Comments

  1. #1 Tomato Addict
    July 12, 2011

    The Al-pire Strikes Back?

    It’s about time.

  2. #2 AK
    July 12, 2011

    An explanation(?) for lack of warming since 1998 !!!

    Of COURSE there’s been global warming since 1998!!!! We all know that!!! This Judith Curry person DENIER must be an ignorant political hack hired by the oil companies!!!! Clearly she must “know a heck of a lot less about atmospheric aerosols (i.e. pretty much nothing) than Freeman Dyson knows about climate change.”!!!!

    And those idiots at the PNAS (what does that stand for, anyway?) must have been idiots to let this article through!!!

  3. #3 gwen
    July 12, 2011

    AK, where do YOU live? The globe has continued to warm since 1998. We have been setting new heat records every year, and to make matters worse, the oceans are heating up too. Warm oceans to not have as much oxygen carrying capability as cold oceans, which is why the arctic areas have the richest and most diverse life. That will all end. Our weather patterns are becoming more unstable and the weather more extreme. Even where I live, we are seeing more tornadoes where they were once a VERY rare occurrence, and have been breaking rainfall records causing flooding. The heat has been killing more and more people around the world, and as I write, parts of the US are in the midst of a heat wave. Heat waves also kill a lot of Europeans, and they are getting worse and worse, and more prolonged. The Sahara is growing, water is becoming a bigger problem for more of the world. Australia is having huge fire problems, and water shortages.

  4. #4 AK
    July 12, 2011

    @Gwen…

    I live in St. Louis, and my job takes me all over the midwest. And I’ve seen some unusual weather over the last year. But I’m not talking about that.

    What I’m addressing here is the effort to demonize anybody who doesn’t buy into the Marxist, socialist agenda that lies behind the AGW stalking horse. Personally, I don’t think “global warming” matters, because if we don’t stop dumping fossil carbon into the air (and thence to the sea) we’re going to set off a massive eco-catastrophe of some sort there whether there’s “rapid climate change” or not. (And whether or not the atmospheric CO2 levels are the result of that dumping. Most of it ends up in the ocean, where it reduces the pH.)

    But that doesn’t justify trying to duplicate the mistakes the Bolsheviks made in Russia because they thought they knew how to solve all the problems. If these idiots who think they know how to “fix” the problem crash the world economy (really crash, not just a minor stumble like we’ve got so far), we can expect something like 99% die-off of the human “species”. How big a climate catastrophe would it take to duplicate that?

    The simple fact is that except for the “greenhouse effect” the science isn’t really settled, as every real climate scientist knows. The models have a high probability of being correct, but they’re not certain, and the likelihood of crashing the economy is much closer to certain if people decide that global warming justifies trying to rewrite all the rules.

    Have you actually looked at the site for this project of Gore’s? “We know how to fix it,” but they don’t tell us how they plan to “fix” it. In fact, anybody with an ounce of sense knows that Al Gore is a cynical, despicable, power hungry sociopath just like every other politician. And he’s using the worst methods in seeking power: finding somebody to demonize and stirring up a lynch mob against them. And GL is going right along with it.

    We don’t need lynch mobs, we don’t need people going around demonizing anybody who doesn’t buy into their Marxist agenda (that means you, Greg), we need calm rational science, listening to scientists and experts on all sides of the scientific and economic questions.

    We even need to listen to the “denialists”. Not, of course, the idiots who think they can “falsify” the “greenhouse effect” when they don’t even know what a partial differential is, much less how to handle the radiation equations, but most of the more sensible ones make a lot of sense in their own lights. They’re mostly religious, and think that if God wants a climate catastrophe He’s going to have one, and if He doesn’t there won’t be one.

    You’re not going to get anywhere demonizing these people, because there’s a lot more of them than of your sort. If you want them to cooperate, you’re going to have to give up your Marxist agenda, and concentrate on reducing fossil carbon emissions in the most practical way, which is going to mean letting the major centers of power hold on to it, however much you despise them.

    I don’t like it either, I especially don’t like letting the socialists get away with some of the things they’re going to get away with over the next decade. But if there’s one thing the lessons of past cultures that’ve run out of resources can teach us, it’s that if we all start fighting over the remnants, we’ll bring the whole thing down.

  5. #5 Madjack
    July 13, 2011

    I’m guessing Cap Pat is a joke post?

    Right?

  6. #6 Helen
    July 13, 2011

    @Madjack – One would hope so, but I doubt it.

    The socialists? Marxist agenda? Golly, these terms have sure gotten watered down since they had teeth back in their day. Now they can be hung upon the most capitalism-loving centrist, or the most apolitical scientist, if you don’t like what they’re saying.

    Every day – every day – I read in science news aggregators more studies on how researchers are finding new manifestations of climate and ecosystem change wrought by greenhouse gases and other human-made chemical inputs, and that these changes are accelerating and having multiplier effects. Once in a great while I see something more hopeful, that there is some unexpected compensation for some of these novel inputs we’ve sprung upon the planet. I would LOVE to believe that could happen writ large. But I’m pretty sure it won’t work out so neatly. I doubt any Marxist plan (like what, cap and trade? Regulation of emissions? A gas tax?) could ever wreak the financial and social destruction equal to the chain of collapses of our food systems, water supplies, and ecosystems that are in the pipeline.

    If it’s any consolation to the haters, I’ve pretty much given up on humanity’s ability to get off its butt, see the writing on the wall, stop living for next quarter’s profits or next fall’s votes, and make some meaningful change. The only hope I can still realistically harbor is that we can, at least in part, adapt. I hope for my daughters’ sake and the entire planet’s that I’m wrong.

  7. #7 Cedric Katesby
    July 13, 2011

    Al Gore made sekrit payoffs to NASA for over forty years now to make them say what he wants about Climate Change.
    It’s all a global hoax by Al Gore.
    Plus he is fat.
    Big Gubbiment!
    //

  8. #8 AK
    July 13, 2011

    @Helen:

    The socialists? Marxist agenda? Golly, these terms have sure gotten watered down since they had teeth back in their day. Now they can be hung upon the most capitalism-loving centrist, or the most apolitical scientist, if you don’t like what they’re saying.

    The Marxist agenda consists of internationalism combined with abrogation of individual freedom in favor of “genuine human emancipation.

    From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Karl Marx):

    Marx argues that not only is political emancipation insufficient to bring about human emancipation, it is in some sense also a barrier. Liberal rights and ideas of justice are premised on the idea that each of us needs protection from other human beings. Therefore liberal rights are rights of separation, designed to protect us from such perceived threats. Freedom on such a view, is freedom from interference. What this view overlooks is the possibility — for Marx, the fact — that real freedom is to be found positively in our relations with other people. It is to be found in human community, not in isolation. So insisting on a regime of rights encourages us to view each other in ways which undermine the possibility of the real freedom we may find in human emancipation. Now we should be clear that Marx does not oppose political emancipation, for he sees that liberalism is a great improvement on the systems of prejudice and discrimination which existed in the Germany of his day. Nevertheless, such politically emancipated liberalism must be transcended on the route to genuine human emancipation. Unfortunately, Marx never tells us what human emancipation is […]

    Now anybody who’s bothered to read Greg’s more “scientific” posts will see where he stands WRT “cultural rights”. Not that I totally disagree, especially in an evolutionary sense. But a degree in anthropology at his age makes him “guilty until proven innocent” of Marxist sympathies, considering the role of Margaret Mead’s work in 20th century anthropology and the role of Marxism in Margaret Mead’s work. (CF Freeman’s “The Fateful Hoaxing Of Margaret Mead: A Historical Analysis Of Her Samoan Research“)

    […] cap and trade? Regulation of emissions? A gas tax?

    None of these, or any other plan, will work without some supranational method of enforcement. American Nationalists and Conservatives are perfectly correct to regard efforts to establish such agencies by Marxist sympathizers as stalking horses for Marxist internationalism. Granted they’re necessary, we need controls enough so that people with Greg’s sort of sympathies (and yours Helen?) won’t be able to use them to institute their own agenda.

    And yes, I’m talking about the exact way that the current administration is trying to institute another great tranche of Marxist goals. (Although conservatives have only themselves to blame, supporting the likes of GWBush, especially in the easily foreseen fiasco in Iraq.)

    @Gwen (cont.):

    AK, where do YOU live? The globe has continued to warm since 1998. We have been setting new heat records every year, and to make matters worse, the oceans are heating up too.

    In fact, the global average surface temperature has remained roughly constant since 1998, as anybody familiar with the science can attest. This doesn’t really mean much, as a few meter’s deepening of the tropical thermocline adds up to much more heat than all the air on the globe.

    Not to mention that even if the global average temperature stays the same, changes to regional climate can have catastrophic effects. As you mention.

    My point was that in demonizing Judith Curry, who knows more about climate science than all the readers of this blog put together (including me), Greg is showing his true (tribalistic) colors. “Science as Culture” indeed. Phui!

  9. #9 Bob Clark
    July 13, 2011

    You don’t have a clue what you are talking about you brain dead idiot!

    Come on out to the ranch and I will introduce you to my Glock 19.

    Bob

    Bob Clark*

    The Circle KB Ranch
    26309 Old Owen Road
    Monroe, WA 98272-9071

    firstsearch@frontier.com

    Land Line: 360 794 7387
    Bob’s Cell: 206 459 5802
    Kay’s Cell: 206 459 5865
    Truck’s Sky Phone: 425 330 9377

    *Honors degree in Physical Chemistry (retired)

  10. #10 AK
    July 13, 2011

    Hey, lookie that… a Commie gun nut. But shouldn’t it be an AK47? Figgurs he’d be in the Soviet of Washington.

  11. #11 Raging Bee
    July 13, 2011

    Global warming is a scam.

    Tell that to the people whose islands are slowly but noticeably being overwhelmed by rising sea levels. Then tell it to the people who actually manage to leave their mothers’ basements and see how both polar ice-caps are shrinking.

    AK: This is a SCIENTIFIC issue. Your laughable insistent harping on “Marxist” this-that-and-the-other pretty much proves you don’t give a shit about the science; therefore you have no credibility here.

    PS: most denialists now acknowledge that global warming is indeed happening. You halfwitted trolls can’t even keep up with your own faction’s lies as they’re updated.

  12. #12 Helen
    July 13, 2011

    Holy crap, AK! You’re insinuating that I have Marxist sympathies. I’m intimidated. I guess I’ll go crawl back into my commie hole now and never suggest that some sort of international agreements on emissions would be helpful to mitigating the climate crisis. Because that would be supranational, which equates to internationalism, which equates to singing the Internationale. I get it.

    Ridiculous.

  13. #13 Greg Laden
    July 13, 2011

    Helen, it is possible that you are an Islamist favoring a world wide Calliphate. Or perhaps a Multi National merely trying to take over the world. FESS UP!

  14. #14 Helen
    July 13, 2011

    I’m actually a major shareholder in Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soap. “All-One!”

  15. #15 AK
    July 13, 2011

    @Helen:

    Holy crap, AK! You’re insinuating that I have Marxist sympathies. I’m intimidated. I guess I’ll go crawl back into my commie hole now and never suggest that some sort of international agreements on emissions would be helpful to mitigating the climate crisis. Because that would be supranational, which equates to internationalism, which equates to singing the Internationale. I get it.

    Straw manperson much?

    I don’t want you to shut up any more than Greg wants me to (AFAIK). It’s hardly intimidation to ask somebody if they have Marxist sympathies when the PotUS has admitted to them. And hardly unreasonable on this blog. And I could hardly say that suggesting that “some sort of international agreements on emissions would be helpful to mitigating the climate crisis” is evidence of Marxist sympathies since I just did so myself.

    But this particular post on this blog is part of an effort to stir up a lynch mob, not against people who ignore science (like Raging Bee above), but against anybody who disagrees with an agenda that includes a lot more than a bit of climate science. It doesn’t have anything to do with science, it has everything to do with a sociopolitical agenda. And you need only look at the general climate of opinion to see what that agenda is.

    When I see people like GL start paying attention to qualified scientists who aren’t foaming at the mouth warmists, and start drawing a line between real denialists and people who want some real science rather than warmist hype, then I’ll stop with the criticisms.

  16. #16 MacTurk
    July 13, 2011

    This has been a really good posting for the loon crop, quite outstanding.

    First, we had AK and his ravings. Then came the delightful, delirious and dumb Captain Patriot. A small lapse in grammatical standards with Cedric Katesby, but finishing this week’s loon harvest was AK, yet again, with another wonderful rendition of that old crowd pleaser; Marxist internationalism.

    If this is the best the human species can come up with, then it is really depressing.

    Gwen,Helen and Raging Bee, your attempts to introduce these idiots to sanity is an exercise in futility.

    We talk about facts, trends, and studies. They are into conspiracies, and viewing the world through an ideological filter which has no real existence. Marxism is barely a rotting carcass at this stage. However, AK thinks it has got magical powers.

  17. #17 SLC
    July 13, 2011

    Re AK

    1. Mr. AK repeats the canard that there have not been statistically significant increases in world wide temperatures since 1998. There is a reason why right wingers like Mr. AK pick that particular year. It is because that year was unusually warm, due to an unusually strong El Nino condition. It is an outlier and should thus be excluded from consideration. In fact, subsequent to 1998, there has been significantly significant warming.

    2. Mr. AKs’ allusion to Marxism is nothing more then McCarthyism. The weakness of the deniers arguments becomes apparent when they have to resort to McCarthyism, rather then scientific arguments.

    3. I had never heard of Prof. Judith Curry before. Apparently, she is now the go to person for climate change skepticism, now that Prof. Lindzen has gone off the deep end and is now entering Peter Duesberg territory (he is also skeptical of the claim that cigarette smoking is a cause of lung cancer, despite the fact that he has no medical background to pontificate on the subject).

    Apparently, Prof. Curry has posted articles on Anthony Watts’ web site, wattsupwiththat and Steven McIntyres’ Climate Audit web site, both of which are run be individuals with no track record of expertise in climate science and who are widely discredited in the climate science community. Under the notion that one who gets into the pen with the pigs can expect to emerge with a coating of mud, Prof. Curry is looking a little the worse for wear.

  18. #18 Cedric Katesby
    July 13, 2011

    The Kommies are after you.
    They’ve taken over NASA.
    They’ve taken over the Pentagon.
    They’ve taken over the global scientific community.
    Climate Change is a vast hoax. A global conspiracy.

    Don’t you see? The collapse of the Soviet Union was just a deep cover operation! Watch more Glenn Beck. Buy more guns.

    Climate Denial Crock of the Week – Climate Change and National Security
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqBURjOdOG8

  19. #19 AK
    July 13, 2011

    @SLC…

    wrt #1: Peer-reviewed refs? And why, if 1998 is an outlier, did PNAS find it necessary to print an apologia regarding it? For that matter, why did a bunch of economists find it necessary to put the article together in the first place?

    wrt #2: Contrary to what so many people are saying here, this is not a scientific discussion. It’s a political discussion. If you want to call names, well this whole effort to raise a lynch mob is nothing but Lysenkoism. The weaknesses of your arguments are evident when it’s necessary to resort to Lysenkoism.

    wrt Judith Curry: If you’ve never heard of her, then you haven’t been keeping up with the whole debate. Just for the record, both Curry and McIntyre agree that the evidence supports some global warming, as do I if you don’t use 1998 as a starting year. Whether it’s an “outlier” is a matter of perspective, it certainly wasn’t considered so during early 1999.

    And if Steve McIntyre has no qualifications as a climate scientist, he certainly has them wrt statistics, something some of his targets lack (e.g. Michael Mann of Hockey Stick infamy). He also has a lot of experience recognizing scams (they abound in the mining industry), and everything about how “global warming” was pushed in the 90’s stank of scam.

    And if you’d never heard of Curry, what about your own qualifications? No memory of the shouting match over hurricanes? I’m not going to post a link and get my comment deleted, but try Googling [“Hurricane Debate Shatters Civility Of Weather Science” “Wall Street Journal”] (without the braces). Are you a “climate scientist”, or are you getting your “expertise” from the hooligans at “realclimate”?

    My problem is that you proponents of AGW action are demonizing anybody who questions your orthodoxy, which in my book means you’re not entitled to call yourselves “scientists” whatever pieces of paper you have.

  20. #20 stewart
    July 13, 2011

    Greg, it’s a fine thing you do. By having them here, you prevent these interesting people from being elsewhere. Those who think you can change reality by leaving Caps lock on are amazing – delusional, but amazing. I wonder if they know that the US isn’t the world?

  21. #21 Cedric Katesby
    July 14, 2011

    I doubt if commies have taken over NASA.

    Oh but they have. Those kommies are tricky.
    NASA has been this vast global criminal conspiracy for over 40 years now. They are the ringleaders under the thumb of the KGB. They admit to it all on their website.
    The conspiracy goes deep.
    Very deep.
    All the scientists should be put in prison.

  22. #22 AK
    July 18, 2011

    OK Greg…

    Here’s Chris Mooney: In the Climate Debate, The Misunderstanding Is Mutual in which he talks:

    about how climate skeptics basically seem to believe that their opponents are driven by socialism and communism. We aren’t, of course–duh–but it is fascinating to listen to how they explain this, in their own words.

    He ends up saying:@31 yes. i guess my side loses this round, thanks to this thread. depressing

    This is because a couple of commentors (e.g. “1985”) come up with the likes of:

    16. Michael Tobis Says:
    July 6th, 2011 at 1:29 pm

    But to address the broader question, we need to insist that it is not anti-capitalist, anti-corporate, anti-free-enterprise, even anti-competitive to recognize limits to growth. Indeed, it’s the creativity of the American society that can lead the world out of this mess

    But to do so would be to surrender the reality-based approach to the world to the ideology-based one. Why do you have to insist that something is not “anti-capitalist, anti-corporate, anti-free-enterprise” when what you need to do is to remove those things from the position of untouchable sacred cows they have been elevated to? There is nothing inherently good to capitalism, corporations or free-enterprise; what matters is whether they work to provide the basic necessities to people without undermining our long-term capacity to do so. If they fail in that mission, then they should be on the chopping block.

    So, which side of this dispute are you on?

    If you’re on Mooney’s side, why do you denigrate (demonize) scientists like Judith Curry as “denialistst”? And are you willing to disavow the likes of 1985?

    And if you’re on the other side, does that mean Chris Mooney is also a denialist? What about Michael Tobis?

    BTW, I owe MT a debt for explaining how the “greenhouse effect” actually worked, at a time when there weren’t any good accurate explanations available outside of climate textbooks. (That doesn’t mean I agree he knows what he’s talking about WRT chaos theory. But that’s another story.)

  23. #23 Greg Laden
    July 18, 2011

    No one has ever asked me “So, Greg, which side of this debate are you on” in reference to ANY debate and gotten more than a few feet away before I zapped them with my laser eyes. So be careful.

Current ye@r *