…and this is a 
Not just the creationists
Category: Kooks
Posted on: June 18, 2008 10:14 AM, by PZ Myers
We've had a few examples here lately of crazy creationist talk, but some of the climate change denialists are just as bad. Look at this example of someone arguing that greenhouse gases can't cause global warming:
Moreover, the actual trapping of heat cannot raise an object's temperature in the first place. It only slows down heat loss.
It might be literally true, but it's operationally false in this case — that argument only works if there is no internal source of heat and there is no external input. If you slow down heat loss to a point where it is less than heat gain, you will get an increase in temperature.
This kook must be one of those people who likes to wear a fur coat on a hot summer day.
Comments
WTF, this is like borrowing the 2nd-law argument from creationists. Frighteningly ignorant.
Posted by: zer0 | June 18, 2008 10:22 AM
Isn't it amazing that there will always be people who believe that there C in Chemistry 101 qualifies them to argue will people who have dedicated decades to studying chemistry, weather patterns, and geology? As if climate scientists working for NASA and every other space agency in the world haven't considered basic theoretical concepts in thermodynamics.
Posted by: Julian | June 18, 2008 10:22 AM
oops, that should be argue "with" people, not will. Don't know what happened there *scratches head*
Posted by: Julian | June 18, 2008 10:24 AM
yet another example of a non-scientist mis-applying scientific principles and coming up with some craptastic conclusion.
kinda like how creationists abuse the 2nd law of thermodynamics while blithely ignoring the fact that their refrigerator is cold.
Posted by: rob | June 18, 2008 10:27 AM
Why do people abuse thermodynamics so atrociously? You don't need calculus or real gas theory to understand basic, conceptual engineering thermo--which is the version that always pops up in unrecognizable form in these arguments.
Posted by: Kadath | June 18, 2008 10:28 AM
should be 'their C', too!
Hehe.
Posted by: Spinoza | June 18, 2008 10:28 AM
Or equivalently there's no point in closing the door in Winter. Trapping heat won't do anything to keep your house warm.
Posted by: Sili | June 18, 2008 10:32 AM
Duh. I can see that in two seconds. If something is trapping heat, and there is an input of heat from an external source, then the functional effect is to raise the temperature. Double duh.
Posted by: Ric | June 18, 2008 10:48 AM
Time for a little song to explain things.
Posted by: Carlie | June 18, 2008 10:52 AM
In some cases, of course, there's an explicit claim of conspiracy (e.g., 9/11 deniers), but in many other cases I suspect folks just haven't thought through the implications of their positions, or are constitutionally incapable of admitting to themselves that they are "regular" people not possessed of insight exceeding that of highly trained career specialists.
I recall that when desktop publishing, graphics, and video software started to become available to the general public, professionals in those fields complained that the "now anyone can do it" illusion these tools created tended to devalue their highly developed skills. I think the web may be doing the same sort of thing at a more global level: When any bozo in his underwear can "research" anything by Googling up tens or hundreds of thousands of "sources," it's tempting to think "we don' need no stinkin' experts!"
[sigh]
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | June 18, 2008 10:53 AM
It's just creationist science taken to the next step. Since evolution is impossible because of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, we know there is no external source of heat (the sun is simply an illusion, so don't mention it). Therefore, trapping the existing heat on earth cannot increase earth's temperature. Simple, right?
Posted by: mark | June 18, 2008 10:58 AM
This reminds me most of Tom Bethell and his insistence that the thousands of people who understand evolution by natural selection are all making an extremely elementary error in logic that only he, as an "outsider" can see through. It's eye-rolling.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 18, 2008 11:02 AM
this is one of two things I've never understood - global warming denial and the other being the denial that HIV is the cause of AIDS. The evolution deniers I can understand where it comes from even if it is utter nonsense, but what's the rationale for denying the former two phenomena? I don't see any obvious challenge to anyone's worldview in accepting the truth of those. Generally, the evolution deniers seem to also adhere to the other two as part of some bizarre anti-science holy trinity.
Posted by: Rob | June 18, 2008 11:03 AM
No, no. It's like how mutations only degrade stuff, and are never positive. Closing the door in winter doesn't raise an object's temperature, that object always had that temperature, trapping it just restores the original temperature that was contained in it. Informationally. This original temperature information was created and is maintained by Magic Man. Or aliens, if you're into that sort of thing.
Posted by: Citizen Z | June 18, 2008 11:04 AM
Re: #10 Bill
"We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true." - Robert Wilensky
Posted by: amstrad | June 18, 2008 11:06 AM
Isn't it amazing that there will always be people who believe that there C in Chemistry 101 qualifies them to argue will people who have dedicated decades to studying chemistry, weather patterns, and geology?
I somehow doubt that the person under discussion ever earned a C in freshman chemistry. Speaking, of course, as a person who teaches freshman chemistry ...
Posted by: Rick at shrimp and grits | June 18, 2008 11:12 AM
Rob @13:
Global Warming Deniers: Don't want to give up their comfy SUV's, or hate hippies, or something. But you know, I know quite a few GW deniers, and one thing I'm quite sure of is that they think they're super smart. There's something about trying to poke holes in climate theory (something tremendously complex to begin with) that makes people feel intellectual and superior. As if *any idiot* would believe that we, mere humans, could affect climate.
For others, they simply believe that a god is in control, and that he won't let anything bad happen to the earth (or, if he does, it's all in his Great Plan, so we might as well not try to do anything about it).
HIV deniers: most just want to believe that Teh Evil Gayness, through their horrible dirty lifestyle, causes AIDS. They want it to go back to being a gay disease, and since straight people can get HIV, OBVIOUSLY it can't cause AIDS.
Posted by: EntoAggie | June 18, 2008 11:13 AM
Hey, if there were some huge energy source hovering just outside the earth, surely scientists would have discovered it by now and would be actively studying it.
Posted by: rob | June 18, 2008 11:17 AM
Urghh!! Last week I received a legislature 'update' from my state (KS) house majority leader stating that the widespread acceptance of global warming is simply the result of the mainstream media's indoctrination of the public. I sent her an email telling her first of all that I've seen scientific evidence for global warming, and politely asked her to provide me with resources presenting the evidence against global warming. Thus far no response.
I was talking to my brother in law last night (about evolution) and he suggested that those in the 'mainstream' such as Al Gore with all their biases, only attend to evidence in favor of global warming, and ignore evidence that refutes it. Since it was a friendly conversation at 11:30PM, I didn't want to start a debate with him so I let it slide without asking him what evidence he was referring to. Next time he brings it up, I think I ought to ask him for it.
Based on this and a number of conversations about various topics such as the nature of science, including evolution ang global warming, it seems to me that not only do these people use anecdote as evidence (i.e., this winter was colder than 5 years ago, how would Al Gore account for that?) they also think that opinion equals evidence (i.e., Rush Limbaugh says global warming doesn't exist, Al Gore says it does, these differing opinions mean there's a 50/50 chance that it does exist. However since Rush Limbaugh hasn't failed me in the past, his argument wins). In their minds everything is opinion (Climate scientists say that global warming happens, well that's just their opinion!), facts be damned.
Posted by: Aaron | June 18, 2008 11:22 AM
There. Fixed that for you.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | June 18, 2008 11:29 AM
So, what if that coffee thermos was sitting on a lit burner? I know. Same point made by PZ and others here, but for fuck's sake...
Posted by: Dahan | June 18, 2008 11:31 AM
This guy need a new brain... or just
debate about football and beisbol, giving
up science, to real scientists.
You cant skip Thermodinamics 101, it always
comes down to haunt you.
Posted by: Lord Zero | June 18, 2008 11:31 AM
Well sure, the earth is as cold as deep space is.
How can you atheists miss this fact?
And anyhow, for the godless the earth will only end up as a frozen hunk of rock in the end, so what difference does it make? Cause if we're all dead in the end, why shouldn't we make everything dead now (assuming your "thermodynamics" counts for anything, that is)?
[There, now the connection with creationists is complete]
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | June 18, 2008 11:36 AM
Kate needs to work a little harder on trapping the stupidity she expels on her blog.
Posted by: CalGeorge | June 18, 2008 11:48 AM
Venus, asshole.
Posted by: Lycosid | June 18, 2008 11:49 AM
Yeah, stupid global warming believers! The only way that could cause the temperature to rise would be if there was some huge external source of heat input to the earth, and if there were, we'd have discovered it by now!
Posted by: ShavenYak | June 18, 2008 11:52 AM
Wait! I know this... I mean, I majored in English in college, but I did take some of that science stuff you guys are always carrying on about, and I took notes too!
I know!
It's either the moon or an elephant, right?
Posted by: Dan | June 18, 2008 11:55 AM
Oh...the stupid...it hurts.
Posted by: Mobius | June 18, 2008 11:58 AM
To be fair, 150 × 106 km isn't exactly 'just outside the earth'. At that distance, it's perfectly reasonable that some people just don't know about it.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | June 18, 2008 12:03 PM
@ 23
*breathing heavily through a dark mask*
"now the connection with creationists is complete"
So, Glen, are you telling us that, in time, hell will freeze over?
Posted by: JimNorth | June 18, 2008 12:08 PM
...in time, hell will freeze over?
According to Dante, didn't it already do that?
Posted by: Josh | June 18, 2008 12:11 PM
Gah! yeah, I just caught that mixup with there/their. I never make that mistake! *facepalm*
Posted by: Julian | June 18, 2008 12:12 PM
To be fair, 150 × 106 km isn't exactly 'just outside the earth'. At that distance, it's perfectly reasonable that some people just don't know about it.
I thought all night trying to figure out what you could be referring to, and then it dawned on me ...
[not original, but isn't plagiarism the sincerest form of flattery?]
Posted by: SteveM | June 18, 2008 12:13 PM
That's 93 million miles, to this unreconstructed metric-denialist, thank you very much! ;^)
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | June 18, 2008 12:16 PM
I believe we should all follow the shinning example of that great scientist Al ("Do as I say, not as I do.")Gore. The electric bill of his Nashville home increased by 10% over the previous year. You can read about it at the Tennessee Center for Policy Research (TCPR) here: http://tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764
No mention is made of his other two homes and their energy use.
I am prepared to sacrifice every bit as much as Al does.
Posted by: kim | June 18, 2008 12:16 PM
I am prepared to sacrifice every bit as much as Al does.
yet another dipshit who ignores the message because he doesn't like the messenger. And I wonder how much everyone's electric bill in the Nashville area went up last year. That is, are you talking dollars or kilowatts?
Posted by: SteveM | June 18, 2008 12:21 PM
In case it gets moderated at the original wingnut blog, this is what I posted:
Posted by: MarkW | June 18, 2008 12:23 PM
I sincerely doubt you are. In fact, what, if anything, have you done to begin with?
At least Al tries to do something. You?
I don't think so.
Posted by: Dan | June 18, 2008 12:25 PM
Perhaps Ms. McMillan should watch this informative documentary.
Posted by: uknesvuinng | June 18, 2008 12:30 PM
IMHO mark @ 11 wins the thread. Kudos to everyone else, too.
Posted by: dNorrisM | June 18, 2008 12:32 PM
kim blathered:
"I am prepared to sacrifice every bit as much as Al does. "
Great! Are you going to make a powerpoint presentation, write a book and make a movie about global warming? I look forward to seeing that.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | June 18, 2008 12:38 PM
The interesting thing is that with the price of gas going way up, people are starting to conserve anyway. Honda can't make enough of it's Civic and Fit models. Hummer is going to be sold off and Ford and GM are cutting back production on SUVs and desperately trying to make hybrids and smaller cars to compete with the Toyota and Honda. These global warming deniers are going to be dragged kicking and screaming into the world of hydrogen/electric powered cars and solar/wind power.
New drilling off the coast of the U.S. and in Alaska would only account for 2-6% of U.S. consumption. Plus there aren't enough refineries. It will have no impact on prices because competition for Oil will only go up, because of increased demand in India and China.
I think the more important issue is whether or not the US is going to import all of the technology and science and be a second rate "1st world" nation or actually step up and be a leader.
Posted by: Steve_C | June 18, 2008 12:43 PM
Rob @ 13:
this is one of two things I've never understood - global warming denial and the other being the denial that HIV is the cause of AIDS. The evolution deniers I can understand where it comes from even if it is utter nonsense, but what's the rationale for denying the former two phenomena?
Did you ever get the impression that they are just being contrary for the sake of it? It seems like people (and kim) just like to be difficult for cheap entertainment purposes. They are led by their cheerleaders into a contrarian frenzy, against everything that makes the world better and for everything (like the idiotic war, but that brought money into people who sponsor the news) that makes the world worse. They always look and sound so bitter and angry, just look at the faces of the Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly. I'm just not miserable enough to be a conservative I guess, plus I don't play follow-the-leader very well.
Posted by: Mena | June 18, 2008 12:46 PM
Kim @ 35:
I am sure that you have been urged by your pastor/priest to "give to the poor".
I know that I have. I recall Billy Graham preaching just this.
I remember the President urging all americans to give to the poor, through his "faith-ased initiative".
I recall the Pope (several of them) doing the same.
My question; why havent you reliquished all of your material posessions to the poor? Why haven't these men done the same?
Here they are, asking you to make a sacrifice, and they obviously are not prepared to live by their own words.
My point is; a leader does not have to lead by example alone. A leader may lead by persuasion, or coercion or inspiration, they don't need to lead by imitation.
Al Gore is a rich man, a very rich man.
Rich men tend to live in big houses (I know, I build them), where they can insulate themselves and their families from the world.
Al gore has done more to alter the effects of global warming than any other person on the planet; by what, turning down his AC? No, by persuading others that we must pay attention, and that we must do something.
He made you aware of Global Warming, didn't he?
You are talking about it, you are INTERESTED, you may be curious to learn more.
You sneer because he flies in a private jet to global warming conferences. But at those conferences, he has built awareness across the globe.
"You are going to ignore this particular problem untill it swims up and bites you on the ass!"
Posted by: dan | June 18, 2008 12:48 PM
I am not Dan, I am dan. There are two of us, probably more.
I am the one who can't be bothered to cap my name.
Just to clear that up.
Posted by: dan | June 18, 2008 12:51 PM
Well, I'll admit, your well-written words to Kim freaked me out; however, since we share a common name, I may plagiarize them.
At least we seem to agree which keeps things tidy.
For what it's worth, I have been trying to think up a more unique name.
Posted by: Capital Dan | June 18, 2008 12:56 PM
What about CAPITAL OF DAN.
ha.
Posted by: Steve_C | June 18, 2008 12:59 PM
I was in the lab a bit earlier today. Part of the conversation in there was about the stupidity of cutting back on CO2 emissions when "lots of scientists" don't think that's the problem. Sigh. What do you say to such otherwise smart, educated people? I've thought about asking them whether they think we should just give up on the cities built along coasts and spend the money trying to relocate everyone instead of trying to prevent the oceans from rising in the first place.
Posted by: Margaret | June 18, 2008 1:00 PM
kim (#35) , we are all aware of TCPR's lies about Al Gore.
Posted by: llewelly | June 18, 2008 1:02 PM
Or if it is actually kilowatts you're talking about, was the previous year an unusually low number (like, they conserved much more than normal that year because AlGore was away so much) or is there an actual trend of increasing power consumption?
Posted by: TheOtherOne | June 18, 2008 1:08 PM
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | June 18, 2008 1:11 PM
Al Gore's next film should be called "Please Don't Go Jump Off A Bridge" (re: #35)
Posted by: rhr | June 18, 2008 1:12 PM
So I guess we should ask Kim how many solar panels she has on her house?
Posted by: Josh | June 18, 2008 1:13 PM
The home's energy consumption went down 40%. Which could be attributed to milder weather. However, his gas consumption went down 90% due to a new efficient cooling and heating system.
He used fewer hours of kilowats too... down from 221,000 kWh to 213,210 kWh.
Posted by: Steve_C | June 18, 2008 1:20 PM
It isn't just fundamentalist creationists. Many other crackpots suggests replacing or extending the 4 laws of thermodynamics, and so does some well known scientists as well.
For example, I just heard that Stuart Kauffman suggests a "4th Law of Thermodynamics". [Which rightly is a 5th if you accept the # 0-4 order.] I haven't read Kauffman, for example Investigations where the proposal is made. IMHO his work on autocatalytic cycles seems a feasible albeit perhaps not necessary complement to more traditional abiogenesis pathways.
But this "4th Law" comes out from the left field. The proposal seems to be that a chemical system advances into the "adjacent possible" as fast as it can, where the adjacent possible is the set of all possible chemicals that can be synthesized in one chemical step from all existing chemicals. In other words, instead of maximizing disorder such open systems maximizes diversity.
Hmm. This is Prigogine all over again. While Boltzmann, Onsager and Kolmogorov actually modeled non-equilibrium systems, Prigogine wrote a book on self-organizing "dissipative structures" similar to Kauffman's of which nothing resulted.
What is interesting with, say, vortices is that they dissipate energy on all scales, which IIRC Kolmogorov and Onsager treated roughly. But that gives quite another spectra of solutions than all possible - when did we see a vortex regularly forming squares lately?
I'll have to read the book, or better yet see something coming out of it, and chemical systems are supposedly more constrained than my analogy from hydrodynamics; but color me skeptical.
Brilliant! I'm so going to steal that!
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | June 18, 2008 1:21 PM
What? No, that'd be disastrous! I can't even imagine the rise in sea level created by the thousands of bloated, fat-assed conservative corpses carpeting the beds of our waterways. Why, I'll bet just one Wal Mart full of submerged anti-global-warming porkers would raise average sea levels more than the melting of Greenland's ice sheet.
Of course, we could always sink A** C*****r like they do with ships to create structures for growing reefs to mitigate the environmental effects, but there aren't enough conservative stick beasts like her to have any positive marine contribution.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | June 18, 2008 1:27 PM
Here are the current results of the weather.com poll.
How concerned are you about global warming?
Very concerned
32.6%
Somewhat concerned
17.1%
Not very concerned
11.0%
I'm not convinced it's true
39.0%
http://www.weather.com/common/onlinepoll/results/lap_undeclared.html?generic_poll174
Posted by: Deepsix | June 18, 2008 1:35 PM
I'll add anti-vaccine (or more generally, anti-medicine) denialists, which claim that vaccines are overall harmful, and abstinence-only sexual education denialists, which claim that misleading teens are effective.
All debunked by observational data, which makes it very difficult for an outsider to understand the position. If you are interested in protecting, say, teens, wouldn't you want to contribute to the solution instead of being part of the problem? Regardless of if the position is come by from a moral, emotional or practical view.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | June 18, 2008 1:36 PM
Globa; warming is a hoax. Carbon dioxoide in the air dosne't make HEAT. temerpatures in the air are rising because God has put the earth ina big pelxiglass ball. To make hell on earth. to punish atheists.
Posted by: babblina | June 18, 2008 1:37 PM
So why do they call it the green-house effect when green-houses are so cold?
As #28 said,
"Oh...the stupid...it hurts."
Posted by: jaramilr | June 18, 2008 1:37 PM
@13: this is one of two things I've never understood - global warming denial and the other being the denial that HIV is the cause of AIDS. The evolution deniers I can understand where it comes from even if it is utter nonsense, but what's the rationale for denying the former two phenomena? I don't see any obvious challenge to anyone's worldview in accepting the truth of those. Generally, the evolution deniers seem to also adhere to the other two as part of some bizarre anti-science holy trinity.
In addition to what others have said: Many of the global warming deniers are Republicans and libertarians who believe in free markets and are opposed to government-enforced regulation. And some deny it because they can't conceive of market failure.
Posted by: moonwatcher | June 18, 2008 1:38 PM
According to this gentleman's logic, there is no flooding in the midwest because:
"Moreover, the actual trapping of water cannot raise a river's height in the first place. It only slows down water loss."
Has nothing to do with the relative inflow and outflow of water to and from the river. So, this guy is an expert in hydrology as well as thermodynamics (and logic).
I guess those pictures of flood damage are just photoshopped as part of an insurance fraud. When will some conservative Republican senator declare these flood stories to be the second biggest hoax of the century?
Posted by: AnswersInGenitals | June 18, 2008 1:50 PM
Oh hell, his god told him that bullshit and he confused it with the heat in hell, which is his chief concern. I suppose you can say that there is no heat loss or gain in that imaginary cesspit of imaginary souls.
Posted by: Holbach | June 18, 2008 1:54 PM
Yeah it looks like Babblina is just being funny... so we have no thread troll apparently.
Posted by: Steve_C | June 18, 2008 2:25 PM
Four hours and only a marginal effort supplied by denialists... The calm before the storm?
Posted by: AtheistAcolyte | June 18, 2008 2:30 PM
you run into people from all over the world on yea olde interweb, and I gotta say all the globalwarming deniers I've ever butted heads with are all Americans. What propaganda are you poor sods swimming in? Even the dubious from the rest of the world shuffle their feet and agree that cleaning up the environment will do no harm and the worst that can happen is that they personally save some money.
The one quote that made me really want to lock the guy in a room with Dr David Suzuki went something like "I don't believe it's real so I'm not giving up my SUV, and if it is then we're screwed anyway so I'm still not giving up my SUV." The guy then went on about how he needed it for winter, I wish I could remember where he was but I have family in rural Ottawa valley if they can get by with a rabbit for daily running around in the depths of winter anyone south of me who isn't up a mountain doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Posted by: Lynnai | June 18, 2008 2:40 PM
Where's our good friend Global Warming Is A Scam?
Posted by: Dennis N | June 18, 2008 2:41 PM
#56: Sorry, won't work. Stupidity doesn't attract marine life, nor does ignorance, or blind hate.
Again, another person on a chemistry blog made the analogy of AC to the queen alien in Alien:Resurrection. Do you really want that thing in any water in which life is important? The acidic goo alone will probably eat a hole in the ocean floor, and I don't want to find out if what is in her skin is water-soluble.
I think sending her to Zimbabwe as a present to Mugabe might help - the shock would probably kill them both. Two nuts, one stamp.
Posted by: Hap | June 18, 2008 2:41 PM
Kim is one of those people who, had she been alive during WWII, would have complained that FDR had new tires on his presidential limo, good shoes on his feet, and all the fresh fruit and veggies he wanted, and that therefore she didn't need to ration for the war effort. I suspect then she would have pointed out how Churchill was chauffeured all around England to give speeches, while at the same time limiting the common man's access to gasoline.
Yep, people like Kim will always find a reason to not have to give anything or be in any way inconvenienced no matter what. I bet she still lauds "the greatest generation" though. Just don't ask her to walk her talk. She's to busy being judgemental.
Posted by: Dahan | June 18, 2008 2:43 PM
The guy then went on about how he needed [an SUV] for winter, I wish I could remember where he was but I have family in rural Ottawa valley if they can get by with a rabbit for daily running around in the depths of winter anyone south of me who isn't up a mountain doesn't have a leg to stand on.
I don't remember who said it, but it was on NPR a few years ago discussing the boom in SUV's. The quote went something like, "Looking at a typical shopping mall parking lot these days you would think there wasn't a paved road in all of America." There was also a comment about there being more offroad vehicles than a typical Army general commands; and for what, to drive to the mall and back.
Posted by: SteveM | June 18, 2008 3:17 PM
I just think Kim is rather dense. Let's face it, whether climate change is real or not, doesn't actually matter. The suggestions by Al Gore will only have a positive impact no matter what. The fact that Kim is too full of her sweet, little self to be troubled to even consider making the slightest of changes really goes a long way in demonstrating what a selfish and arrogant idiot she truly is.
In other words: "Why would I want to save a couple of bucks on my 'lectric bill? Al Gore's one of them Libruls, an' I don't care wut he says."
Posted by: Capital Dan | June 18, 2008 3:25 PM
The way Creationists talk about the Second Law of Thermodynamics, you'd think none of them had ever heard of our friendly neighbourhood star. That couldn't be, since Christians are the ones always talking about the Sun of God, right?
"Looking at a typical shopping mall parking lot these days you would think there wasn't a paved road in all of America."
That'd be funnier if I didn't live where black ice was pretty much a permanent feature of roads between December and March and I hadn't seen so many SUVs skid through intersections on their sides. Stick with the VW Rabbit, folks; you may have to learn Russian tank-driving techniques to get through the snowbanks, but you also are a metric shitload less likely to die in a rollover.
Posted by: Interrobang | June 18, 2008 4:08 PM
It's all about the conservative authoritarian mindset, and the cult of personality. Ideological trivia trumps insignifica like fact and reason: If Al Gore isn't perfect, then everything he says is wrong, and can be discounted. Creationists attempt the same with Darwin and Dawkins.
It's an ad, ad, ad, ad hominem world.
Posted by: Kseniya | June 18, 2008 4:13 PM
moonwatcher: Many of the global warming deniers are Republicans and libertarians who believe in free markets and are opposed to government-enforced regulation. And some deny it because they can't conceive of market failure.
Ahh, you've got it backward. The Libs believe that there is no such thing as a market failure (they can conceive it, then No True Scotsmen it away) --- therefore, global warming doesn't exist. Any science that shows it must be "socialist science".
It's the standard religious discourse --- we know A, B or C as axiomatic (God, market, pink fairies), therefore X, Y or Z follows by logic --- observations are only relevant when they support the preconceived theoretical framework. Standard pre-enlightenment thinking.
Posted by: frog | June 18, 2008 4:27 PM
Probably little surprise to the seasoned atheist, but religion is partly responsible for denial of AGW, as demonstrated in the first few minutes of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bB2rt3IKJc
Posted by: DavidONE | June 18, 2008 4:36 PM
#73: "It's a small-minded world after all..."
I don't think there'll be a theme park ride for that one, though. (Maybe the last seven years count?)
Posted by: Hap | June 18, 2008 5:09 PM
Torbjorn: Hmm. This is Prigogine all over again. While Boltzmann, Onsager and Kolmogorov actually modeled non-equilibrium systems, Prigogine wrote a book on self-organizing "dissipative structures" similar to Kauffman's of which nothing resulted.
I ain't no physicist, but I thought that at the bottom, Prigogine got Boltzmann wrong. He treated the near-equilibrium conditions, where you can define the complexions by velocity distributions over the entire space, the same as far-from-equilibrium conditions, where you have to use velocity-position pair distributions. For ex, a pot of boiling water --- the entropy of the system has to include not only the velocity distribution over the whole space, but the distribution of velocity and position pairs, since the gradient is so large between the bottom and the top of the pot.
I haven't done the calculations --- but neither did he, and he was making the extra-ordinary claim that the system was moving in the wrong entropic direction.
Posted by: frog | June 18, 2008 5:31 PM
For the small mind, "hypocrisy" is considered the worst trait one can possess. It immediately invalidates anything the hypocrite says or does. This is why so much of conservative mudslinging is often of the Tu Quoque variety. "Yeah, I got caught stealing taxpayer money to spend on hookers, but what about him? He's just as bad!" If you can paint someone as a hypocrite, then their criticisms of you suddenly disappear.
This is why the vast majority of the smears directed as Al Gore focus on his supposed hypocrisy. If they can get the charge to stick, then people like kim will dismiss anything he says.
Posted by: H.H. | June 18, 2008 5:44 PM
it is very depressing realizing how deliberately ignorant people can be/are. My guess, my "gut" feeling about the phenomena including creationism and many other related kinds of denialism is that it is related to ego, nothing can be allowed to exist that puts questions onto the "personal" ideas of reality and doubts into the childish perception of our centrality in existence.
riddle == What possible reason would a god who created everything have in demanding part of this creation to "believe" when the creation is just a product of said god's own "mind"?
it makes the believer important!
Posted by: uncle frogy | June 18, 2008 5:50 PM
I think a bit of skepticism is in order. I do not deny global warming. The planet has been warming since the end of the little ice age 150 years ago. I question how much is due to CO2 emissions and how much is natural. The scenarios used to scare people to action are the products of computer models. CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas, too weak to account for all the observed warming. It needs an amplifying mechanism. The models assume a little CO2 warming leads to more water vapor in the atmosphere and the water being a stronger greenhouse gas does the rest. The models are calibrated against recent climate history, so they force the observed warming to fit the observed CO2 concentration rise and project that into the future. But if there are other factors that should be in the model, the calibration based on CO2 could very well be overstating the impact. Do we really know everything needed to program a proper model? I have been involved with some modeling of simpler systems. It seems highly unlikely to me that something as complex as global climate can be reliably modeled yet.
Still, I support energy conservation efforts. I think it makes sense especially to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. For the record, I drive a tiny car (Miata), use mostly compact fluorescents at home, keep my house relatively cool in winter, warm in summer, and un-heated, un-cooled spring and fall while my neighbors' AC units are humming away. A major focus of my job is improving energy efficiency. I like that $4 gas will force the plague of SUV's and full size trucks off the road.
Global warming or not, we might need urgent CO2 emissions reductions to slow the rate of acidification of the oceans. This has implications for the food chain and for the ability of the ocean to tie up CO2. See story in this month's Discover magazine.
Posted by: Tom | June 18, 2008 7:04 PM
I agree scepticism is in order. This is what Skeptic magazine has to say about global warming:
http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v14n01_climate_of_belief.html
http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v14n01_human_induced_climate_change.html
Good reads.
Posted by: Kel | June 18, 2008 7:19 PM
"The planet has been warming since the end of the little ice age 150 years ago."
Around when the Industrial Revolution was really getting into the swing of things?
I don't know if one has to do with the others, but one thing that always gets me riled up is when deniers (not necessarily yourself) talk about how the climate changes in cycles while completely ignoring the simple fact that 10,000 years ago, 50,000 years ago, 100,000 years ago there wasn't the added pressure of billions of human beings pumping billions of human beings' pollution into the air and water while simultaneously destroying the Earth's natural cleansing tools through such means as massive deforestation for the use of wood and expanding farmland/living space for billions of human beings.
Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | June 18, 2008 7:37 PM
Tom, the climate models used to understand how global warming works do not 'force the observed warming to fit the observed CO2 concentration rise'. They are thermo-dynamic models, not statistical models.
Posted by: llewelly | June 18, 2008 9:16 PM
Looks like Arctic ice is still melting at a faster rate.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7461707.stm
Posted by: Kel | June 18, 2008 9:30 PM
Don't you know, The Sun Does Not Exist!.
Posted by: ephant | June 18, 2008 10:08 PM
Great comments. Kate McMillan: "Frighteningly Ignorant".
Posted by: Red Tory | June 18, 2008 10:24 PM
I swear, if this dangerous chowderhead leaves his (her?) dog in a car on a hot day based on this reasoning, I'll come over to his house myself and smack him silly.
Posted by: melior |