Now on ScienceBlogs: A study that oversells massage therapy
Thoughts From the Interface of Science, Religion, Law and Culture
Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media and the host of Declaring Independence, a one hour weekly political talk show on WPRR in Grand Rapids, Michigan.(static)
Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb
« From the Department of Homeland Hypocrisy | Main | Ilana Mercer Strikes Again »
Posted on: April 26, 2010 12:09 PM, by Ed Brayton
If you didn't think Glenn Beck could get any loopier, he's now claiming that God is giving him a plan to share with mankind. Which is rather amusing given that he is a Mormon and most evangelicals think Mormons are cult followers. Of course, Mormons have long claimed to get revelations from God. So have crazy people.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
PoliticsJason Rosenhouse 02.12.2012
Tim Lambert 02.01.2012
Orac 02.09.2012
ERV 11.26.2011
PZ Myers 02.12.2012
Comments
Is Glenn Beck the lost love child of Rev. Jim Jones? Because I'm seeing parallels between the two all the time.
But the real kicker of the above clip is that Beck used his "message from God" as a tease before cutting to commercial.
What a cynical fuck.
Posted by: CHV | April 26, 2010 12:12 PM
Actually, I think this is just a cover for what I suspect is his real belief, namely that he is god (or at least god's go-to stooge).
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | April 26, 2010 12:13 PM
Bek is going to have to contemplate on-air human sacrifice soon if he keeps going on this trajectory. Ailes may even need to reconsider his support in the face of the continuing crisis that is Glenn Bek.
Posted by: MikeMa | April 26, 2010 12:14 PM
I see mormons through a different lens since reading Jon Krakauer's excellent book Under the Banner of Heaven (Go check it out at your local public library!). To swallow a load of crap that big (The Book of Mormon), from a convicted con man (Joseph Smith) takes a suspension of disbelief way beyond the "mainstream" religious mythology. If you truly believe that crap, you are truly nuts. So Glen Beck certainly fits the mold.
Posted by: TGAP Dad | April 26, 2010 12:21 PM
He's also talking at Liberty (snigger) University soon.
Posted by: Naughtius Maximus | April 26, 2010 12:34 PM
I'm pretty sure that Mormons often talk like this at their meetings. It's standard form, and supposed to be a sign of meekness. Sounds like Beck is forgetting that he's not just surrounded by fellow believers: he's putting this out on the airwaves and allowing outsiders to see how his mind works. And from our perspective, it's arrogant whackaloonery.
Posted by: Sastra | April 26, 2010 12:34 PM
I have a theory that Glenn Beck doesn't believe a single word of what he says. Rather, he is an excellent, albiet cynical, performance artist. The problem with performance art is that you always have to be stepping up your game lest your schtick become prosaic.
Messages from God would definitely be a predictable evolution to the act, though I am not sure where he would go from there. Maybe no further than the bank.
Posted by: carlsonjok | April 26, 2010 12:41 PM
You've got it backwards.... God talks to Glen Beck! Glen can talk to god all he wants--it's the replies that make it "news."
Posted by: NancyNew | April 26, 2010 12:48 PM
While this may be standard rhetoric for Mormons, I wouldn't know, it is certainly standard and common rhetoric in the evangelical and fundamentalist community. In fact it's defining rhetoric where the only novelty is the application is to a political 'plan'. This helps validate Andrew Sullivan's point that the GOP is now a religious party.
The more interesting question is whether it will catch on and we'll see elected officials dive-in over their heads; President Bush, and Missus Palin and Bachmann have certainly waded.
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 26, 2010 12:55 PM
Glenn Beck is clearly looking to replace Liam Neeson as Col. John 'Hannibal' Smith in the second installment of "The A-Team" movie.
It's usually Murdock who finds God, is it not, but it would certainly be interesting to see Hannibal have "the plan" dictated to him by the big man.
No doubt, he'd still take credit for it when it goes well, of course.
Posted by: Damian | April 26, 2010 12:55 PM
Beck loves it when a plan comes together!
Posted by: D. C. | April 26, 2010 1:26 PM
Re carlsonjok @ #7
I don't know if Beck, the dreck, actually believes this crap but I do know he is laughing all the way to the bank.
Posted by: SLC | April 26, 2010 1:26 PM
The next step in Beck's con has got to be having a fit and going into the complete "speaking in tongues" bit. But only because stigmata is hard to fake on the radio.
Posted by: D. C. | April 26, 2010 1:43 PM
Liberals have one baby.
Mormons have 10 babies.
We can't amnesty illegals fast enough to compensate.
Get used to Mormon kids owning your future.
Posted by: administraitor | April 26, 2010 1:48 PM
Not another one.
Posted by: God | April 26, 2010 2:01 PM
Administraitor, your logic is flawed in numerous ways.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | April 26, 2010 2:07 PM
You have to love the implicit assumptions that the majority must oppress minorities, that humanity is inevitably destined to breed itself into Malthusian oblivion, and that the best we can hope for is for our in-group to enjoy a brief period of supremacy by making a greater contribution to our own self-destruction than other groups.
Posted by: DaveL | April 26, 2010 2:12 PM
Well, when he starts crying blood on his TV show, I think it's high time for a "60 Minutes" expose. Of course, Beck's followers will just dismiss it as a liberal media plot.
Posted by: gary l. day | April 26, 2010 2:21 PM
"Liberals have one baby. Mormons have 10 babies"
And of culture was passed down genetically that would mean something.
Posted by: Ericb | April 26, 2010 2:22 PM
All your base garment are belong to us!
Posted by: carlsonjok | April 26, 2010 2:22 PM
The Bach organ music in the background was particularly fitting in this clip. Hilarious.
Posted by: Grumpy | April 26, 2010 2:49 PM
Let all the Mormons have 10 kids. I bet at least half of them will realize their parents are insane.
I have met a lot of atheists here in Chicago who were raised in religious families. They became atheists after reading more of the Bible. I don't know about Mormons, but I think a lot of fundies don't read the whole Bible. Just a few parts over and over again.
Posted by: Blue Nine | April 26, 2010 2:53 PM
Beck in bed, late at night, to wife:
"It could only be a revelation from God! Look! Tin foil hat's still on!"
Posted by: Foggg | April 26, 2010 3:33 PM
carlsonjok: All your base garment are belong to us!
Thank you. Thank you. And all his base thought?
Posted by: cdrealist | April 26, 2010 4:25 PM
Two equally disturbing and scary possibilities:
1) Beck doesn't believe a word of it and is cynically making money exploiting gullible dupes who think he is an honest man of God exposing the corruption inherent in the system.
2) Beck honestly does believe every word of his show.
I haven't decided which of the two is the more terrifying prospect ... I'm leaning towards 2...
Posted by: dogmeatib | April 26, 2010 4:40 PM
Ed,
You've fallen prey to a logical fallacy:
As a Mormon who is also a rationalist, I find Glenn Beck's politics and posturing appalling. Not all (or even most) Mormons like him or follow him.
Oh, and #4: Under the Banner of Heaven is a very poor book for understanding Mormons and Mormonism. Krakauer gets much of his history and many of his facts wrong, and over-sensationalizes his subject matter.
Posted by: Mike Parker | April 26, 2010 4:51 PM
@ Mike Parker,
Regarding Under The Banner of Heaven, why should we take your word for it? Given the choice of Krakauer's account, which is heavily documented and researched, and yours (when I have no idea who you are, and the fact that you claim to be Mormon casts your objectivity in a questionable light), I'm certainly trusting the former.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | April 26, 2010 5:08 PM
Sadie #27: With regard to my faith supposedly reflecting on my objectivity, do yourself a favor and Google the phrase "ad hominem."
This site has started a comprehensive list of the errors and distortions in UtBoH: http://bit.ly/c1ngdy
You can also read a lengthy critical review of the book here: http://bit.ly/9lre6T
So you don't have to take my word for it.
Posted by: Mike Parker | April 26, 2010 5:23 PM
I might add that just because a book has been "heavily documented and researched" does not mean that the author's treatment of the subject reflects what his documentation shows. More than a few authors have written about history, filling their books with claims their footnotes don't support.
Krakauer has been criticized for being slippery with his facts in his other books, too. He's a sensationalistic journalist, not a historian.
Posted by: Mike Parker | April 26, 2010 5:33 PM
Dogmeat @ 25:
I have to go with #1.
I'm convinced that Beck knows his fans are just as gullible and stupid as we think they are, and he's playing them all like a cheap fiddle.
Posted by: CHV | April 26, 2010 5:34 PM
Mike Parker @ 23:
Then I'd say your development of your rationalist skills remains remedial at best. Exhibit A - Ed never "fell prey to a logical fallacy"; instead you misrepresent his point. Ed merely noted that Mr. Beck's claims of a revelation from God is both consistent with Mormonism and with some crazy people. Are you claiming either or both are untrue? Seems to me that the tenants of your religion as it differs from orthodox Christianity is based on claims of revelations from God to Joseph Smith and other leaders in your religion. We also know that some insane people also make claims of divine revelation.
Also, could you please square how one could self-identify as a rationalist and a Mormon unless one self-identifies as a cultural Mormon who rejects the veracity of its dogma and claims of revelation that extend beyond our current empirical understanding of reality? We have zero empirical evidence for the distinguishing tenants of Mormonism, those tenants are contra to all observed empirical evidence of reality, while we've also falsified some claims by its leaders that were supposedly divinely received, e.g., Mormon claims about the origins of indigenous Americans which has been falsified by DNA evidence.
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 26, 2010 5:50 PM
Mike....
"As a Mormon who is also a rationalist"
You can't put those together like that...
And as an ex-mormon, your complaints about under the banner are bullshit
Posted by: shane | April 26, 2010 6:09 PM
@ Heath,
I get the sense that Parker used the phrase "Mormon rationalist" as a sort of get-out-of-jail free card. In fact, it's as good an example of word salad as any I've seen.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | April 26, 2010 6:11 PM
DC #13:
We could assist him along those lines by sending him a bag of snakes.
Posted by: ChicagoMolly | April 26, 2010 6:16 PM
A Mormon talking with Dog?
Hardly credible.
Now if Beck were a Scientologist...
Posted by: Rob Jase | April 26, 2010 6:19 PM
Michael Heath #31: I self-identify as a rationalist and a Mormon because I simultaneously believe in science and faith, and do not believe they are incompatible.
Your sweeping generalization of "zero empirical evidence for the distinguishing tenants of Mormonism" misses the point. Many aspects of faith are not discovered through scientific study, just as science doesn't answer philosophical questions. One can, as I do, believe in a 4.6 billion year-old earth and evolution as the reason for the diversity of life on earth, and also simultaneously believe in a divine creator who sometimes communicates with humans, because the former is based on scientific study and the latter by subjective personal experience. The trick is not to confuse the two, as many do on both sides of the spectrum — rejecting science because it denies belief, or rejecting faith because it denies evidence, when neither are required to accept the other.
Your description of the claims of the Book of Mormon regarding the origin of indigenous Americans demonstrates that you know nothing of the subject beyond the simplistic issues raised in the popular media. Your experience is not unlike a fundamentalist Christian reading a Discovery Institute pamphlet and then declaring evolution false. The Book of Mormon makes no claims to be a history of all (or even most) Native Americans; the fact that many Mormons have misinterpreted it to say so doesn't change that. See http://bit.ly/dc7sSc
Posted by: Mike Parker | April 26, 2010 6:20 PM
Posted by: WScott | April 26, 2010 6:35 PM
Michael Heath @ 31:
"tenants," really? :-P)
Posted by: Bob Carroll | April 26, 2010 6:48 PM
Mike Parker
Joseph Smith was a con man according to many sources. He used religion like L Ron Hubbard did, to make money and hold power over others. If his teachings are what you revere, science and evidence do not mean what you think they mean.
I find similar reasons to condemn catholicism. Popes & cardinals fornicating in one room while admonishing others to abstain. Judaism has burning bushes and plagues. Islam degrades women. Hypocrites and charlatans.
Posted by: MikeMa | April 26, 2010 7:33 PM
Mike Parker @ 36 states:
Well, we'll see won't we.
Mike Parker @ 36 states:
Correct and perfectly irrelevant. My point was and remains in spite of your avoidance that Mormonism makes objective truth claims:
a) for which there is no empirical evidence
b) all empirical and validated observations by humanity to date reveal no veracity to distinguishing Mormon faith claims.
c) we've falsified some of its faith claims.
Mike Parker @ 36 states:
Ah, moving the goal posts and avoiding my point. I was specific in not pointing out your irrationalism if you are a religiously devout Mormon was based not on some general precepts common to most religions, but instead on specific Mormon claims that haven't been empirically validated or falsified.
However, your point is still fatally flawed. Certainly people have faith their personal experiences with the divine are objectively true, but that is certainly also not rational given that science had repeatedly demonstrated that our personal observations are frequently flawed, e.g., a primitive perception the earth is flat. The only known method discovered capable of validating the veracity of an empirical claim is the scientific method, and to date there is zero evidence anyone has interfaced with a divine being coupled to the fact there are far more parsimonious explanations that don't require creating a divine being where zero evidence exists for one. Faith certainly, but rational? Not even close.
Mike Parker @ 36 states:
I think the only one being tricked here is you. I'm perfectly cognizant that science has repeatedly allowed humanity to advance our understanding of reality towards objective truth while faith has yet to score even one victory, its a collection mere claims and arguments in continual retreat to science; in a context where many religious claims have been falsified and none of which have been verified by faith nor could they be. You seem to be under the illusion that faith can move one towards truth while all of religion fails to provide even one independently validated example of such.
Mike Parker @ 36 states:
Actually I get my news on such matters from peer-reviewed science articles, such as this one noting that the origin of Jews while indigenous Americans predate Judaism by tens of thousands of years and whose origins come from the Far East, not the Middle East which has also been validated by variances in DNA.
Your link as a citation is absurd, it's word salad that avoids citing its own scriptures while completely avoiding the citation peer-reviewed work on origins but instead citing Mormon apologia as a source rather than peer-reviewed work that's been independently validated.
It's also imperative to point out my larger point where I attempted to point out that Mormon dogma makes truth claims some of which has been falsified. Are you claiming no Mormon dogma has been falsified? Certainly I'll concede my illuminating example (and find another) if your relevant scriptures are presented along with empirical evidence refuting my point, but right now its my understanding that Mormon dogma describes the existence of tribes in America which predate European colonization and who are part of the tribe of Abraham. Is that description wrong? Because our understanding of the origins of indigenous Americans easily predate Abraham and don't come from the Middle East but instead the Far East.
I noticed you avoided addressing my primary point, your claim that you are rationalist while irrationally getting Ed's points perfectly wrong. Rationalists tend to value their demonstrated integrity and are quick to concede when proven wrong, especially when dishonestly criticizing another like you did to Ed in your first comment post.
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 26, 2010 7:44 PM
So, if no one buys it, will Gawd call Beck home? And lets go completely to the other side here, of the conversation, assuming that there is a deity out there, some sort of disincarnate, uber-spirit, why is it, that every whackadoo out there becomes convinced that any message from the great beyond was meant not just for themselves, but in fact must be inflicted on the rest of humanity?
If ever there was a passive aggressive powergrab, this is probably the oldest and the favored.
Posted by: seeing eye chick | April 26, 2010 7:46 PM
According to the Pew Forum, only 21% of Mormon families contain 3 or more children.
Posted by: James Hanley | April 26, 2010 8:08 PM
Mike Parker raves:
Actually, no aspect of faith is discovered through scientific study given that faith is belief without evidence and quite often belief in the overwhelming presence of contrary evidence.
And science quite handily answers any question that is amenable to evidence based inquiry and that includes philosophical questions.
Rational Mormon has a somewhat oxymoronic (or would that be oxymormonic ?) cadence to it.
Posted by: steve oberski | April 26, 2010 8:09 PM
I think there needs to be a case answered as to why people who say 'god speaks to me' or similar phrases aren't treated for schizophrenia or similar. It's that simple.
Posted by: Truism | April 26, 2010 8:13 PM
Reminds of that old joke book title:
The Schizophrenics Story: The Unauthorized Autobiography
Posted by: steve oberski | April 26, 2010 8:21 PM
maybe it's a typo. really meant MORON
Posted by: pepe | April 26, 2010 8:58 PM
Glenn Beck himself shouldn't be taken too seriously, only the effect he has on other people. Beck is just an entertainer, like Huckabee, Limbaugh, and many others. Forbes Magazine has it right, I think, in their article:
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0426/entertainment-fox-news-simon-schuster-glenn-beck-inc.html
"I don't necessarily believe that [what Beck says] is reflective of his own personal politics--I don't even know if he has personal politics," says Michael Harrison, publisher of Talkers, a trade magazine devoted to talk radio. "I see him as a performer."
Don't react in the way that he wants, react to what he is.
Posted by: Scott | April 26, 2010 9:45 PM
The new spiecies of primate is found, named Glennus Beckus. It is know for randomly throwing it's own feces in confined spaces.
Posted by: Caddisfly | April 26, 2010 10:04 PM
It won't be Mormon hoards coming down out of canada....it will islamic hoardes.
Posted by: thyrymn | April 26, 2010 10:47 PM
I thought Beck had gone beyond the pale long ago. Obviously my thinking is limited.
Posted by: John Roberts | April 27, 2010 12:34 AM
DC @13:
Mormons don't speak in tongues. That's the Assembly of God types, whose preachers get all "shalala, hibity hibity" during their sermons. Funny thing is, they all speak the same "tongue," no matter who they are.
Of course, if Beck really is unhinged, he could start babbling nonsense syllables any day now, and his faithful followers would claim it as a message from God.
Posted by: wheatdogg | April 27, 2010 1:42 AM
Good lord, here's another lunatic. thyrymn warns us that Muslim hoardes (a misspelling, but surely you mean hordes and not hoards) will be invading from Canada.
What are they going to do, polite us to death? They may be Muslims, but they're also Canadians, for pete's sake. Check out Little Mosque on the Prairie, dude. Besides, Muslim birthrates are declining in developed countries. After this last wave of Muslim immigration is assimilated, we can expect the Canadian birthrate for Muslims to approximate that of other Canadians. Don't believe me? Well, what's the birthrate for Irish-Americans (another greatly reviled immigrant group, in its time) now? And that's even after you factor in their predominant Catholicism!
Oh, and Administrator, I have four children, and I'm a liberal. The Mormon birthrate is going down -- or haven't you heard?
Posted by: Leigh Williams | April 27, 2010 3:45 AM
Mike Parker,
As an ex-Mormon I have empathy for your predicament. My early LDS faith came in conflict with the my developing reason and love of science in my youth.
I doubt Michael Heath's garrulous and condescending assault on religious belief in general, and Mormonism in particular, will inspire you to initiate a skeptical investigation of the factual foundations of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It is more likely to cause you to feel personally insulted and defensive.
That's too bad, because although Heath's words are blunt they do reflect the reality of your situation. My parents converted to LDS when I was a small child. They were fervent believers and very active in the Mormon church for over twenty years.
I rejected the faith when I was a teenager and faced the stern disapproval of my family and the opprobrium of my LDS peers. My parents, after years of investigation and prayer, came to realize that the church was a grand edifice built on the obscure scribblings of a 19th century con-man.
While they couldn't let go entirely of religious belief they at least fell back on the more difficult to disprove theology of standard issue protestantism, it's greater antiquity and ubiquity in western culture fortifying it against easy dismissal.
Mormonism is far less resilient to honest and impartial scrutiny. If you truly are a rational thinker this will become obvious to you with a reasonable amount of effort.
The question is are you ready to face the possibility that your faith and reason are incompatible? This isn't meant as an insult or provocation. There are very real consequences, both social and emotional, to abandoning religious faith especially one as interwoven into the cultural and social fabric as Mormonism.
I can't tell you that it will be easy, but I can tell you that there is great personal and intellectual freedom that comes with cutting away the safety net of religious belief, especially one as rationally discordant as Mormonism.
Posted by: Lance | April 27, 2010 5:25 AM
Oh, and one more thing.
If you think Michael Heath's replies were rambling, spiteful and personally offensive, for Chrissakes don't mention climate change!
Posted by: Lance | April 27, 2010 5:44 AM
Mike Parker says: and also simultaneously believe in a divine creator who sometimes communicates with humans, because the former is based on scientific study and the latter by subjective personal experience.
It's a rare thing on these blogs when believers admit the real evidence that keeps them believing. (Albeit in a roundabout way.) Yep, that's right. The best evidence for belief is the invisible friends they talk to all the time. Good luck getting some of yer fancier shmancier intellectual theists with their big fancy smancy arguments and words to admit it though.
Posted by: 386sx | April 27, 2010 5:55 AM
OK, I watched the video and if that guy talks to God then I feel sorry for God.
I do want to know what The Plan is though, or is he saving that till Dan Brown's publisher gets back to him?
Posted by: Matty | April 27, 2010 6:26 AM
Sadie #27: With regard to my faith supposedly reflecting on my objectivity, do yourself a favor and Google the phrase "ad hominem."
Opp!! There they are! It's the ad hominem police! They gonna getcha!
Never, ever, question the objectivity of people who have vested interests in errr subjective stuff. Especially the faithful. They gonna getcha! © Teh Ad Hominem Squad ®
Posted by: 386sx | April 27, 2010 6:40 AM
Dude whatever you do when talking with Michael Heath, don't mention Liverpool. (Long story.) Don't do it I'm serious. (That and don't say "Rosebud".) Dude I'm serious.
Posted by: 386sx | April 27, 2010 6:56 AM
Lance stated to Mike Parker:
Mike Parker - Lance is an anthropogenic global warming denialist who primarily bases his position on arguments of both ignorance and personal incredulity. Of course that scientifically illiterate and illogical position doesn't go over well with anyone in this ScienceBlog forum. He's a denialist and not a skeptic since he hasn't even made the effort to adequately study the basic science of climate change and climate scientists' findings prior to disputing what climatologists understand. In addition he advocates his elected officials trust him and not enact policies to remediate warming in spite of the nearly universal community of climate scientists' peer-accepted findings, him not being a climate scientist, and not understanding even the elementary precepts of the science and its findings.
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 27, 2010 7:10 AM
Oh and don't mention having his own blog either. All hell breaks loose and teh crazy gets out. Oh, and try and keep him out of sunlight too. Try to keep him in the shade and stuff. Don't let him smell garlic either. I'm serious dude.
Posted by: 386sx | April 27, 2010 7:27 AM
And don't ever--ever--mention waffles to Michael Heath. Only Ed Brayton, so the legend goes, knows the real story, but apparently the last time someone offered Michael Heath a waffle, dozens died, and dozens more are still receiving physical and psychological therapy. All of Michigan still trembles at the memory of the great Waffle House tragedy.
Posted by: James Hanley | April 27, 2010 8:03 AM
James - you refer to a buddy of mine, not me though everyone should have at least one after-hours diner story.
Mine was in 1986; fortunately I was studying Environmental Science at Michigan State and therefore am able to explain the events that went down one tragic night.
It all started with the proprietor of a favorite East Lansing after-hours diner The Dog Pound deciding to run for the Michigan legislature. He was young and idealistic and decided to define his elderly incumbent opponent as a crony. Transparency was his mantra, and to illuminate his slogan he decided one early Saturday morning around 3 a.m. to up the candlepower of the lights in his diner. Well, I don’t think one set of beer goggles survived the explosion, which acted as an effective ignition mechanism leading to a chemical reaction of green chili burritos and chili fries too horrifying to describe further. Someone opened the door and the methane bubble disappeared into the atmosphere, along with a gaggle of petite high school cheerleaders who had snuck away from their chaperones. A couple of years later Al Gore swore he could see the evidence in an Antarctica ice core sample.
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 27, 2010 8:33 AM
Mike Parker:
While I don't find Mr. Heath's comments re: your idiotic fixation with an invisible skyfairy, daddy bff to be garrulous or condescending I can see where a narrow minded pinhead like yourself or Lance might.
I don't think there are any muslim or mormon hoards/hordes gonna be comin' to git us, but just in case they do...
for the muslim hoardess:
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a dishdasha and carrying a scimitar."
For the LSD morons:
"When fascism comes to America, it will be 6'8" tall, wrapped in Joe Smith's magic underoos and riding a bike."
I hope this has not been too garrulous, condescending or personally insulting--I always save that for the like of mroberts.
BTW, Lance, I was talking to Gaia recently and she, while channeling Dorothy Hamilton--in her defining role as the Wicked Witch in the "Wizard of Oz", said, "I'm melting, I'm melting!...".
AGW is a fact, unlike most of the information disseminated by its deniers.
Posted by: democommie | April 27, 2010 8:37 AM
I imagine this sort of conversation between Mr. Bek and GOD (with apologies to the writers, director, cast and crew of "The Big Lebowski").
G. Bek: "Hey, GOD, did you know that the liebralofascist are going to bankrupt our nation, open it's borders to heathen messicans and other sortabrown's, defile our wimmens and steal my bike!?"
GOD: "Shut the fuck up, Glennie, You're out of your element.
GB: "God, are these men, "Nazis"?
G: "No, Glennie, they're islamopinkoliebraltehGAYisthomophilofascists. They won't be a problem."
GB: "Are they going to hurt us, GOD"?
G: "No, Glennie, they aren't going to hurt us. Now, SHUT THE FUCK UP--0R I'LL SMITE YOUR ASS!
Whoops, I almost forgot, fuk Glenn Bek, that fuking fuker.
Posted by: democommie | April 27, 2010 9:09 AM
Michael Heath
Breakfast is a little less sanguine this morning imagining that cloud.
Posted by: MikeMa | April 27, 2010 9:15 AM
But feel free to tell Mr. Heath that Metallica has sucked since the Black Album.
Posted by: Savagemutt | April 27, 2010 9:31 AM
Michael,
Sure, repeat the same old cover story you've been using for years to hide the truth. How come this mysterious "buddy" of yours has never been publicly identified, eh? All we want is the truth, Mr. Heath!
Posted by: James Hanley | April 27, 2010 9:59 AM
Savagemutt @ 66:
Do you think AC/DC has sucked since Back in Black?
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 27, 2010 10:05 AM
We'll be right back after this word....from todays sponsor the Lord Jesus Christ. lol, what a nutcase.
Posted by: Nightporter | April 27, 2010 10:12 AM
Yo Heath,
Thin skin much?
You respond to a joke about your hair trigger sensitivity to any mention of climate change with ... wait for it... a humorless knee jerk personal attack on me about climate change.
I guess you were inline for an extra helping of self-importance when they handed out senses of humor.
James Hanley,
Mmmmmm waffles.
Posted by: Lance | April 27, 2010 11:58 AM
Lance,
When you've contributed anywhere near as much to the intellectual debate on this blog as Michael Heath, maybe then you'll have earned the right to be such a prick.
Posted by: James Hanley | April 27, 2010 12:24 PM
Lance @ 70 states:
I suggest better material so people know when your joking about your denialism and when you're instead seriously advocating it.
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 27, 2010 12:52 PM
Et tu, James Hanley?
Is Heath so sacrosanct a figure here that even a mild humorous jab requires such rebuke?
Oh, and I've been called a prick by better than you, I'll have you know.
Posted by: Lance | April 27, 2010 12:55 PM
Micheal Heath,
Internet blogs posts are sometimes difficult instruments for conveying the intent, tone and inflection required to impart humor. I actually thought about putting a "smiley" at the end of the post but find them moronically distasteful.
Oh, and "denialism" isn't a word, although it is a repugnant personal insult.
There is certainly no doubt that your posts here at Dispatches are well reasoned and erudite. That doesn't mean you are infallible or that you are exempt from treating people with common courtesy and respect.
Your people skills are worse than mine and that, sadly, is a very low threshold. Still some of my closest friends thought I was a rip roaring a-hole when they first encountered me so who knows.
Posted by: Lance | April 27, 2010 1:09 PM
Lance,
"Mild humorous jab?" A jab? No doubt. Mild? Yes and presumably the best you can do. But humorous? You know Ed is a former standup comedian, right? Perhaps he'll offer you a few pointers.
Re: Denialism isn't a word. Nice display of linguistic illiteracy. Are you familiar with that old phrase, "shooting oneself in the foot"?
Re: "I've been called a prick by better than you." Of course you have no basis for asserting such a claim, as you don't actually know me. But I can assure you that the claim cannot stand, for the most obvious of reasons.
Posted by: James Hanley | April 27, 2010 2:24 PM
James Hanley,
Way to take a self-deprecating remark designed to diffuse the situation and turn it into an escalating retort.
You apparently can’t even let me take a joke.
Posted by: Lance | April 27, 2010 5:54 PM
Lance,
Now who's being humorless? Why on earth would I settle for letting you take a joke when I can add one on top of it? It's much more fun (for me, which is all I really care about) that way.
Posted by: James Hanley | April 27, 2010 7:13 PM
OK, sorry.
Posted by: Lance | April 27, 2010 10:48 PM
HEY!
You, madam, obviously know nothing of my country. We're not really that polite. We're PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE. Even if we invade we'll make you feel real bad for getting angry at us.
Lance: "Denialism" is not only a word, it is a ScienceBlog.
Posted by: KristinMH | April 28, 2010 5:38 AM
Lance - I found this and thought it might help.
You're welcome! - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | April 28, 2010 5:55 AM
I am a Mormon who cannot stand Glenn Beck. Mormons believe that they can receive personal revelation for decisions in their own lives, but that our prophet is the only person who can receive revelation to guide other people. Glenn Beck is going against the Mormon religion when he says God is giving him a plan for all mankind.
Posted by: Hilary | April 28, 2010 4:04 PM
I am a Mormon who cannot stand Glenn Beck.
Thank you for being sane.
Mormons believe that they can receive personal revelation for decisions in their own lives, but that our prophet is the only person who can receive revelation to guide other people.
Sounds like a good rule. I wish they had that in baseball.
Glenn Beck is going against the Mormon religion when he says God is giving him a plan for all mankind.
Well maybe not Glenn Beck's Mormon religion. But yeah, I will take you at your word that it is against yours. You do have to admit though that it is difficult to know who's talking to God and who isn't. I mean, even if it is against a religion, maybe God would be against it too, and still be talking to Mr. Beck. It's difficult to know for sure.
Posted by: 386sx | April 28, 2010 4:34 PM
I mean, even if it is against a religion, maybe God would be against it too,
Hey Hilary, there are religions that God doesn't like, right? Well put yourself in their place for a second and imagine you're one of the religions God doesn't like. Now you're completely unaware that God doesn't like it, just like the real ones that God doesn't like. It's hard to know for sure if you're a religion that God likes or not. Well maybe God likes Glenn Beck's religion but he doesn't like yours.
Maybe that's the way it really is, except you're just not aware of it. Let's have God weigh in on it so we know for sure. Let's see what God has to say so we all know for sure what the right religion is:
*chirp* *chirp* *chirp* *chirp* *chirp* *chirp* *chirp*
Hey, does anybody know how to speak cricket? Oh well... I guess we'll never know...
Posted by: 386sx | April 28, 2010 9:09 PM
Let's see what God has to say so we all know for sure what the right religion is:
Oh, I forgot to cover all the bases and ask God if God even likes any religions at all. Maybe God doesn't even want any religions. Let's ask:
*chirp* *chirp* *chirp* *chirp* *chirp* *chirp* *chirp*
Oh well...
Posted by: 386sx | April 28, 2010 10:03 PM
Dingo and KristinMH,
Try finding the word in an actual dictionary. Wikipedia is a joke. I know the meaning of the slang term denialism, just as I know the meaning of the slang term fuckstick. Neither are real words but both are used to make juvenile insults.
Also I have posted many times over at the brothers Hoofnagles dreary little smear blog.
Posted by: Lance | April 28, 2010 10:58 PM
Lance,
Read up on the distinction between descriptive and prescriptive approaches to linguistics. You're following a prescriptive approach. "It's not a real word--it hasn't been approved by the proper authorities." While as a good Burkean I'm thankful for some curmudgeonly prescriptivists to stand astride the ever-shifting world of linguistics pleading, "stop," I ultimately have to side with the descriptivists. If people use it, and others understand it, it's a word. Fuckstick is a word. When you say it, almost everyone (except perhaps my mom, and probably even she could figure it out, given a little time) knows what it means. Denialism is probably less commonly recognized than fuckstick, but it's certainly more commonly understood these days than jumentous.
If you're more comfortable with it, we can just call them neologisms. Then it can be sort of like the debate over Pluto. Are these actually deserving of the status of words, or not quite, at least not yet.
Posted by: James Hanley | April 28, 2010 11:06 PM
By the way, Lance, how dare you condemn juvenile insults! Where's your inner Beavis? You just know he'd be walking around muttering "fuckstick, heh heh, fuckstick, hah, uh, yeah, fuckstick" nonstop, if only the MTV censors had let him. And that's more or less my inner dialogue most of the time. ("Heh, heh, I said 'log.' Hah. That's pretty cool. Log. Looooog. Log! Uh, where was I? Oh, yeah, heh heh, fuckstick!)
Posted by: James Hanley | April 28, 2010 11:11 PM
Yeah, I am self-contradictory amalgam of anti-authoritarian schismatic and obsessive compulsive perfectionist.
I want to let my hair down and go with the MLA's "if people use it, it's a word" freedom but my inner math teacher recoils when I hear people pronounce the word height as hieghth.
Remember math is a language and where would we be if we just said "Well a bunch of people keep writing the Pythagorean theorem A^2 + B^2 = C" so who are we to say what it really means? I wouldn't want to fly in any jetliners made by engineers trained to be less "rigid" about those stuffy laws of physics.
I guess my left-brain is more cranky than my right-brain.
Oh and I love Beavis and Butt-head. "Huhuh Huhuh" "FIRE! FIRE!"
Excuse me. I need to get some TP for my butthole.
Posted by: The Great Cornholio | April 29, 2010 12:28 AM
Cornholio, what would happen if, say, a Da Vinci, or a Van Gogh, were rigid with their brushes? Just saying! The descriptivists are the painters of canvasses, and the prescriptivists are the painters of bridges. The world would be a lesser place indeed, without them both.
Posted by: 386sx | April 29, 2010 5:13 AM
386sx,
True.
Like so many things in life, tension between two extremes brings utility and beauty.
Steel and silk
Socrates and Plato
Lennon and McCartney
Great taste, less filling
Posted by: Lance | April 29, 2010 5:57 AM
I use the word denialist or some form of it to distinguish certain behavior from skepticism or contrarianism. My understanding of the appropriate use of skepticism is that it describes a range of being uninformed to informed while suspicious though not in outright rejection. I understand contrarianism to be informed but in opposition to the consensus.
Denialists instead reject both the consensus and the validated empirical facts and findings while demonstrating they are also uninformed about that which they reject - that is exactly what Lance repeatedly demonstrates in his rejection of the scientific consensus regarding climate change and AGW, e.g., his argument that temp. trend is the "only relevant observed fact" when it comes to the appropriate scientific concerns regarding AGW. That is perhaps the most arrogantly uninformed position I've ever encountered by a commenter in this forum regarding AGW except from mroberts and a mere handful of others acting as trolls (and I don't perceive Lance as a troll).
I've never used it be juvenile but instead appropriately descriptive; in fact I provided a reading list to Lance to help him get up to speed on the basic physics, the observations and findings, and how climate scientists understand those findings prior to rejecting that which he demonstrably does not understand or even realizes is a concern. For example, that human generated emissions of greenhouse gasses don't merely show up in the temp. record but some of those gasses are also stored in carbon sinks and already have and will continue to result in increased warming in the future per current observations along with observations of the paleoclimate record. That fact falsifies his argument that the ave. annual increase in temp. averaged from 1880 to now is the only relevant fact and which only he calculates. Climate scientists instead use a running average for this period to more heavily weight more recent temp. trends and which shows an increasing rate of temp. increase and an average increase 3X of what Lance argues is occurring. These are facts which I repeatedly pointed out to Lance in the thread linked to in this comment.
I also didn't invent these words but instead adopted it after seeing them repeatedly used by scientists explaining when a particular scientific opponent is both demonstrably wrong and uninformed regarding their objections to the consensus view. The two most common areas being creationism and where I originally found it used, climate change denialism. Richard Dawkins spends a significant chunk of time in his latest book The Greatest Show on Earth arguing we should start describing creationists as history deniers. I have not adopted his admonition since I'm not a leader in the scientific community, but instead a respectful student, so I'll follow, not lead and so far that use is not pervasive.
James Hansen chose to not use the denialist term in his book Storms of My Grandchildren, for example when defining the differences between his predictions and Richard Lindzen's. Instead he called Mr. Lindzen and his type contrarians or skeptics. However I find that inaccurate given that Mr. Lindzen's objections are based on a dishonest, falsified rendering of observations, which he did once again in a WSJ piece just the other day.
Therefore my use and I believe others' use of the term denialist or denialism is largely used to protect the term skepticism from being considered a negative attribute, where it instead is both a valued and honored approach to thinking within the scientific community. Both science and the realm of scholars often cringe given how the precise definitions of theory (in the scientific sense) and myth have been mutated in the public square to the point that the general public becomes ever less capable of even appreciating the content that follows these descriptors, myth so much so it's not considered a lie when in fact we have much to learn in many myths. So I find their use of denialists and denialism both appropriate and precise and stand behind my use of it with Lance as well.
The best way to shake off the label Lance is to become informed and make arguments about AGW within the context of being informed, either supportive or in rejection of the consensus. Making repeated arguments from ignorance and personal incredulity while avoiding peer-reviewed findings only reinforces the appropriateness of their use to describe your opposition and you.
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 29, 2010 6:25 AM
Hey, who is that guy? He's a butthole. The Great Cornholio needs TP for his bunghole. Heh heh, buuunnnggghooolll. Heh heh.
Posted by: The Real Great Cornholio | April 29, 2010 9:45 AM
Bunghole, Heh heh,
Posted by: Lance | April 29, 2010 12:18 PM
Michael Heath,
First, you must have a lot of extra time on your hands.
Second, your "reading list" consisted of alarmist books compiled by the less than credible folks at RealClimate and James Hansen's over the top doomsday fantasy screed Storms of My Grandchildren.
I used to visit RealClimate and post occasionally until I realized it was just a mouthpiece for Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt and a few of their buddies. If you really believe that it is an independent unbiased source of scientific information I would suggest you reconsider.
You suggested I "lay off" the "denialist" websites. Well I visit a great variety of websites on the topic of climate change. You seem to be spending too much time at DeSmogBlog and Joe Romm's pathetically political ClimateProgress.
ClimateProgress has this banner on its homepage "A project of the American Center for American Progress Fund". DeSmogBlog is also a political advocacy site.
I enjoy discussing the science with people that really wish to discuss science. I do not however enjoy trading insults with ideologues.
You have taken a very confrontational tone during our conversations. I get the distinct impression that you have already made up your mind on the science and are intensely focused on policy issues to address what you consider to be a grave situation.
Another disrespectful annoyance is that your posts are never addressed to me but refer to me in the third person, as if I were an exhibit to which you are referring in a statement to a jury.
If you are really interested in a respectful interaction on the subject I hope you will take what I have said into account.
You are obviously an educated and intelligent person. I have no doubt that I could benefit from discussing the topic with you if your intention was actually to discuss the issue and not to discredit me as a person, which is the purpose of the word "denialist".
Posted by: Lance | April 29, 2010 2:01 PM
Lance @ 94 states:
Dr. Hansen's knowledge of climate physics and plethora of his publications that's become peer-accepted findings distinguishes him in his field. In addition, Dr. Hansen and the rest of the scientists at GISS deserve praise of their stellar work in creating a trusted source of global temp. calculations that continue to survive scrutiny and which they continue to scrutinize themself (they're currently retesting the validity of the models now in spite of the fact two independent studies have recently validated their findings though those were in subsets of the calculations focused on rural areas in China and the urban heat island challenge).
He also does an excellent job in his book of distinguishing between what science collectively accepts and his own hypotheses in that book which are not peer-accepted though considered and certainly not falsified or discredited. If you had read his book you wouldn't have repeatedly embarrassed yourself with repeated arguments from ignorance or personal incredulity where even the basic physics falsified your arguments (e.g., that only global temp. trends matter). If you believe his work or his presentation of the peer-accepted findings is dishonest, you failed miserably to date to refute it.
I've been following him now for at least 10 or so years. In all that time I've learned is that while he's aggressive in his arguments where we'll end up, the science that comes continues to validate where he expected it to end up. However I am not exclusively focused on James Hansen, instead I focus primarily on no one scientist but instead on the near daily peer-reviewed articles that are published in ScienceDaily.com and other sites, the bodies that focus on specific areas, e.g., the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), and synthesis reports like the IPCC and Copenhagen reports.
In addition, as a regular reader of RealClimate.org, I am not cognizant of their misconstruing the science. In fact what I've primarily learned there are expositions by publishing climate scientists on peer-reviewed work, both tutorials of the science and why the community of climate scientists reject some research while accepting others. They've also done an outstanding job of documenting the absurdity of denialists, nearly all of which is never peer-reviewed work, but instead blog posts or media reports that continuously misrepresent publishing scientists' work.
If you want to avoid the scientific perspective, than ignore RealClimate.org. If you care about the scientific perspective than I recommend them. Do you have a superior suggestion?
Lance @ 94 states:
I never claimed it was an independent unbiased source of scientific information. As I've repeatedly stated, I rely on what is peer-accepted and the drip, drip of peer-reviewed articles that come out near-daily. I have been able to better inform myself far better than you've demonstrated by seeking out RealClimate's perspective. In addition, I've repeatedly seen some peer-reviewed work fail to resonate in the community with RealClimate.org explaining why in a way I'm unqualified to assess without help from a climate scientist's perspective, such as the work that should never have been published that made the team at the CRU reluctant to continue working with them given their continued misrepresentation of both the data and other scientists' work.
Lance @ 94 states:
Neither was on my reading list. DeSmogBlog is a site I've rarely visited. My link to ClimateProgress in a comment rebuttal was the result of a google search where I preferred Dr. Romm's blog post merely because it contained multiple peer-reviewed articles on the same topic (threats to Rocky Mtn. conifers) which allowed me to provide more citations in this forum that limits us to two links per comment post.
I have heard Dr. Romm speak and he turns me off given his uber-stridency. I've never purchased his books nor do I recommend them, including to you. I do visit his site and find it a valuable resource in linking to scientific findings having to do with climate science and a resource on debates around policies. I've never encountered a blogger who uses so many worthy citations and its those citations that keep me coming back.
I am perfectly aware of the fact unlike RealClimate.org, Dr. Romm will avoid those scientific findings or scholarly papers that don't help his mission. However I'm comfortable I have the demonstrated critical thinking skills to not rely on his personal opinions, which I rarely even read, or his commenters. Instead and again, he provides a wealth of citations. In fact if I were quizzed on Dr. Romm's policy prescription positions I'd flunk with the exception I'm aware that he's skeptical clean coal is a viable solution. But when it comes to nuclear, conservation, natural gas; I have no idea.
I noticed you didn't respond to my primary recommendations for getting yourself up to speed on the science:
Archer and Rahmstorf's introduction: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/our-books/
and ScienceDaily.com, which provides the PR or PR-like content from peer-reviewed journals.
If all you had done was get a elementary education in the physics of climate and read ScienceDaily.com regularly so you were up to date on discoveries, you wouldn't have had me repeatedly falsifying your personal arguments with peer-accepted findings.
Lance @ 94 states:
And Lance, I've repeatedly demonstrated you are uninformed about the science yet you challenge it. If you go back and read our exchange you'll find I did my best to limit my arguments solely to peer-accepted findings to buttress my position and peer-reviewed findings to illuminate my points while your arguments were almost exclusively personal where you also failed to even once discredit or falsify one of the findings I presented. So I would argue that the evidence you've provided in this forum argues you prefer having exchanges with fellow denialists or with people who lean towards the scientific consensus but are not informed enough on the science to point to the falsity of your personal arguments as revealed by the body of published findings.
Lance @ 94 states:
I would love to have someone score our exchanges for whose were limited to the empirical facts and who instead revealed arguments in defense of an ideology. I would love to see that analysis.
Lance @ 94 states:
When people make dishonest arguments I do, I think we should condemn or ostracize those who make dishonest arguments. With you it was repeated arguments against peer-accepted work where it was clearly evident you didn't even take the time and do the work of first understanding the claims you sought to not just discredit, but advocate your elected officials ignore in spite of it being confidently held by the community of climate scientists, catastrophic if their predictions come true, no scientific evidence they're wildly wrong, and your being woefully uninformed yet still fiercely advocating we ignore. Yes, that will rile me up.
I thrive on dissent and thoroughly enjoy seeking opinions contra to my own. Hell, I'm a moderate, a proud Reaganite though never a conservative, who belonged to the Republican party for 29 years until they nominated Ms. Palin, and who takes economic positions far to the right of most people in this forum. And yet because the liberals and libertarians in this forum are educated and honest, I thoroughly enjoy their differing perspective. Lance, there's two kinds of dishonesty rampant in your posts about climate change:
1) You've made repeated false assertions many of which I fisked with peer-reviewed findings.
2) You pose as someone whose adequately informed enough to take a position contra to the community of climate scientists. However as anyone whose well-informed on the physics and findings of climate science could discern from our debate, your pose is not backed with up the type of understanding one gets from someone whose educated in the science.
I was heartened late in that blog posts thread that you were at least looking at the IPCC report given that at the start of the thread you demonstrated no cognizance that certain types of those findings even existed and that climate scientists take seriously beyond global temp. trends.
I'm not seeking out woefully uninformed denialists to bully into submission. I am trying to shame those I come into contact with to get themselves educated prior to taking a contrarian position, anything less is fundamentally dishonest. I don't reject string theory simply because I'm not well-informed enough to reject such, that's all I'm asking out of you (I mention this because I'm currently studying it and having some difficulty understanding some aspects of it). I.e., get yourself boned-up on the science prior to being an evangelist for denialist public policy that's directly contra to the peer-accepted predictions.
Lance @ 94 states:
Lance - my continued point to you is that you are not ready to forcefully advocate policy positions contra to the peer-accepted science because you're not adequately informed.
I am in favor of policy prescriptions to mitigate AGW not because I consider AGW to be a grave risk but instead because the community of climate scientists do so. I've studied their findings sufficiently enough to understand the basis of their concern and the growing precision and confidence they have in their findings and therefore the consensus they enjoy within their community on their general predictions. Since I've been studying this topic from a scientific perspective since 1986, I've also observed how their findings have repeatedly been both validated and their most important synthesis predictions underestimated given the characteristic conservatism of scientific methodology when it comes to moving from peer-reviewed work to synthesis reports. In fact the first real work on global warming that was published in the 1950s about our decade was accurate.
If there were a mere handful of scientists making claims about the threat of AGW where the rest of the community of climate scientists both discredited or falsified their work then I would be on the side with science and skepitcal of the handful. However, I am pro-science, primarily because I used to be a process expert and appreciate their methodologies more than most. That doesn't mean I'm a sheep, it does mean I trust a peer-reviewed article published in Nature by climate scientists about climate science far more than a TV weatherman, statistician, and an economists' refutation of that work where they avoid peer-review in their critique and make a living denying the science.
Lance @ 94 states:
I had no idea I was doing this or attempting to be annoying. I do find these forums occasionally awkward since they're often times a hybrid of singular exchanges though in a forum where anyone can insert themselves into the exchange, so whose the audience, the person your responding to or everyone? I know I've probably mixed that up even in the same comment post not just with you or only when I'm debating someone, but also when having a casual exchange. I can assert nothing I've written above this was framed that way but I certainly do not challenge your point. Since I have no desire to annoy people on such matters I'll be more cognizant of your observation and act more respectfully on this matter.
Lance @ 94 states:
Lance, I would love for climate scientists to be both wrong and there is no threat. Given I'm not a climate scientist I do defer to them though I only did so after studying their work and methodologies, where I was a professional in ( establishing methodologies and processes in the tech industry in a world-class repetitive manufacturing environment). My frustration with you was expressed clearly in our long exchange, you were making personal arguments that had been previously falsified by accepted scientific facts or were framed in a manner that trivialized scientists concerns (temp. trends).
I was doing my best to point out the weakness of the quality of your arguments. The best way to advocate a point is to point to facts with little need to opine, the more accepted and confident scientists are in those facts, the stronger our confidence can be. I've also come to learn that the way an issue is framed is important.
For example, you continually looked solely at global temp. trends and proclaimed them trivial. You did this using your own calculation (the average annual change from 1880 - now) rather than considering how the scientific community looks at these changes (in running average trends and by decade). You also demonstrated no understanding that global temp. trends alone don't provide sufficient information regarding future temp. trends given that even now the excess positive radiative forcings we're experiencing are being stored in carbon sinks rather than in the atmosphere and paleoclimate findings showing that such sinks contribute to ever-increasing temp. trends just like was predicted and coming true the past couple of decades. In addition you repeatedly made personal arguments of incredulity regarding global temp. trends rather than attempting to discredit climate sensitivity and energy imbalance observations where past more modest temp. trends led to subsequent extinction events and sea levels rises that would be catastrophic if encountered today. An informed skeptic would understand these concepts and either challenge the past or current observations that cause us to calculate how sensitive the climate is to changes in radiative forcing.
Lance @ 94 states:
I have no problem calling a truce. I have merely two requests:
1) If you don't know, consider researching or even asking in a forum prior to expounding with certainty. I ask questions all the time, including here. I've learned a ton from Ed on constitutional matters, not merely facts since I'm already a heavy reader of American history and the Constitution, but instead what constitutional scholars argue. Ed, kehrsam, Ed's constitutional professor friend from a nearby law school ("Dan"), and James Hanley among others have significantly increased my perspective on the Constitution and its principles merely because I've asked.
2) Before you discredit that which has passed through the scientific process mill, has been peer-accepted, and is confidently held by the relevant scientists, bone-up on the topic first and at least buttress your point with peer-reviewed work that challenges such. At a minimum confront that which you object by presenting it fairly; that is a key part of the scientific method afterall and something Dr. Hansen was honest and forthright enough to repeatedly do in his book, even giving Richard Lindzen's primary claims a full hearing.
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 29, 2010 6:09 PM
Michael Heath,
Truce accepted.
I have also been studying the issue of climate change, nee global warming, for over ten years. I have read all four of the IPCC assesment reports. I spend far more time at pro-AGW sites than I do at skeptical sites as a simple Google search of my name would reveal.
I voraciously read any and all studies that relate to atmospheric physics. At least the ones that aren't hidden behind subscription walls.
Despite what you have stated, I did not reach my current opinion on the subject by virtue of an appeal to incredulity based on my personal disdain of the prescriptive remedies.
It was after many years of investigation that I came to the informed opinion that the fundamental question was very simple. Is there credible, empirically verifiable, falsifiable evidence that the climate sensitivity (sensitivities really since there isn't a consensus on any one value) to a doubling of CO2 was one, known to any quantifiable value, and two based on unambiguous, first principle, physical processes.
To date the answer to both of those questions is, IMO, a resounding no.
Now before you start posting pages of what you consider counter evidence I just want to emphasize that this is my opinion.
I am just laying the ground work for an honest starting point for our future communications.
I will try to meet your two conditions for our truce. I will carefully research any opinion I am prepared to assert and I will "bone-up" on any subject before attempting to discredit the work of a scientist in the field.
You should know that I have a BS degree in physics and enough credits to also have a degree in mathematics but haven't felt the need to complete a BS in math at this time.
I am trying to complete my PhD in physics but have been stuck, due to financial issues, in a series of engineering positions while teaching math and physics part-time.
I am not just some yahoo that can't tell an adiabatic lapse rate from a graduated TOA CERES irradiance so please stop trying to score points by talking down to me.
Let's agree to keep our discussions civil and on point (i.e. no bombardment with marginally related topics and references interspersed with condescending comments.)
In the interest of our new beginning I will even try to spell Michael correctly 99% of the time (hey even the speed of light is only known to a relative measurement uncertainty of 4 parts per billion).
Posted by: Lance | April 29, 2010 11:25 PM
Oh God, you have global warming deniers posting comments here too. Beck is doing such damage to people's minds, it's sad and perverse really. There's in depth analysis of Beck's mind at The Glenn Beck Review. Just Google it.
Posted by: Victor Tiffany | June 10, 2010 3:57 PM
Some in our Church believe that Glen Beck is the Anti-Christ after this 8/28 "Religious" event. He fits the scripture. He presented himself as a Religious figure while Obama presents himself as not religious at all.
“The individual person of Antichrist will not be a demon, as some of the ancient writers believed; nor will he be the person of the devil incarnated in the human nature of Antichrist. He will he a human person, perhaps of Jewish extraction, if the explanation of Genesis 49:17, together with that of Dan's omission in the catalogue of the tribes, as found in the Apocalypse, be correct. It must be kept in mind that extra-Scriptural tradition furnishes us no revealed supplement to the Biblical data concerning Antichrist. While these latter are sufficient to make the believer recognize the "man of sin" at the time of his coming, the lack of any additional reliable revelation should put us on our guard against the daydreams of the Irvingites, the Mormons, and other recent proclaimers of new revelations.” New Advant online Catholic Encyclopedia
Beck claims that God is giving him a plan to share with mankind at 8/28 rally. According to the Book of Revelations the anti-christ will be a man, in his 40s, of Irvingites (Mormon) desent who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a massive Christ-like appeal.. the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace.
Dissenters claimed that Smith had become the Anti-Christ in 1834 when he changed the church's name from "Church of Christ" to "Church of Latter Day Saints," deleting the name of Jesus.
Posted by: Mario Tucci | September 6, 2010 2:50 PM