…and this is a 
Every time I mention the fact of global climate change, the denialists start sending me furious emails. (By the way, I know that AGW is "anthropogenic global warming"; what is CAGW?)
I think we can safely say that AGW believers are clinically psychotic
The psychosis of the CAGW cult is total. Rational thought is not possible. It's like watching a freak show from the asylum.
Not ONLY must you never be near the reins of government, you should never come out of your padded room.
Right. So all the scientists who are citing the evidence and presenting the logic of greenhouse gases are the crazy ones, while the tiny fringe minority of TV weather presenters, angry Republicans who don't want their industries regulated, and demented conspiracy theorists are the sane ones. It's a topsy-turvy world for the denialists, isn't it?
(Also on FtB)
Environment
Comments
Posted by: Milli
|
January 23, 2012 10:38 AM
Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) is a non-profit organization in the United States. It functions as a think-tank, 'government watchdog', and advocacy group for fiscally conservative causes. The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) is the lobbying arm of CAGW, organized as a section 501(c)(4) organization, and therefore permitted to engage in direct lobbying activities. CAGW has been criticized for its links to the tobacco industry and to lobbyists including Jack Abramoff. According to their web site, "CAGW is a private, non-partisan, non-profit organization representing more than one million members and supporters nationwide. CAGW's mission is to eliminate waste, mismanagement, and inefficiency in the federal government."
Posted by: raytheist
|
January 23, 2012 10:40 AM
Somehow, the side with science on their side is put on equal footing with the side without... regarding a scientific question! This is what drives me crazy about humanity. And by humanity I mean conservatives.
Posted by: hoogreg
|
January 23, 2012 11:06 AM
Nevertheless, I think "CAGW" used in PZ's email refers to "Catastrophic" Anthropogenic Global Warming. Because as basic science continues to undermine denialist arguments, one of their strategies will be to admit that AGW is occurring, but discount real policy alternatives on the basis that we're over-reacting to "catastrophic" scenarios promoted by Leftist journalists and Al Gore. In fact, the ground is already being prepared for this idea.
Posted by: kamizushi
|
January 23, 2012 11:53 AM
Was it really his all email? Because he says what he thinks but he doesn't give any argument for it other than an ad hominem.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/IXM_3_psjZk1VHCA71STrSpgCEmN2Q--#3c860
|
January 23, 2012 12:18 PM
I read CAGW as "cult of anthropogenic global warming." It's sort of like "PIN number."
Posted by: hoogreg
|
January 23, 2012 12:22 PM
Well, you would.
Posted by: benjaminwinchester
|
January 23, 2012 12:41 PM
"CAGW" is very definitely "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming". Spend some time over on the skeptical blog WattsUpWithThat and you'll see the phrase/acronym tossed around like it's the normal, standard position for climatologists, rather than (most of the time) a strawman.
Here's an example of its use (second paragraph):
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/01/a-big-picture-look-at-earths-temperature/
Posted by: rossnixon
|
January 23, 2012 2:19 PM
One can understand PZ's belief in AGW.
There are two reasons for his current position. 1. He hasn't studied the issues thoroughly. 2. His scientism is boundless.
Posted by: hoogreg
|
January 23, 2012 3:12 PM
@rossnixon #8:
Couldn't there be other reasons for his position?
For example, he could be the pawn of a vast conspiracy to transfer wealth to Third World Potentates, yes? Which would make him that guy we've all been warned about! Shouldn't we turn him in to the Heritage Institute?
Or, he could be a permanent sock-puppet operated by various climate change promoters. Because, really, all that developmental biology stuff is just a cover! He's actually AlGore/AndrewWeaver/RajendraPachauri/MichaelMann/PhilJones/et al, depending on the day. Watts is still pissed because he doesn't get a turn! I'm pissed because I only get an hour every third even-numbered Tuesday.
Sadly, the truth is far stranger: I happen to know this site is actually a front for the Head of Richard Nixon. It's all part of his plan to stampede the sheeple onto an island off the Texas gulf coast, where they can be easily controlled with doses of, umm, mind-control drugs and rum. After that, it's a SHORT, DECISIVE STEP to PRESIDENT OF THE WORLD!!1! And you thought Futurama was just a tv show? You are seriously confused.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 23, 2012 3:29 PM
Comrades, read post #8. hoogreg is exposing our nefarious plan to take over the world. We'll have to deal with hoogreg with extreme prejudice.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlw4oH0l6k2YD0NCQUeu7nC2owgujUl77U
|
January 23, 2012 6:57 PM
I'm with ya, rossnixon. PZ needs a sense of proportion. If they want a catastrophe, they should worry about gay marriage. If gays are allowed to marry in the US, it will seriously threaten Newt's third marriage.
But these scientismists use evidence and falsifiable models and other rhetorical tricks to try to get folks worked up about a collapse of the oceanic ecosystem and crop loss and other liberal stuff. They aren't satisfied with all that grant money; now they want the cap and trade big bucks also?! They should go to Alaska if they think it's getting warmer on Earth.
I'm bored now. I think I'll go fill up my gas tank. Again.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/Zsbm534WqONsAa9OxPNXlhi1Vlo6#8425e
|
January 23, 2012 7:18 PM
I thought #8 was aiming to be comically facetious. I've never heard anyone use "scientism" before, and if someone told me I had boundless scientism, I would probably hug them.
And #11, I understand you, bro-man. I also run my car in idle to power my computer, because I don't trust big electric. Too many government regulations!
Posted by: Russell Seitz
|
January 23, 2012 8:55 PM
Some of the gonzo weathermen may be trying to make up for bad hair with worse steroids:
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/oscars/2011/02/joe-bastardi-explains-why-the-cold-miser-is-winning-the-climate-change-showdown
Posted by: Russell Seitz
|
January 23, 2012 9:11 PM
Then again, 'roid rage ranks among the more benign symptoms of climate wars shell shock on view at WUWT :
[IMG]http://i40.tinypic.com/ippndh.jpg[/IMG]
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
January 24, 2012 6:40 AM
And it doesn't even occur to you that you are the one who hasn't studied the issues...
Scientism? Isn't that the misapplication of the scientific method to fields where it doesn't apply?
Are you seriously trying to claim that the climate works by magic and therefore cannot be researched by the scientific method?
Thread won.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlw4oH0l6k2YD0NCQUeu7nC2owgujUl77U
|
January 24, 2012 12:40 PM
'Thread won.'
Haha! I'd like to give credit where credit is due, but I don't remember where I read that first. But some turns of phrase bear repeating; they need to get out there in the wild before they pass their due date.
Kermit, AKA
googlemess@11
Posted by: drumprof
|
January 24, 2012 3:33 PM
#14 Russell Seitz...et all. Thanks for the brilliant responses on this one....am now laughing so hard am suffering from "Roid Rage"...Haaaaaaa!!!!!
PZ keep on bein' a reeeel goooood Scientismist....
Posted by: mrpoxman
|
January 27, 2012 10:10 PM
CAGW clealry means
Cat shit Attributable Global Warming
Clearly The cagw members are all nut cases who own 10 + cats or more and blame global warming on all their cats and the resultant shit, they see all around their houses while ranting at their furry friends.
Posted by: SantaForGrownUps
|
February 9, 2012 9:03 PM
Hey, now i understand the evidence. I really do. but why has nobody considered that this is simply the environment cycling, like it always has? I don't want to be lumped with the denialists. I am a hard left, atheist liberal, but there is a lot of evidence suggesting that a warming trend will proceed an ice age. Ice ages we have done before, as a species. It has been far longer than recorded history ago that the last one happened. we have no records from before the last one to compare it to. The premise is that we are unnaturally creating carbon dioxide and it is toxifying the environment, right? what are we comparing these records to? is it not, AT LEAST, possible that we are simply observing the natural, climatalogical cycle that occurs on this earth? have we not even entertained the possibility that our influence is not as all inclusive and omni-destructive as we might wish to see it as? the evidence is not that conclusive. yes, perhaps we are having an effect, and yes, we should do what we can to reduce waste, just by the virtue of logic, but why be so arrogant to think that, though no other species has been able to, we are capable of significantly, and permanently damaging the atmosphere of this planet? Do not misunderstand my point. We should not be burning fossil fuels, as there are many far more efficient options. we should not be haphazardly discarding waste, because it has nowhere to go. However, can we please entertain the notion that the environment is simply evolving like the rest of the organisms on this planet, and simply do what our predecessors did? ADAPT! so long as we have sunlight, water, and oxygen, we will survive. this is not the controversial issue that we make it out to be.
Posted by: Stanton
|
February 9, 2012 9:20 PM
If our presence is not as omni-destructive as you claim it is, then why are so many environments being destroyed as a direct result of global warming?