even find a the editor listed on the website...) and what the heck a journal of physicians and surgeons is doing publishing an article on atmospheric CO2 causes me to do a great deal of head scratching.

Posted by: Josh | September 18, 2008 11:34 AM

77

So, mroberts, you show us a petition signed by 31,000 "scientists," without specifying which specific fields of study the signers represent. But you can't seem to produce ONE SINGLE PEER-REVIEWED PAPER, from any of those 31,000 signers, actually disproving any aspect of AGW. You're just like the creationists: same lack of actual scientific work or proof, same use of empty petitions as proof of a "controversy," same desperate attempt to pretend that science is just as empty as religion...oh, and the same tendency to disappear when your ridiculous emotional assertions are refuted.

Posted by: Raging Bee | September 18, 2008 11:45 AM

79

Taz-thanks much. Missed that earlier.

Posted by: Josh | September 18, 2008 12:15 PM

81

What do these people do when their cars' odometers roll over?

Posted by: Jon Lester | September 18, 2008 12:43 PM

83

Michael, in short, an enthusiastic "yes" to everything you wrote above. One of the things I find most amusing/frustrating about the GW denialist crowd is that so few of them seem to be actual practicing specialists, and the corresponding voracity of the opinions they hold.

I know several of the folks who post on RealClimate. Good, competent scientists.

Posted by: Josh | September 18, 2008 2:34 PM

85

"GW denialists"? LOL. You guys cling to global warming like it is a religion. There is no room for debate on this issue, it is a done deal, apparently. That's what I think is so amusing about this whole thing. I don't deny that temperatures have increased over recent decades - research appears to verify that. However, I do doubt that humans are causing it. Vikings inhabited and farmed Greenland during the middle ages, then the ice advanced and overtook their settlements and they left. Temperatures have been increasing and decreasing for all of history long before the industrial revolution. Forgive me for committing the cardinal sin of doubting man-made global warming.

Posted by: mroberts | September 18, 2008 2:53 PM

87

mroberts - saying we cling to a scientific theory "like a religion" over and over again does not make your argument stronger, it just provides evidence of you projecting. Also, I see you were not able to provide any evidence whatsoever for your doubts while I provided you with evidence from thousands of properly framed experiments that conclude that current warming trends from human-activity are a significant contributing factor with a corresponding degree of confidence measuring 95% with a small margin of error.

You on the other hand ignorantly talk about much smaller past cyclical changes than what we've already experienced to date where these past changes were filtered out of the trends I sent you, i.e., they were accounted for in the models I linked you to, which therefore required we add additional unprecedented factors to explain the current, recent, past rate of change (i.e., not a prediction, actual recent events).

We know this with certainty because we can measure the CO2 levels during those historic times so we know the affect they had relative to the affect our level of 385 ppm is having on us now (if memory serves me on the current level, I believe the goal is to get to 350 ppm to stop the warming trend though I'm working from memory on both of these numbers).

Climatologists have already concluded that not only do past cyclical changes not explain what we are currently experiencing for a given period of time in terms of rate changes, they do not even come close to explaining the current rate of change nor could the events that triggered those past changes account for our current rate of change which has already been measured! In fact, a study just came out this past week that reconfirmed the hockey stick affect with the new measuring equipment that's been installed a couple of years ago, this new study not only validated the original findings, but provided evidence those original findings were actually understated, not surprising, the story of global warming from the scientists' perspective has been one of being too conservative on projections.

mroberts - You have a right to your doubts, but your doubts appear to come from your own mundane or virulent ignorance; and your willingness to criticize those that accept the science as religionists comes from a form of arrogance I have difficulty conceiving.

Posted by: Michael Heath | September 18, 2008 3:30 PM

89

Taz - I agree with your post with one minor exception and that is the "conservative opinion is, "so what - full speed ahead!".

Global Warming as a scientific theory is by definition descriptive. It in itself does not make an argument for what we should or should not do, i.e., it is not prescriptive.

A conservative promoting that we do nothing even if they concede the validity of the theory is a prescriptive argument and therefore should not be conflated with the validity of the description. The reason I bring this up is because the major rejection of this theory from fiscal conseratives that reached a ground-swell in the 1990s and led most effectively by Sen. Inhofe, Jerry Falwell, and Rush Limbaugh was that we don't want the theory to be true because we'll put our market share at risk; social conservatives appeared to reject it because they're sheep who are easily manipulated by the the leaders of fiscal conservatives (Thomas Franks being the leading advocate with plenty of evidence to validate that assertion) and feared losing their voting block on abortion, gays, and Christianism (the plain words of the FRC, Falwell and James Dobson).

I think it's important to distinguish the descriptive and the prescriptive because there are legitimate policy debates on what to do given the reality of climate change and our ever-increasing confidence on what that means to the planet and society.

I for one don't believe we should compromise our lifestyle and instead need to focus almost exclusively on alternative energy solutions that enhance it, e.g., an alternative energy vehicle whose performance exceeds gas vehicles being one example, CFI bulbs being another. The liberals among us deride the American lifestyle footprint and want to focus more on conservation, while I respect their point on many cases, that won't fly, we are evolutionarily dedicated to more, more, more and that has been the root of strength and success, not conservatively compromising our needs for some greater collective good.

The risk we run into is the debate on what to do is much more productive if we first fight to not concede the high ground on what the science actually states, that is how the Bush administration and the GOP-majority Senate under Inhofe's Commitee Chairman leadership successfully stalled significant progress on this issue.

Posted by: Michael Heath | September 18, 2008 4:30 PM

91

The liberals among us deride the American lifestyle footprint and want to focus more on conservation,

Whereas despite my soldier status, I'm definitely one of the liberals among us, I deride the American lifestyle footprint mostly because we cannot seem to even attempt to curb our population growth and there is a finite amount of energy and space (in an ecological carrying capacity sense) in the system. Sooner or later the curve will start to flatten out, and that isn't going to be a pleasant time for anyone. So yeah, I tend to favor conservation.

Posted by: Josh | September 18, 2008 4:38 PM

93

Josh - and I respect your argument and agree your argument deserves a place at the table. However, my point was that the risk we run into when we conflate prescriptive arguments like yours with the actual theory is that the theory gets rejected when it shouldn't just because someone disagrees with you on what prescriptions we should take.

I love the fact that T. Boone Pickens has joined the debate on energy policy, it helps immensely motivate an increase of participants to the debate on energy that ignores climate change. Especially given the fact we can almost all agree we need to use less oil given our foreign policy challenges - though admittedly, Pickens isn't arguing we need to use less carbon-energy, like coal. Still, his presence is helping keep the issues disinctly segregated as they should be.

Posted by: Michael Heath | September 18, 2008 4:52 PM

95

The Earth has not ALWAYS been a cold, lifeless iceball. At some time in the past--before yesterday, but less than 6,000 years ago--it was a superheated (a bazillion degrees K) lifeless fireball.

I'm afraid that the foregoing is the sum of my climatological, cosmological and cosmetological knowledge. I hope it's shed some light on this vexing post.

A practical question for any CPA's out there.

I have a vast expanse of bare skin on the top of my head. I'm thinking about having a solar panel implanted on it, so that I can keep my pacemaker and other "installs" running smoothly if/when the "grid" fails. Does anyone know if this procedure would be covered by medicare--or whether I can get tax credits for it?

Posted by: democommie | September 19, 2008 8:53 AM

97

What this discussion about global climate change ignores the fact that we've been here before. Remember the argument over the relationship between cigarette smoking and lung cancer? Remember the argument over the effect of CFCs on ozone depletion in the stratosphere? Remember the argument over the relationship between HIV and AIDS? These past disputes sound very much like the current discussion about climate change, and all have subsequently been shown to be phony. I suspect that the Exxon-Mobil led dispute over global warming will turn out to be equally phony. In fact, some of the same actors are present. Thus Prof. Fred Singer, leading global warming denier, was also a leading smoking/cancer denier and a leading CFC/ozone denier.

Posted by: SLC | September 19, 2008 9:42 AM

99

The problem with these serial deniers (if I can use that phrase) is not the first word in the phrase but the second.
It works like this.
1. Scientists discover something.
2. The media get hold of it and hit the "hype" button.
3. Consevates grumble about this 'newfangled' idea.
4. The media reports the 'backlash'
5. Conservates react negatively this feeds back into the media.
6. Scientists try to explain the actual findings,
7. Onto the scene comes the serial denier, for maximum pulicity. He shouts "What is it that THEY aren't telling you?", pulls bogus facts from every oriface, and weasels, whines and wrings his hands when he is finally confrounded with actual data.
8. Finally craze wanes as a new shiny bauble comes into view.
Leaving nothing but an assortment of wingnuts behind.
[Repeat ad nausem]
How do we stop these redneck rousing chalaratans? Don't know, perhaps a steak through the heart? -DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | September 20, 2008 2:15 PM

101

Daniel - I predict it'll be a month later, but only for Republicans ;) - DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | August 3, 2009 1:26 AM