Obama made a Lincoln's birthday speech, and a fine speech it was. It was a call to work for the common good, for strong government, and for investment in things I happen to value: education and science. It also includes a brief nod to Charles Darwin.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
If only he'd left off the 'god bless America' nonsense at the end, it would have been perfect.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
... with Science! And she also talks about fishing, the size of government, Republicans, Obama, government reform And lies, damn lies.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Obviously this is an Obama plot to take away our guns.
Bachmann truly goes off the deep end. Even more than she was.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
... and some other guy ...
You must go to just after six minutes 20 second. And then it's like, one second long. But there is is.
*/
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Quiz: Who first and most consistently against slavery, Lincoln or Darwin?
Atlantis has landed safely. Hubble servicing mission is finished.
It woke me up coming down.
Atlantis landing had been delayed for two successive days because of weather, so this morning they diverted the landing site to the backup location at Edward's Air Force Base, just over the mountains from…
Go to bed PZ! :)
If only he'd left off the 'god bless America' nonsense at the end, it would have been perfect.
I agree it's unfortunate Obama sometimes sucks up to religious insanity, but he has never invoked god in his weekly video addresses.
He's indeed a very good speaker. Let's hope that's not his only talent.
It looks good so far, though.
Samuel,
PZ can time posts here,he doesnt have to press a button...
Good speech by Obama,totally agree,what a change in political climate.
Went to Borders to buy "Voyage of the Beagle",and was greeted by a totally blank stare by the clerk,she had never heard of it,I had to spell Beagle for her...We eventually found out that they didnt have it in stock.
Speaks English? I'm just glad you found one who didn't spend his warm-up to the presidency executing everyone he could.
I swear it, if you guys try to shoehorn in Jeb in some future election, the collective population of the world is gonna rise up and drop you.
Sheesh. That was rude and bellicose of me. I'm sorry.
I'm going to bed--I'm obviously cranky.
Fixed.
I think it wouldn't be a smart move of Obama to leave out this nonsensical sentence if he wants to stay president. Let's face it - America is not ready for that yet.
"Went to Borders to buy "Voyage of the Beagle",and was greeted by a totally blank stare by the clerk"
That's weird. I was just at Borders today, and I'm pretty sure that book was in a little display near the cash register titled, "Exploring Evolution" (not to be confused with the bogus ID textbook of the same name). Other books in the display included The Blind Watchmaker, Why Evolution Is True, Sean Carroll's latest, and a thick compendium of Darwin's writings on evolution.
Wow.
A shout-out to Charles Darwin. If PZ hadn't warned me of it that would have knocked me to the floor upon hearing it. Wouldn't have expected a President McCain or VP Palin to do the same if they were making this speech (thank fk'n Christ that didn't happen).
All in all, a good day today - lots of recognition for Mr. Darwin, more than I expected to see (ie Google, Obama's shout-out, links on CNN and MSN to Darwin related articles, etc.). Let's hope this spurs some inquiry among the 60% of Americans who still doubt evolution.
Brownian, OM - God bless America is on a par with God save the Queen, a figure of speech. Obama has to say it in certain ceremonies.
I wish he could be the first president to stop saying it. *sigh*
So PZ, are you thinking of applying for the Commerce Secretary position?
Good speech, though Darwin is more important than Lincoln.
Rey Fox,
in fairness to Borders,they had Origin and Descent available,but also Darwins Black Box !
This is Borders Melbourne,AU we're talking about there.
Everytime I hear him speak I think how good an idea it would be for the UK to steal him, we need a man like that. Would the US pimp him out maybe, just for a little while...
Z
Off-topic, lookity look what I just ran into: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123447930283579567.html
How dare people suggest that Islam isn't a religion of peace, they have to be decapitated at once!
mmm, he talks pretty, and in full sentences, and he left out the god-babble except for the formulaic ending. melikes.
I bought a copy of "The Origin" 1st ed., at a Borders yesterday, in his honor. They had about five different versions, and a number of other books by and about. There've been a few good Lincoln bios on the TV, too—History Channel, etc.
Obama said, imagining Lincoln's thoughts as he lounged at home with his kids before his first election, "...wondering if someone might call him up, ask him to be commerce secretary." That was funny. He has a sense of humor, which I like very much.
If Obama didn't evoke god now and then over the next years, the omission would become a major issue around re-election time. Like flag pins, and wearing/not-wearing them.
Pandering to the invisible friend masses is very spooky but what is spookier is if Obama has an invisible friend too. Don't know which. Shivers.
Science funding good. Darwin was a genius. I regualarily fight my born again evangelical preacher sister (and her husband and now sadly their eldest 20 year old son) about Darwin and Evolution.
It's very interesting that Darwin also made significant climate measurements and hypotheses thereof while in South America that are relevant today to the whole climate conversations. You can read the excellent five page PDF article here with all it's nice graphs and analysis: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ICECAP-200YEARSOFCHARLESDARWIN.pdf.
An exerpt: "The author of Origin of the Species was much more than a naturalist. His contribution to Science reached also the meteorological field and his notes are useful even in today’s global warming debate."
"One of the most important meteorological observations from Darwin in Argentina was the periodic frequency of droughts, a pattern that persists nowadays and it is closely related to the PDO and the ENSO variability. University of Buenos Aires’ Professor Eduardo Sierra for many years claim that Argentina experiences dry and wet cycles, related to the PDO, and that a dry period was very probable in the near future, what proven to be true with this current drought."
... five pages see link above ...
"The weather observations from 1833 by Charles Darwin constitute and important warning to the near future. Severe droughts not rarely are followed by excessive rain. His notes from 170 years ago in South America, furthermore, reveal the persistence of a climate pattern observed 200 years ago that, despite its recurrence, today is seen as caused by manmade global warming and not nature following its natural path. Charles Darwin took notice of the periodicity of droughts, but nowadays we are forced to read catastrophic claims that ignore history. Those that doubted you have inherited the wind. We have inherited your knowledge. Thank you Mr. Darwin for your overall scientific contribution ! The last two words of the article belong to you. [Charles Darwin's signature follows]"
Note that I'm just the messenger, please don't shoot me if you disagree with Darwin's assessment of the climate patterns or with the author of the article, Alexandre Aguiar - MetSul Weather Center (Brazil). Please respond as if speaking to him. Thanks very much in advance.
ps. I'm a Systems Scientist with a deep specialty in simulations, modeling and author of computer software systems of all kinds - however I'm not yet an expert versed in climate details - I'm just willing to use the scientific process to actually ask questions - pro and con - and demand that the so called evidence and falsifications be explained and audited in exquisite details so that it doesn't take experts to verify the data and conclusions as it currently does. I support moving science education along with a focus on giving people the ability to think critically and to apply the scientific method themselves so that they don't rely on beliefism, the bane of our existence as sentient beings (for some that's being polite). I support a high standard in communicating science, don't you?
I like how the last line of PZ's post contains "without God" and "perfect." There's just something about that that warms my spiteful heart.
I had forgotten what it's like to have an educated man serving as president. I had grown too accustomed to the spiteful ignorant monkey that the pentecostals had put into the office. I used to say to friends "Reagan is gone, now Bonzo's running the Whitehouse".
Now to wait and see if Obama can get anything done. He's certainly charismatic, but charisma isn't all the nation needs.
It cannot be a speech unless the background is emblazoned with the theme of the speech.
"Went to Borders to buy "Voyage of the Beagle",and was greeted by a totally blank stare by the clerk,she had never heard of it,I had to spell Beagle for her..."
I always think of it as "Voyage of the Beagle" too, but the actual title is
"Journal of Researches by Charles Darwin into the Natural History & Geology of the Countries Visited During The Voyage of the H.M.S. Beagle under the Command of Capt. Fitz Roy R.N."
Still, I would hope a bookseller would recognize the familiar abbreviation. It will be worth your persistence, however. It's a good read.
He probably didn't write it himself. It did end in god bless America. It's encouraging that he'll close Guantanamo, but he's pro-wiretapping and pro-MAFIAA. Maybe McCain would have been all these things too, but that doesn't justify hero-worship.
The shout out to Darwin is 6:20 into the video, but the speech is well worth your time in its entirety
If only because "it would have been perfect" suggests this time-worn jape:
"How was your weekend?"
"If only the soup had been as warm as the wine, and if only the wine had been as old as the chicken, and if only the chicken had been as tender as the maid, and if only the maid had been as willing as the hostess, it would have been perfect."
If you folks in the USA don't fully appreciate what OB is trying to do, could we have him here in oz as our president when QE2 dies and we need a new head of state? Thanks.
the abbreviation is BHO. OB is a tampon. :-p
Obama is an intelligent articulate man...he will not only be America's finest president this century...although not hard...but probably eclipses quite a few from the last one!
Certainly since Kennedy has America consistently shot itself in its own presidential foot...could you imagine where America would be today if Lee Harvey had missed!
But what is ...is...Anyway ...Obama ...come the hour cometh the man and all that!
I just worry for him and his family...one god inspired good 'ol boy and the dream will be passed and gone.
The religious right...certainly in the southern states... will try to reassert by fouling up their state legislature with pompous inane challenges to this that and the other...trying to bog down the process of any change proposed.
And to that end it seems quite obvious that the school boards will be inundated with crap...
Seems the Texas Freedom Network has a challenge of ferocious intent...
'The far right -- always well-funded -- is already regrouping and looking to reverse our gains. We’ve heard from SBOE (Texas State Board of Education) members that they are being bombarded with thousands of e-mails from far-right groups like Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum and the Texas affiliate of James Dobson’s Focus on the Family."
This of course is about the final vote in March...
"Seems that the battle for helm's deep is over...but the battle for middle Earth now begins!"
Be very aware that the battle will be ...bloody......as William so aptly wrote..
"That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us. "
On a serious point...this really is a turning point...maybe folks here will do what they do best of all...inform the Texan SBOE that Science...'real' Science is worth fighting for...
If this one is lost...matters not a flying jot in hell what Obama says or does not say or even how he says it...America will be diminished...simple like so!
"If only he'd left off the 'god bless America' nonsense at the end, it would have been perfect."
We all totally agree, but I guess he is aware that he is supposed to represent a nation where a substantial majority are religious, and feels he has to at least pay lip-service them too.
Personally I doubt that that is his personal conviction, but I could be wrong.
Hopefully in years to come the religiobabble will just be a distant memory.
Excellent, excellent speech. For all the early talk of the necessary disillusionment of the left, I just can't help listening to this guy and thinking "yeah, this is a good thing", rather than cringing and resisting the urge to turn away from the screen, as with Bozo jr. Count your lucky stars and enjoy it you can.
Btw, I didn't get the joke about the commerce secretary. Anyone care to enlighten me?
His notes from 170 years ago in South America, furthermore, reveal the persistence of a climate pattern observed 200 years ago that, despite its recurrence, today is seen as caused by manmade global warming and not nature following its natural path. Charles Darwin took notice of the periodicity of droughts, but nowadays we are forced to read catastrophic claims that ignore history. - pwl
Typical of denialists that they have to parade their nonsense wherever they can, relevant or not. It is simply false to say that climate science ignores history; on the contrary, it integrates historical data from multiple sources; and this evidence shows quite clearly that the climate of the late 20th and early 21th century is exceptional within the Holocene. The theory of anthropogenic climate change is based on the fundamental physics of greenhouse gases - work that goes back to around the time the Origin was published. No model that does not include a strong contribution to recent climate change from anthropogenic sources has come anywhere near accounting for that change. In other words, there is no coherent alternative to the theory of anthropogenic climate change.
I'm just willing to use the scientific process to actually ask questions - pro and con - and demand that the so called evidence and falsifications be explained and audited in exquisite details so that it doesn't take experts to verify the data and conclusions as it currently does. I support moving science education along with a focus on giving people the ability to think critically and to apply the scientific method themselves so that they don't rely on beliefism, the bane of our existence as sentient beings (for some that's being polite). I support a high standard in communicating science, don't you? pwl
Mendacious garbage. What does "so-called evidence" mean? What "so-called evidence"? By "beliefism", you appear to mean taking note of, and provisionally accepting, a consensus of relevant experts. Yes, such a consensus can be wrong, but that's not the way to bet. Yes, I do support a high standard in communicating science. There are several recent books explaining climate science at a range of levels; and blogs by real climate scientists such as RealClimate. What you evidently want is to tie climate scientists up in demands that everything be "explained and audited in exquisite details" - so leaving that much less time for actual science. Why?
'Btw, I didn't get the joke about the commerce secretary. Anyone care to enlighten me?'
Bit of a poisoned chalice apparently...'Barry' is looking for yet another nominee after two previous ones have withdrawn...
Nobody wants the job in the present economic climate seemingly!
@ strangebrew #33
Thanks, I thought it might have been a reference to Lincoln I didn't get. Still, commerce shouldn't be as much of a hot potato as Treasury, I would have thought.
Uh, that should be; "...who speaks English well".
Techno-logic-im gay and drunk and i am going to jack off and smoke pot and cigarettes, and i'm so drunk i can't type- i am going to light a cigarette and listen to Daft Punk because I am posting a fuckin-...post...
And pro-...state secrets now, too? This business is just weird.
you know you want my robocok- my electrogentalia- you want my static slow zonk- i have all electro-lightning
cassio- electr0-zohohoho ewwqqqzzzz
<==> eq
I'd rather see a president who couldn't speak good English, than one who is currently in the process of pushing through a spectacular increase in pork-barrel spending, government bureaucracy and interference in the economy. The bill will undo much of the good from the 1996 welfare reforms and the government cutbacks of the Reagan era.
Obama should be doing the exact opposite - cutting back taxes and spending, abolishing entitlement programmes, and reining in the absurd size of the federal government. However, I can't say I'm surprised. This is why, for all his many faults, I supported McCain. Having said that, the modern GOP is a complete joke.
I feel sorry for future generations of Americans who are going to have to bear the brunt of this wasteful government spending that will cripple America for years to come.
Brownian, OM - God bless America is on a par with God save the Queen, a figure of speech. - Patricia, OM
Actually, I can't think when I last heard the phrase "God save the Queen" at the end of a British politician's speech - and I'd be astonished if politicians in any of the other places she's still queen of, except perhaps some Caribbean countries, say it. I think it's said at some point during the formal opening of Parliament, but that would be by some uniformed flunkey - possibly the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod (he's the guy who gets the doors of the House of Commons slammed in his face). It would also be said in regimental officers' messes near the end of formal meals, as the "loyal toast" (the disloyal toast is then ceremonially buttered and eaten ;-) ).
(Postscript: But closing Guantánamo is a good thing. And in a way, I'm glad we're rid of Bush; by pretending to be a free-marketeer while in fact massively increasing the bloated federal government, Bush discredited the right. At least Obama doesn't pretend to be anything other than a big-government leftist.)
"I agree it's unfortunate Obama sometimes sucks up to religious insanity"
To paraphrase his new BFF, Tony Blair, I think it's worse than that; he means it.
At what point does "listing lots of things that might divide Americans then saying they are all united" get old?
If various advisors hadn't been firmly and repeatedly telling Tony Blair to shut up about religion we might have got rid of him sooner (with more UK voters recognising how dangerously insane he was from that if not from the rest of the copious clues). The US (in general, not the few sane individuals there) apparently likes him for his god-botting though.
Er, Walton... How would that help our economic situation? What about that is going to get the banks to lend again, get people spending again, or create jobs to replace the huge losses we've been seeing? Is there a libertarian fairy godmother that I'm unaware of?
FFS, you're proposing putting more people out of work and making the ones suffering the most suffer more.
This is OT, but I'm not surprised. The Borders down the block from me has Icons of Evolution leaning directly against The Dinosauria in its "science" section. We've already had threads that chewed on that particular issue some, but I'm not surprised about the clerk. Most of the Borders' employees I've conversed with have given me the impression that they were pretty weak in science. Again though, not surprising given the book buying habits of the general populace. They're not feeling an "environmental stress" to stock an extensive science section; there's certainly no impetus to make sure that there are a lot of employees who can field questions of any depth. They get props for having the The Dinosauria in stock, but end up with a failing grade overall because of the amount of woo and other bullshit they market as science.
Are you sure about this. My dad was a bandsman in the army and so used to play at these officers' bashes (though was only ever a corporal). As he told it the loyal toast itself is simply "The Queen" but it is traditional for "some wanker" to take it upon himself to say in loud voice "Gawd bless 'er" directly afterwards.
At least we know he could have writen it all himself. Hero-worship? He'll hardly be worshipped even by his greatest admirers. Just so long as he doesn't end up in the pockets of any special interest group. And why shouldn't he be admired - goddamnit he's a literate,intelligent man. He's someone America can be proud of, at last, someone the rest of the world lookes up to - what a change! Yes, he'll be a disappointment in some areas - but at least he's a hope, and a model of a statesman.
John McCain. John McCain?! Oh dear no.
Just be careful your bitteness doesn't get the better of you.
Ha ha, we won, we won.....
Having given the Loyal Toast once or twice, I can confirm that the correct wording is merely "The Queen". It would be incorrect to say "God save the Queen."
The loyal toast is indeed given in officers' messes, and is also traditionally given after many civilian formal dinners (including those in our university Conservative Association, I am pleased to say).
Lincoln vs Darwin explained,1min50secs in
http://acksisofevil.org/audio/inner211.mp3
Obama should be doing the exact opposite - cutting back taxes and spending, abolishing entitlement programmes, and reining in the absurd size of the federal government. However, I can't say I'm surprised. This is why, for all his many faults, I supported McCain. Having said that, the modern GOP is a complete joke.
Keep flogging that horse Walton, one day, all the evidence to the contrary, it's going to leap up and win the Derby!!
As the current economic crisis hove into view, the first thing the conservative Swedish government did, was increase the education budget. The reasons are trivially obvious.
The economy is in any event, nothing but a vast bloated fiction; a single central bank, a single currency; and baseline global social welfare, education and environmental legislation, would go a long way to preventing the story from intermittently unravelling.
Vote here : http://www.voteworldgovernment.org/vote.shtml
Too bad Obama and Congress caved in and did exactly what Walton suggested and gutted the stimulus package in hopes of Republican votes that didn't materialize. Thanks, Change I Can Believe In.
I happened on part of a presidential press conference the other night, and was very impressed with how well President Obama spoke, both for his English usage and for his attitude towards the listeners.
" ...who speaks good English
Uh, that should be; "...who speaks English well"."
No, pretty sure that's OK. It's his English language that's being described, not his action in mouthing it.
One could say, equally correctly "who speaks good English well."
hahaaha libertarian Walton pledges fealty to his feudal mistress.
Walton, a diet consisting only of sound bites will leave you emaciated (and certainly not emancipated). For an healthier mind-building diet try reading The Skeptical Optimist. And perhaps you will stop being a Libertarian caricature. His essay today is a case in point:
http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/2009/02/fixing-friedmans-famous-pro…
"he should be cutting back taxes" - it's amazing how these morons forget than when their false idol reagan did this, government revenues tanked. But, if you believe in trickle down, laffer curves, and other unproven shit, it is consistent to say dumb things like this.
I think it's been conclusively proven. Light government, freedom for the wealthy, and let the bankers control the money. Where is the downside?
Matt Heath, Walton,
You are of course right about the loyal toast.
*Takes revolver from desk draw and shoots himself, as the only honourable way out.*
Walton, you might be interested in:
Reagan vs. Bush: Federal Spending and Budget Deficits. In brief - and this is by no means the only source - your hero Reagan significantly increased federal spending and the deficit as a proportion of GDP - but perhaps military spending doesn't count? The URL I link to is from 2006, so its complimentary remarks about Bush's handling of the economy look rather otiose. What Reagan did do, of course, was vastly increase inequality by privatizing whatever he could, continuing the deregulation begun under Ford and Carter, attacking welfare, and cutting taxes for the rich - thus, since wealth is power, increasing the power of the rich relative both to the rest of the population, and to the federal government.
Walton,
Matt Heath makes the point@55 - how on earth do you reconcile "libertarianism" and monarchism? Don't forget all your inane "there is no such thing as society" prattle as you formulate your answer.
Walton @40,
this wasteful government spending that will cripple America for years to come
America has already been crippled, by the preceding eight years of malfeasance under Bush and his Republican party. The current programme is (to belabour the metaphor further) splints and surgery and rehab, all applied in a desparate effort to see the patient (maybe, possibly) walk again, rather than than be hooked up to a respirator, unable to move from the neck down.
Dolt. Stop wasting our time and your own in these threads. Get back to your casebooks. If you work very hard and apply yourself, you just might attain a glorious future, ticking boxes and filling out forms in triplicate to deny insurance claims.
That should be "...who speaks English gooder than Bush."
Patricia (#11) "Brownian, OM - God bless America is on a par with God save the Queen, a figure of speech. Obama has to say it in certain ceremonies."
I suspect that in the UK the phrase "God Save The Queen" is uttered once for every thousand times or more that "God Bless America" is uttered. It is just something that is not heard unless one has a formal toast. It is certainly not something tacked on to the end of every speech by every Tom, Dick and Harry. And one certainly never sees bumper stickers with the phrase.
What is with this libertarian thing? I mean, it's just conservatism with a world-weary slant, right? Nothing new at all. Freedom = Rrepression, huh? Or the converse. It's bound to be wrong - any economic plan besed on one set of theories is simple minded to the point of brain damage.
But what do I know, I'm just one consciousness experiencing itself.
Walton @ 40,
You are right about Obama being on the wrong track, though I posit that at this point in time he has no other choice than to pretend that BAU can be saved. It can't!
However to suggest as you do, that the completely failed past policies of the GOP,is what we need more of is to underscore your absolute divorce from even the most tenous grasp on reality.
As for feeling sorry for future generations of Americans (and all citizens of the world) I share your pain. We are all truly and completely fucked unless we come to terms with reality. You sir are not on that path!
Link
See also:
http://www.oid-ido.org/article.php3?id_article=730
Adrian Burd @63: If you include singing the anthem (say at sporting internationals) it goes up a notch. Basically you are right though; for all that is retarded about British politics, I can't think of any silly shibboleths that politicians are obliged to utter on a regular basis in the way they do "God Bless American" in the States.
Walton, Walton, Walton - My dear boy, I am afraid you are old enough to be told the truth. The libertarian fairy (Ms. Rand) is no more real than Santa, the Easter Bunny or the tooth fairy. Time to put aside the things of childhood and embrace the wonderful world of adulthood. It probably would not hurt to up your meds also.
Ciao, dear boy, and an open invitation to drinks still lingers for when next I am in the UK.
It's a pleasure to once again have an adult in the White House
@52: unless you think the Obama administration is going to do nothing for the next four years, I wouldn't fret too much about some of the compromises in this stimulus bill.
On the Walton/monarchy thing; I guess if you're a libertarian and you think the Queen owns the whole country, revering here is perfectly reasonable :) Libertarianism; because the feudal system didn't suck enough the first time round.
soooo
anyway
I threw out some Lincoln vs Darwin meat, but yall have chosen to discuss what Waltan said.
Happy Sarah Palin, fucktards.
you deserve her as your ruler, and Hovind as your scholar.
Please lets all save this page and relook it in four years, and save the adolescent taunts til then.
Not all of us. I'm not rising to Walton's bait. If the looneytarian wants to discuss his fantasies, he's got his own blog to do it.
Hey, Gwen #23
You are lucky she did not suggest you try the pet department
President's ability to put together a coherent sentence is truly a refreshing experience :)
Walton @ 40: "I'd rather see a president who couldn't speak good English, than one who is currently in the process of pushing through a spectacular increase in pork-barrel spending, government bureaucracy and interference in the economy."
Walton, read Keynes and then we'll talk about it. Also: try saying what you mean instead of using mental short-cuts like 'pork-barrel'. This will make it harder for you to inadvertently say false things.
Congratulations America. You have a world class leader and a thinker for the first time in decades. (Well, maybe the second time...) The parade of second-rate actors, failed baseball team managers, and mediocre secret service bureaucrats is over. At least for a short while. Let's hope you make the best of it.
I have never been more interested in a particular politician (politics normally bore me to death). Nor more impressed. As much as I'd like to see the "god bless the USA" go, please note that it is by now an almost meaningless phrase. It's the obligatory way of finishing a speech if you're the pres, nothing more. I mean, consider the rest of the speech - as far as I could tell, he didn't mention god or religion even once, and he even had the audacity to bring up Charles Darwin, as if that evil heathen deserves any respect...
Also, he padded the evil socialist notion of government actually being good and even necessary by first claiming government has gone too far, occasionally. Devious! This man and his speechwriters are brilliant. But, of course, in the end it could turn out to be so much talk. On the other hand - would it hurt us to be hopeful and optimistic once in a while?
Fernando Magyar@65,
Your interesting links raise the question of whether this crash is, in fact, the beginning of the end of capitalism - at least in anything like its present form. There have been a couple of unguarded comments in the UK recently - by a government minister, and the Governor of the Bank of England - to the effect that this is the worst financial crisis in a century, i.e. worse than that which triggered the Great Depression. I'd say it's the worst ever - because financial deregulation and globalization have effectively removed all the barriers to a large but still local event - the US house price crash - spreading throughout the global economy and leading to a "bankers' strike" - the banks are still refusing to lend money despite vast public subsidies. Of course the "libertarian" nostrum - let them all fail - would have caused almost instant economic collapse, as modern capitalism relies completely on businesses' ability to roll over loans. Handing out money to consumers probably would not do much either; in hard times and anticipating worse, people save or reduce debt. I guess they might buy and hoard food, clothes, fuel etc. - but not new cars or computers, or expensive holidays. Moreover since MV=PO (M is money supply, V is velocity of circulation, P is prices, O is output - and of course you can't really measure any of them exactly and the first two at least are not really well-defined), and V has gone through the floor due to the bankers' strike, the amounts required to avoid either deflation or a collapse in output would be vast - risking hyperinflation if the banks did then start to lend again. (I'd be interested in corrections to this reasoning from 'Tis Himself or others who actually know something about economics - which rules out "libertarians" of course.)
The authors of the URLs you link to are right to see "Peak Oil" and climate change as severe constraints on recovery; but I'm not convinced these have much to do with the genesis of the crisis - that, I think, has been internally generated by the privatize/deregulate/globalize policies of the past three decades. Even the peak in oil and food prices last year was, I've heard, due largely to speculative money rushing out of finance and real estate as the depths of the crisis became clear.
The only short-to-medium term solution I see is for governments either to force the banks to lend, or to get into large-scale lending to businesses themselves. Of course the UK government now owns a large segment of the banking industry, so in our case, these would amount to much the same thing. Meanwhile, we could at least stimulate the tar and poultry sectors, and satisfy the understandable public thirst for revenge on the "Masters of the Universe" in a relatively humane way.
Ragutis,
"What about that is going to get the banks to lend again, get people spending again, or create jobs to replace the huge losses we've been seeing?"
You should also ask that of Obama's plans, but first you should question the goal. We've just come through a massive deleveraging event and your goal is to rebuild the house of cards, getting the banks lending again. Money that gets created through leverage creates risk in the economy. Unfortunately, the Libertarians are as wrong as the fiscal conservatives and as wrong as the statists on this. We have a fiat money system and 4 to 7 trillion dollars have disappeared through deleveraging. We have a federal reserve that doesn't know how to create money other than through easy credit again. Neither the government nor the Federal reserve know how to "print" money. It is stupid to have a "crisis", where people and capital are used at undercapacity, when all that is missing is the money.
Unfortunately only the United States has the status to print the money. Borrowing the money the way the government is in the stimulous plan only sucks the money up from one place and puts it in another.
The federal reserve should have debit accounts for every man, woman and child in the country and deposit money directly into them. It should have this as a permanent facility for creating money. In the near term a carefully managed partial replacement of the missing money should be begun. A trillion dollars would be about $4000. A family of 4 would suddenly have $16000 to spend or save. I suspect over two or three years, another 2 to 4 trillion dollars would have to follow.
The federal reserved would manage this to a 2 to 3% inflation rate target, and it would RAISE interest rates. "Stimulating the economy" by lowering interest rates and destroying any incentive to save, like it did in the past was madness. We need savings as well, people deferring current consumption and investing in the future. The federal reserve, in order to avoid runaway inflation, would as usual, monitor prices and productive capacity utilization, but with unemployment rising, there is obviously under utilized resources to be employed.
How would the money be put to use? In 300,000,000 different ways. The people would be deciding the "winners" and "losers" in the economy with their choices, instead of politicians. There will be more saving, more purchases of consumer goods and automobiles, more investment is weather proofing homes and adding green technology, and fewer forclosures. Housing price leves can be nursed back up without using low interest rates to create a bubble.
Conservatives and libertarians would not like printing money, but they would like the idea that the people not the government would be picking the winners and losers. The would also like the fact that it won't be government getting to spend the printed money, the government will still have to be fiscally responsible. The peoople will retain the purse strings, one of the key checks on the power of the state. The wealth of the country will be built on ownership and equity instead of leverage and risk.
The statists will like it because it is power to the people in a completely equalitarian way. The poor in the slums get the same money per person as the rich. They will love this, or, at least we will find out if their response really matches their rhetoric, or if they will resent the fact that the people got to pull the economy out of the recession, instead of the state.
Just imagine, when Bush was president we actually had both.
Shrub would say, "So what's the big deal? I speak English good."
Knockgoats
When somebody pointed out that Reagan's complaining about government spending being inflationary was inconsistent with his jacking up of the defense budget, he said (with a straight face) that military spending wasn't inflationary. Even back then, I suspected Alzheimer's.
I threw out some Lincoln vs Darwin meat, but yall have chosen to discuss what Waltan said.
That's because you're derailing. Nobody (here at least) would debate the fact that Darwin had more worldwide influence than Lincoln; however, Obama's words about Lincoln are the topic of this post. Dude, there are like half a dozen posts about Darwin just under this one. It's not like he's being dissed.
Is it not "I marvel every time at a president who speaks English well"... ???
Pablo:
Just imagine, when Bush was president we actually had both.
I actually agree. Bush was one of the worst things to happen to American conservatism this century. He deployed the rhetoric of free markets, while in fact increasing the bloated federal government - and when everything (predictably) went to hell, people blamed the free market, despite the fact that Bush was not and has never been a free-marketeer. At least Obama is honest about being a big-government leftist - meaning that when things continue to go to hell in a handbasket, people will realise that big government is shit.
Scooter,
The lincoln vs Darwin meat wasn't in the first 30 seconds. I guess I'm just impatient but it didn't capture me. Can you summarize?
Barry:
Try parsing "I marvel every time at a president who speaks proper English." Now swap out the adjective.
JeffreyD: The libertarian fairy (Ms. Rand) is no more real than Santa, the Easter Bunny or the tooth fairy. Time to put aside the things of childhood and embrace the wonderful world of adulthood.
Randian Objectivism != libertarianism. Indeed, Rand thought moderate libertarians like myself were scum (read her comments on the then-nascent Libertarian Party).
Objectivism is not just a political ideology, it's a complete philosophy of life, encompassing metaphysics, epistemology and ethics, and centred around the twin principles of objective reality and rational egoism. By contrast, libertarianism is merely a political outlook, and is compatible with lots of different philosophical, religious and moral standpoints. I am a libertarian, but I am not and have never been an Objectivist.
It's like conflating, for instance, Jainism and pacifism; while all Jains are pacifists, not all pacifists are Jains. And Jainism is a religious and moral philosophy by which one guides one's entire life, whereas pacifism is merely a moral outlook on one issue (the morality of violence) and is compatible with lots of different philosophical stances. Similarly, libertarianism is a moral outlook on one issue (the morality of government coercion), and is compatible with many different philosophical stances, from Christianity to nihilism.
Unlike Rand, I do not reject altruism and compassion, nor do I believe that the sole goal of life is the pursuit of one's own rational interests. I merely consider State coercion of the individual and subordination of the individual will, to an extent greater than urgently necessary, to be immoral.
africangenesis' money-for-all idea is one of those plans which sounds really great until you actually reality-check it for two seconds. There are important things (infrastructure renewal, investment in science and tech research) that simply don't get done if you spread the money that thinly.
Indeed, Rand thought moderate libertarians like myself were scum - Walton
Good grief, would you credit it? Something Rand got right ;-)
Knockgoats:
In brief - and this is by no means the only source - your hero Reagan significantly increased federal spending and the deficit as a proportion of GDP - but perhaps military spending doesn't count? The URL I link to is from 2006, so its complimentary remarks about Bush's handling of the economy look rather otiose. What Reagan did do, of course, was vastly increase inequality by privatizing whatever he could, continuing the deregulation begun under Ford and Carter, attacking welfare, and cutting taxes for the rich - thus, since wealth is power, increasing the power of the rich relative both to the rest of the population, and to the federal government.
I agree that Reagan was irresponsible in massively increasing the federal deficit. However, one has to see that in the context of his time, and of his strategy to combat Soviet power via a massive arms buildup. Whether that strategy was or was not wise is not something I'm going to debate. (Of course, the fact that the USSR ended on Reagan's watch may indicate that his strategy was rather effective; but I'm very much aware that the relative importance of his contribution, compared to that of Gorbachev and of internal political and economic factors, is a hot topic of debate among historians, and I don't presume to offer an opinion.)
Matt Heath makes the point@55 - how on earth do you reconcile "libertarianism" and monarchism? Don't forget all your inane "there is no such thing as society" prattle as you formulate your answer.
Interesting question. I don't believe in monarchism, in the literal sense of the word (that is to say, in the L'état, c'est moi sense). I certainly don't feel the quasi-feudal sense of loyalty you seem to be imputing to me.
But what we have in Britain, and other Western European "monarchies", is not "monarchy" in any meaningful sense (though we confusingly label it "constitutional monarchy"); rather, it is a constitutional republic with an apolitical hereditary head of state.
While it may seem bizarre to select one's head of state through heredity - and I certainly wouldn't make the claim that it's an effective method of selection in general - it is, actually, not a bad method of ensuring that one's head of state is independent of party politics. I think it's a good thing to have a national figurehead who is not a party political figure. Some countries, like Germany, Ireland and India, manage this by having an essentially non-executive President who performs purely ceremonial functions; we do the same thing, but choose our ceremonial head of state via heredity rather than election.
It may not be an ideologically pure system; but as they say, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Fernando Magyar:
However to suggest as you do, that the completely failed past policies of the GOP,is what we need more of is to underscore your absolute divorce from even the most tenous grasp on reality.
I did not, actually, suggest that. I agree that the policies of the GOP have failed over the last eight years, because Bush was not really a fiscal conservative; he simply pretended to be. Although he cut taxes - which in itself is a good thing - he financed these tax cuts via massive deficit spending, which is a really, really stupid thing to do. He increased the size of the federal bureaucracy, rather than massively reducing it as he should have done. And on the rare occasions when he did get the right idea (e.g. privatising Social Security), he was blocked from doing what needed to be done by the national political climate.
What America needs is neither Republican nor Democrat policies. Both are fundamentally statist. Rather, what America - and virtually every other developed country - needs is an immediate massive cut in both spending and taxation, the gradual abolition of federal entitlement programmes, and an end to intrusive nanny-state interference in people's lives, both in the personal and economic spheres.
Stephen Wells#88,
"There are important things (infrastructure renewal, investment in science and tech research) that simply don't get done if you spread the money that thinly."
Investment for the future is more affordable if the economy is performing well. The government can still tax and spend as usual, except that when the economy is growing, it can lower taxes and still get more revenue. Obama is being distracted from his real agenda, by what is essentially a monetary issue. We will all be better off if we can get the economy back on track, even if that means that Obama gets to focus on health care. The economic situation is making national health care look cheap by comparison.
Walton, Yawn. Why are you commenting so vehemently on American politics? Worry about your politics in the UK and Europe.
@87: everybody dislikes unnecessary government coercion. This does not make you special.
AnthonyK:
It's a kind of wide-eyed, credulous conservatism that assumes that large democratic institutions like governments are inherently evil, but large antidemocratic institutions like corporations are the personification of holy individualism, and as pure as the driven snow. "The market demands it" is seen as the canonical justification for anything, no matter how reprehensible. Fortunately, as with other religious fundamentalists, the one thing libertarians like more than pissing about big government is arguing with other libertarians about what constitutes The One True Libertarianism; their propensity for fratricide means that the likelihood that they'll ever constitute a serious political threat is small.
"Yawn", Wake of Nerd of Redhead. You are accumulated too much CO2. The American economy is the only one that can print the money and get away with it. Well, not really, I bet Japan could too, but they've had 2 decades to do it, so I'm not holding my breath.
Epikt,
"large antidemocratic institutions like corporations are the personification of holy individualism"
Wrong again, corporations are artificial legal entities that exist at the discretion of the government. What school you done went? You can't hate the corporations and love the government at the same time.
Walton-to-English translator: intrusive nanny-state interference = roads, schools, national health service.
In other news, africangenesis still can't read for comprehension.
Doesn’t Obama just make you smile?
I had to laugh when he gave a shout out to Darwin. It gave blood pressure spikes to millions of Limbaugh ditto-heads and O’Reilly disciples. I’m surrounded by these goofballs, and they are sooo dumb. Of course he believes in evolution; he’s a Muslim ain’t he?
It's a kind of wide-eyed, credulous conservatism that assumes that large democratic institutions like governments are inherently evil, but large antidemocratic institutions like corporations are the personification of holy individualism, and as pure as the driven snow.
Erm, is it really that hard to understand the distinction? Governments - whether democratic or not - are ultimately founded on coercion. Government has, in the end, the power to force you to comply with its wishes, and to lock you up if you refuse to do so. Is it so difficult, therefore, to see why we see governments as inherently dangerous to liberty? Democratic decision-making does not remove the element of coercion; it merely gives the majority the power to coerce the minority.
By contrast, a corporation - or any other private individual or entity - can only use coercive force against you with impunity if it has been authorised to do so by a government. Look at it this way. If you refuse to comply with the wishes of Wal-Mart, it cannot hold a gun to your head or have you dragged away to jail. If it does so, it will be acting in violation of the law. By contrast, if you refuse to comply with the wishes of the United States Congress - however vehemently you may disagree with them - government agents can, indeed, have you dragged away to jail. The difference should be obvious to any rational person.
This does not mean corporations don't have power; they clearly do. But they mostly gain such power through corrupting the governing process, and using the coercive power of government to their own advantage. Such corruption is often blatant in the developing world; in the US it's a little more subtle, but the close relationship between legislators, lobbyists and private contractors reveals the fact that some corporations use government power, very successfully, to serve their economic interests. By contrast, in a libertarian free-market society, government would be so limited in its power, and government spending would be so limited, that it would be impossible for this to happen.
Stephen Wells,
"In other news, africangenesis still can't read for comprehension"
I think you meant "write" for comprehension. Thanx for making the effort.
Yes,, africangenesis, you can't write for comprehension either; the fact that you say so yourself makes it even funnier. Would you like a few minutes to think about the difference between what you wrote and what you meant?
Another thread derailed by the looneytarians proving that they're economic illiterates.
I see our libertardians are still polluting us with their morally bankrupt economics and politics. Boring people. AG and Walton, go to Walton's blog and discuss it all you want. You have options, use them.
Arguing with libertards is just as big a waste of time as arguing with Christards, and for very similar reasons.
Yes, Walton, it's very hard to see why you think government is inherently dangerous to liberty. Absent a governmental monopoly on the use of coercive force, there is nothing to stop _everyone more heavily armed than you_ from coercing you. You can influence a government, you can vote against a government, you can run for office yourself. The Mafia won't give you any of those options and aren't limited by the rule of law. What's dangerous to liberty is illiberal government, not the existence of government tout court.
AG:
I think if you made the attempt to actually read, you'll find Stephen wrote exactly what he meant.
"I agree it's unfortunate Obama sometimes sucks up to religious insanity, but he has never invoked god in his weekly video addresses."
"I think it wouldn't be a smart move of Obama to leave out this nonsensical sentence if he wants to stay president. Let's face it - America is not ready for that yet."
"...but I guess he is aware that he is supposed to represent a nation where a substantial majority are religious, and feels he has to at least pay lip-service them too..."
Amazing.
I wonder if any of these statements would be made if McCain had been elected and did the same thing.
During the election, when I pointed out the ways in which their candidate (either side) disagreed with their fundamental ideals to friends and relatives, the answer was invariably:
"He has to say that to get elected."
At least that long riverboat doesn't discriminate.
Nerd of Redhead,OM,
"I see our libertardians are still polluting us with their morally bankrupt economics and politics. "
You are lying again. You don't see that at all. What you see and are afraid to admit, is that the left anarchists see libertarians as a threat and so are make invalid attacks and spread misinformation. There are constant gratuitous attacks laced with misinformation.
I don't blame the left anarchists, they are so back at the end of the 19th century, with their unrealistic view of human nature. Somalia scares them, because that is human nature meeting the anarchy the crave.
Do you try to make any statements that are actually supportable by the evidence?
Although I'm appreciative of the reference to Darwin, it seemed a little OT and strange.
I'm looking at it like a signal to the sane that he is a closet agnostic/atheist.
So, he said "God bless America" at the end.
Ah, but maybe he meant G.O.D., the Great Octopus Divinity?
AG, I am not lying about Libertardians being morally bankrupt. I decided that 20 years ago when I thought through the whole system. Stay with your fallacies. I don't care. Just shut up about them.
Louis CK is a fantastic comedian.
You know what else is Cool. Nikon cameras and lenses.
And High gravity beer. And single barrel bourbon whiskey. And slow smoked BBQ. And James Brown
Oh was I derailing the thread? I just wanted to talk about things I like to talk about.
Nerd of Redhead,OM,
Come on Nerd, what have you come up with that is better morally than individual rights and the principle of noncoercion? It would surely be a breakthrough given that western philosophy, since it all ends in nihilism. "I decided" is argument from authority, apparently your own. You "thought through the whole system", but can't tell us what principles and evidence your analysis was based upon, or what lines of reasoning you applied to reach your conclusion?
Did you just reproduce the same lines of western criticism that result in nihilism or have you dared to create something positive? Did you find the license (or is it licentiousness) to coerce and kill? So you think you are the first. Yawn. You have thought of nothing new.
Who the fuck are "the left anarchists?" Do you have to wear tinfoil in your hat so they can't control you with microwave beams from Pluto? Are they related to the twelve-foot shape-changing lizards?
It may not be an ideologically pure system; but as they say, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Walton
You can look at the heir apparent and say it ain't broke???
BTW "monarchism" is, simply, belief in monarchy - whether absolute or not. What, exactly, is a "Head of State" need for anyway?
AG, the fact that you cannot see the moral bankruptcy of your philosophy says volumes about you, none of it good. So there is no reason to engage such a demented fool. I dealt with ideologues during my undergraduate days, and I see the futility in doing so.
Here's a real question for you. Are you really changing any minds with your rants? I would think not. You merely keep confirming that my original evaluation was correct. So why continue posting here? Find a more hospitable blog.
@28:
It is also one of the major brands of Korean beer. If you think macro-lager swill is bad in the U.S., try Korean beer. Not only did we play a huge part in tearing their country in half, we apparently foisted our taste for cheap, watered-down crap on them too.
This does not mean corporations don't have power; they clearly do. But they mostly gain such power through corrupting the governing process, and using the coercive power of government to their own advantage. - Walton
Never had a serious job, have you Walton?
Social Credit has interested me ever since I first learned of it, but I haven't yet seen any arguments against it which weren't based on this: "It won't work because it isn't like what we have now, which is natural and right."
I'm a little bit disabused by seeing AG put it forth... but I still haven't seen any arguments against it.
I understand why it isn't in place... The ones with the most power and money would slaughter us all first before letting it be put in place... but please tell me why it wouldn't work, if you can.
I marvel every time at a president who speaks good English what speaks English good
There, fixed that up for you.
You're welcome.
@115: I think a function of a "Head of State" is to have someone who can represent the country, meet foreign dignitaries etc., and an argument for the retention of the monarchy in the UK is to have a head of state who isn't anything to do with the government; it makes the point that the state itself persists over generations while governments come and go. Making the job hereditary is quite arbitrary but then so are nations and states.
Nerd of Redhead,OM,
How did I know you would respond with a personal attack rather than address the substance. You still can't even define "moral bankruptcy", yet you throw it around. You call what you did an "evaluation", yet you are unwilling to disclose what values or evidence you used in your "evaluation".
"Are you really changing any minds with your rants? I would think not. "
Yes, I do. It is clear to everyone that it is not the trolls you are afraid of, you love to play with them and devote far too much time with them. You are afraid others on both sides will realize there is a defensible rational basis for free market economics, and for limiting governments with checks, balances, standards, and individual rights.
If you had something rational to support your "evaluation", you would risk exposing it to scrutiny. Come on, do you want the others to see that only the believers in freedom are willing to be open about their beliefs. Come'on bear open your ugly coercive soul.
How did I know you would respond with a personal attack rather than address the substance.
substance
Hails of derisive laughter.
You call what you did an "evaluation", yet you are unwilling to disclose what values or evidence you used in your "evaluation".
Anything more sophisticated than, "Hey everybody, be careful you don't step in that, cuz, phew," is wasted.
Carry on.
What you see and are afraid to admit, is that the left anarchists see libertarians as a threat and so are make invalid attacks and spread misinformation. There are constant gratuitous attacks laced with misinformation.
I don't blame the left anarchists, they are so back at the end of the 19th century, with their unrealistic view of human nature. Somalia scares them, because that is human nature meeting the anarchy the crave.
Anarchists (the "left" is redundant) certainly perceive the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of "libertarianism", but they are by no means alone in that: everyone from traditional conservatives through liberals to democratic socialists can see it just as easily, despite their differences. We have had numerous examples of it here, from your willingness to let child abuse go unchecked, to Walton's opposition to anyone preventing hoarders starving people to death for profit. Somalia is what you get when government is very weak, and there are no institutional arrangements to prevent the strong from bullying the weak - exactly what "libertarians" advocate. You are loathed because you are loathsome - it really is that simple.
what have you come up with that is better morally than individual rights and the principle of noncoercion? - Africangenesis
That would be just fine if you did not use a dishonest sense of "coercion", in which the rich do not "coerce" the poor by giving them the choice of working for a pittance or starving; and if even many of our noncoercive activities did not damage or threaten others.
It would surely be a breakthrough given that western philosophy, since it all ends in nihilism. - Africangenesis
The usual garbage, assertion without argument.
AG, Who the fuck are you to demand that I justify my decisions to you? You have no such authority, and you know it. I will not engage you that way. Nobody has to justify themselves to you, but you need to justify your continuing to post here to us. So far, you are making a poor case for yourself.
I prefer to think of it as: I'm glad we have a president who speaks English well, finally.
Knockgoats,
'Anarchists (the "left" is redundant) certainly perceive the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of "libertarianism'
Like Nerd the Redhead, they must have a special organ with which they "perceive" it.
You seem to forget, that YOU were the one that was willing to let female genital mutilation go unchecked, just as you were willing to let Saddam's rape rooms go unchecked. You worship a silling little thing like borders and sovereignty. Human rights end where borders begin in your book. Compromises have to be made someplace. You just want to make them in a different place. We will all be better off if states are more constrained. Which kinds of states allow more child abuse, ones that recognize rights to individual privacy that limit enforcement or ones that recognize child abuse as entertainment and a sign of privilege?
Left anarchists need to realize that it is human nature that they are up against. Humans don't need justification for coercion and killing, they've killed and coerced just fine without justification for 200,000 thousand years.
Stephen Wells:
That's libertarianspeak for "a group of people who want to radically increase government control of our lives by doing away with the government."
Oh Christ!!
I saw this post jump up quickly in comments and thought there might be something interesting going on.
It's just the damned libs again?
Nerd of Redhead,OM,
You don't have to justify your decisions, but it was you that claimed that your decision was a rather complete "evaluation", evidently it wasn't enough for you to announce your decision, you wanted to give it the credibility of some gravitas.
It is easy to justify my continued posting, it is to represent a different point of view that is well enough supported to represent a challenge to the consensus, and to pierce the illusion that some might have that they can be "right" without having thought about or being able to defend their positions. It is also to expose your fear, that you might not be right. That fear is healthy, if it leads to re-evaluation, but unhealthy if it devolves into censorship and the closing of the mind.
Walton:
" At least Obama is honest about being a big-government leftist - meaning that when things continue to go to hell in a handbasket, people will realise that big government is shit."
Your grasp of logic is even worse than your grasp of, well, reality. I don't know what will happen to the economy if/when the "stimulus" package and other items go into place - neither do you (and you haven't explicitly said you do, to cover your butt I assume), but:
The fact that a downward spiral is already in place means that assigning it's continuing or ending to any one thing can't be done. Saying "Obama caused the economy to go downhill and collapsed" will be as stupid a statement as "Bush's policies caused the economy to begin going down."
You are the embodiment of the phrase "Being a libertarian means never having to think."
@Clinteas
You can actually read "Beagle" for free on books.google.com. Just do a search for Charles Darwin, and it'll be in the list.
You seem to forget, that YOU were the one that was willing to let female genital mutilation go unchecked, just as you were willing to let Saddam's rape rooms go unchecked. You worship a silling little thing like borders and sovereignty. Human rights end where borders begin in your book. - Africangenesis
You lying scumbag. I noted that launching a war has appalling and unpredictable consequences which passing and enforcing a law within a state does not - and you are unwilling to do the latter. I recognise that in the world as it currently is, borders exist. I look forward to the day that is no longer so.
Re #40 Walton: You all should know that it's not SOOOOOOOCIALISM! when rich people get the government handouts.
Africangenesis
Complain if you want, but I've had a self-described libertarian tell me precisely that. Perhaps he didn't understand The One True Libertarianism as well as you do.
'At the discretion of the government?!' At the end of eight years of Bushco, you're saying that with a straight face?! Please tell me you have your tongue in your cheek. What we've just seen is the barest Platonic shadow-on-the-wall image of what an unregulated capitalism would look like. Yet you seemed to think that LUPEs would magically change their ways if only that big old nasty government would just stop interfering in the private sector.
(Walks away shaking head in disbelief.)
Who disagrees with that?
Africangenesis, what yourself and others cannot accept is that we evaluate the system as a whole, rather than focus on narrow goals.
There are thousands of jobs, even within the richest societies, that are low paid. Given that we now know so much more about the effect of having a massive wealth gap, and that the environment that an individual is brought up in can condemn them to a life of poverty and struggle (on average), we are committed to doing something about that.
The kind of society that yourself and Walton advocate can only work, in my estimation, if there is a fairly uniform level of wealth and education, etc. But that is not what we see. I am yet to see any of the resident Libertarians deal with the evidence from parts Europe — where social justice is far more of a consideration — and the effect that has had on those societies, as a whole.
I am also yet to see any of you deal with inescapable notion that nobody, no matter how hard they have worked, earns their wealth on their own. Not only are they standing on the shoulders of all those who went before them, but they simply couldn't succeed without the thousands of individuals who work their butts off to create that wealth, but only get to take a tiny fraction of it.
Nobody here, as far as I'm aware, believes that capitalism is inherently evil. The evidence simply doesn't support that. But that does not mean that it is inherently good, either, and that it has the power to solve all problems.
I don't adhere to any ideology, and I admit that as far as political and economic discussion, I am a relative ignoramus. But unless you can provide evidence that a particular ideological standpoint can work — with the conditions as they currently are — you are doing no more than masturbating all over my computer screen. Thanks for that. No, really.
Stephen Wells,
The left anarchists are the Chomskyites at this site. About half the ,OMs are these anarchist propagandists. Other prominent contibuters are also anarchists and are part of the culture here. They don't believe in reason, but in the techniques of propaganda. Trying pinning them down. They respond with emotionalism, mocking and personal attacks. Have you ever noticed how little "science" there is on this science blog?
Which kinds of states allow more child abuse, ones that recognize rights to individual privacy that limit enforcement or ones that recognize child abuse as entertainment and a sign of privilege? - Africangenesis
What a dishonest and stupid pretence at asking a meaningful question.
What, AG is still unbanned?
Rachel Maddow had a nice segment on Darwin, and even had a bit about the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
@ #23
That's actually the title of the 1845 revised edition. The original 1839 edition had the natural history and geology reversed, so that geology came first. By 1845 Darwin realized that biology, not geology, was his main interest and made a number of significant changes, including the title, that reflected this.
@ #4
A very nice edition of Voyage of the Beagle is the National Geographic Adventure Classic, introduction by David Quammen, a large paperback, listed at $13 US.
""Your grasp of logic is even worse than your grasp of, well, reality. I don't know what will happen to the economy if/when the "stimulus" package and other items go into place - neither do you (and you haven't explicitly said you do, to cover your butt I assume)...""
It always amazes me just how much wrath a differing opinion can generate around here. It's like watching ants attempt to clear a tree they share a symbiotic relationship with. It can be amusing to throw debris just to see the sycophANTs do their thing.
Poor Walton.
Actually, the speech was pretty trite and not very good, though I like looking at Obama's face and imagining all of those southern bigots turning blue...
What the US really needs is the rule of law. The government needs to go back to acknowledging the Constitution and abiding by it, the Supreme Court needs to do their willful duty and reject Unconstitutional legislation, the Attorney General needs to set up a task force and prosecute bankster fraud WHICH WAS RAMPANT in this debacle.
The reason the US has the luxery of printing money and exporting inflation, is that our government has been reasonably stable for a long time. This is about to change, unless white collar crime is treated with the same zeal as pot smoking cancer patients...
As for the economy, Obama and his pals are trying to recreate the conditions that existed that led to the crash. More debt, more credit, more spending of wealth that was borrowed from overseas... If you think that is a good prescription, then good luck with your treatments and I hope the drugs work.
The hubris in these comments mirrors America's hubris. Soon, the hubris will be our downfall as nations like China simply stop buying our T-bills and we are forced to wallow in our printing presses mumbling "We used to be great, god bless" or some such shit.
Before hanging out at this site, I was unfamiliar with insane libertarianism. I thought it was another political philosophy. like anarcho-syndicalism or some free-association ideal. Thanks to its proponents here I now know it to be a form of religious woo, and its adherents to be lost in a delusional faith-based state of mind. Government by Mafia seems to be their goal, with anyone not powerful enough to bully their way to the top crushed under the heels of the selfish and greedy. AG is one sick puppy, and Walton needs a shitty job for about 20 years so he'll wise up to what actual working people have to deal with.
Carlie@#52,
Gutted? It still spends almost 800 billion dollars. Big chunks of which can't legitimately be called 'stimulus'. It also increases spending on programs that few that actually understand how government works believe will be temporary. We will be paying for this bill for decades.
It should have been limited to 3 things, and absolutely nothing else: spending on infrastructure for projects that were truly 'shovel ready', expansion of benefits for those hurt by the hard times (unemployment benefits, food stamps, etc.), and some tax cuts that would actually have a stimulative effect.
As an 'emergency' bill that wasn't going to get as much scrutiny as it should given the dollar amounts, if Obama's administration had taken the lead and crafted such a bare minimum plan itself, then it would have drawn bipartisan support without having to pander to anyone. All he had to do was say, "Here's a plan that I think we can all agree has a good chance of doing some good for the economy if we get it going fast. If there are other worthy projects that are left out of this plan, we can work on that at a more deliberate pace and be thorough." Instead, he handed the reins to Congress, which did what Congress does when you hand them a blank check - spend money on everything that's on their 'wish list', whether it is actually stimulus or not. Not to mention all of the things that they want to have passed without much public scrutiny, since it will be buried deep in hundreds of pages of impenetrable legislative language.
Damien,
I pointed out above that the current situation is essentially monetary and proposed a solution.
"There are thousands of jobs, even within the richest societies, that are low paid. Given that we now know so much more about the effect of having a massive wealth gap, and that the environment that an individual is brought up in can condemn them to a life of poverty and struggle (on average), we are committed to doing something about that."
Yes, the environment that an individual is brought up in makes a signficant difference, but poverty is usually a symptom rather than a cause. If the poor in the US can't compete while even poorer immigrants can come in and succeed despite having to overcome a language barrier, the problem obviously isn't poverty. The US helps more poor with open borders than the European social states help with closed borders and national health care systems. Do you think the undocumented workers that are sending so much money back to Mexico to help relatives and prop up that economy, want the borders closed so that they can get health care, but no longer have surplus to send home? They should be given the protection of law, but they should be allowed to choose food and shelter for others rather than health care for rich Americans.
Have you ever really analyzed the consequences of the "wealth gap"? What is that money actually doing? It is being productively managed by thousands of the most competent managers in the world. Very little of it is just being used for conspicuous consumption. Keep in mind that if government was managing that money, that is also a wealth gap, but one that is subject to lobbying and corruption, yet protected from the conseuences. The wealth that is the investment in the future has to be managed by somebody. What if the wealthy do start, OH NO, spending their money. What terrible thing would that mean? Well they would be giving up their wealth to others, creating employment, etc. Terrible. They are blamed if they manage it productively and blamed if the spend it.
It is easy to justify my continued posting, it is to represent a different point of view that is well enough supported to represent a challenge to the consensus
Only in your fevered, puny mind.
Epikt,
"What we've just seen is the barest Platonic shadow-on-the-wall image of what an unregulated capitalism would look like."
No, you've seen what unregulated Government Sponsored Enterprises would look like. Wake up!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1
The US helps more poor with open borders than the European social states help with closed borders and national health care systems.
That's it, everyone out of the pool, stop talking. You're a fucking moron. Closed borders? Are you on crack?
Stephen Wells #106:
Yes, Walton, it's very hard to see why you think government is inherently dangerous to liberty. Absent a governmental monopoly on the use of coercive force, there is nothing to stop _everyone more heavily armed than you_ from coercing you. You can influence a government, you can vote against a government, you can run for office yourself. The Mafia won't give you any of those options and aren't limited by the rule of law. What's dangerous to liberty is illiberal government, not the existence of government tout court.
Did you actually read what I wrote?
Yes, you are of course correct that a governmental monopoly on the use of force is necessary, because otherwise the strong would simply prey on the weak, and there would be no property rights or individual liberties. I am not an advocate of anarchy. But this is exactly my point.
One's liberty is compromised where someone forces one, through the ultimate threat of physical coercion, to act against one's will. There are two groups of people who can use coercive force to compel one to act against one's will: criminals and agents of government. In the end, if someone is ordering you to do something and threatening physical force against you, he or she is doing so either legally or illegally. If s/he is doing so illegally, s/he is a criminal; if s/he is doing so legally, s/he is an authorised agent of government. Thus, criminals and agents of government are the only two groups of people who can compromise our liberty.
We need government, law enforcement and courts in order to prevent criminals threatening our liberty (as well as to define property rights, arbitrate contracts, and a number of other basic functions). But in giving government the power to use coercive force against criminals, we invest it with an inherently dangerous power - the ability to use force with impunity in order to impose its wishes.
It could, of course, be argued that democracy "legitimises" state coercion; that a coercive law is morally legitimate simply because it is approved by a majority of the people who are subject to it. But I don't subscribe to this view, and I doubt you really do either. If a majority of the populace wanted to disenfranchise blacks or women, or make all atheists wear a sign around their necks, they would clearly not be justified in doing so. This is why, in the modern world, we don't generally have pure democracy; we have liberal constitutional democracy, in which citizens' basic freedoms are protected from state coercion even against an overwhelming democratic majority. Unfortunately, the protection provided by most modern constitutions and human rights charters is inadequate, because it doesn't afford enough protection, for instance, to private property; it's disgraceful that government can force you to surrender your property through the power of "eminent domain" merely because they deem it to be in the "public interest".
Another problem is the introduction of "positive rights"; the vacuous and stupid notion that there can be a "right to healthcare" or a "right to shelter", or anything of that ilk. Such "rights" do not defend liberty, but restrict it, because they impose on the State a duty to confiscate the wealth of individuals in order to provide services and benefits to other individuals.
Knockgoats in your posting #32 you misquoted the author of the article attributing his words to me. You can read quotation marks can you not?
Kockgoats, why would anyone want to knock up goats? Weird screen name. Maybe it means something different to you; be that as it may.
"Typical of denialists that they have to parade their nonsense wherever they can, relevant or not." - knockgoats
Well, as I explained I'm not a denialist, I'm an educated scientist who was simply communicating an interesting article related to Darwin and observations he made.
Now you classify the author of the actual article, Alexandre Aguiar as a denialist. I've never met the man nor communicated with him so I don't know if that's a fair assessment or not. He certainly has a valid point that needs to be considered rather than rejected out of hand. If you have a valid falsification that directly touches his points then by all means please get to it.
It seems, by the way, that Alexandre Aguiar is a professional Meteorologist which certainly gives him the educational background to know what he's talking about.
What is your background Kockgoats? You seem to speak with some authority? What is the basis for that? Why hide behind a strange screen name?
"It is simply false to say that climate science ignores history" - Kockgoats
You make it sound like he was asserting that, which he wasn't. Another mistake on your part, or is making false claims of your own your only method of arguing?
"The theory of anthropogenic climate change is based on the fundamental physics of greenhouse gases - work that goes back to around the time the Origin was published." - Kockgoats
Some physicists have questioned the "greenhouse gas model" used by pro global warming climatologists that you refer to as incomplete and inaccurate. See: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Climate_Questions.pdf
If the model is wrong the conclusions, such as the hypothesis of "anthropogenic climate change", likely are as well. What would falsify the theory of AWG to your satisfaction?
"In other words, there is no coherent alternative to the theory of anthropogenic climate change." - Knockgoats
That's quite the claim kockgoats. It seems that the "Climate_Questions" article linked above raises some very compelling issues that refute the greenhouse gas model as being entirely valid. Why would that not be the case?
You forgot the quotation marks when you quote me and state that what I said was "Mendacious garbage". Cool word but do you really mean to accuse of being "given to or characterized by deception or falsehood or divergence from absolute truth"?
What absolute truth are you speaking of that I'm being deceptive of? I don't get it. It seems that I'm being very reasonable in taking a rational approach to evaluating the evidence claims and counter evidence claims from both the pro and con camps of the climate change conversations and science.
By "so called evidence" I was referring to anything presented as evidence for or against AWG. Some of the pro-evidence has be highly successfully refuted, such as much of what Al Gore presented in his infamous movie. Much of what he asserted was deliberate scaremongering and had little to do with actual science - although he might "believe" that it does. That is where the "beliefism" comes into it. AWG seems to be more based upon beliefs rather than hard science that is fully open and auditable. In fact much of the underlying work of Dr. Mann et. al. has failed the tests of being open and has failed to be reproducible by outside auditors. Not only that historical data keeps changing. Oops.
Earlier this year Mr. Gore presented his arguments once again to a government committee and although he could obtain the latest data on the arctic ice cap he choose to only present up till 2005. By ignoring the last two winters Mr. Gore deceived the committee since he left out the fact (check for yourself) that the artic has seen a record increase in new ice the last two winters (including this one).
You speak of "that's not the way to bet"? Who says? You? Knocking up goats?
I'm glad that you support a high standard in communicating science.
However, I wouldn't call Dr. Mann's web site RealClimate a good source of data since Dr. Mann refuses to a FULL AND OPEN auditing of his science. There was a wonderfully illuminating article in the National Post last week by Lawrence Solomon that excoriated Dr. Mann et. al.. Have you read it and thought about what it means yet?
"What you evidently want is to tie climate scientists up in demands that everything be "explained and audited in exquisite details" - so leaving that much less time for actual science. Why?" - Knockgoats
You've got to be kidding right? Surely your joking? If they can't get the science right enough for fully auditable peer review and public scrutiny then should they really be funded off the public teet?
I don't want to tie anyone up as you put it. I simply want the most important science being done to be fully open and auditable especially when those doing the science are screaming like banshees that the end of the world is coming. Those types of claims are extraordinary and Carl Sagan's adage applies to those claims does it not? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and proofs carefully documented and fully open to scrutiny, otherwise it's just beliefism from an authoritative figure. Without being open to having their work audited in detail climate scientists fail to provide the opportunity to have their hypothesis and conclusions falsified or verified. The limited auditing that has been done on Dr. Mann's work has turned up a number of serious questions and raised valid doubts about the competence of his science. Even the NAS chastised him publicly for being too closed. Not something to be defending kockgoats.
Maybe kockgoats means knocking them over? Why would you want to harm animals that way? Very weird dude.
Belief has no place in science, at least not any place in hard science that isn't afraid of being challenged and questioned. The entire process of science is people asking questions that challenge the scientists to be better at what they do, to get better and more accurate results, to get it right and to admit it when they get it wrong or even just slightly off. There is no place in hard science for righteousness. There is always place for doubt and the asking of questions of so called authorities. Sometimes it is the very challenges by doubters that drive the push forward towards an even higher standard of excellence (lacking in Dr. Mann's case it seems) and new insights.
I don't know if AWG is true or not. It seems plausible but then so do many of the counter arguments. Why do I need to take a side? Why would I take a side based simply upon claims by either? That would be taking on beliefs and I'd be no different than someone believing in their invisible friend's ability to supply afterlife harps for my eternal torture. Belief in science is just as wrong as belief in gods. Knowledge tested by objective reality prevails over beliefs every time. I submit to you that every belief you take on blinds you to objective reality, and ask why on Earth would you willingly do that for?
In my work as a computer systems scientist I must valid and prove my work in a fully auditable manner all the time. Nothing less is expected in my science. My clients wouldn't be paying me if my work was sloppy and couldn't be validated. Lives depend upon it. I simply aim to hold climate scientists to the highest possible standards of excellence that are possible. That is fair considering the huge costs if they are correct or mistaken! They claim our lives are at stake, well, if that's the case then PROVE IT beyond any shadow of any doubts which means answering ALL the questions put to them. Their science will be the better for it. They will be better scientists for it. We all might learn something in the process before terraforming out planet into a disaster attempting to correct things that we might not have caused.
Knockgoats,
"The theory of anthropogenic climate change is based on the fundamental physics of greenhouse gases - work that goes back to around the time the Origin was published. No model that does not include a strong contribution to recent climate change from anthropogenic sources has come anywhere near accounting for that change. In other words, there is no coherent alternative to the theory of anthropogenic climate change."
That is not "in other words"! The conclusion doesn't follow. The models under represent both aerosols and solar, and that has been documented. It is decietful of you not to acknowledge that. It will be two or three years before corrected models can be produced. You've seen the references. Are you in some kind of denial?
The US helps more poor with open borders than the European social states help with closed borders and national health care systems.
Your forgetting, or perhaps you're merely ignorant of, the repeated expansion of the EU over the course of the last 50 years. That has brought some 250 million people out of poverty and political imprisonment. The EU has created and stablised more democracies in the last 40 years than the US has had wars, and that's saying something. All without firing a shot, or dropping any white phosphorus on civilians. Incredible, isn't it? Convincing people to accept democracy, and all the while not blowing shit up!
Dude, you're trying to lecture, when it's obvious you're still a student.
AG @137,
Have you ever noticed how little "science" there is on this science blog?
Whatever little science there might be here, sweetness, none of it is from you. All I ever see from you is tedious theology, albeit of a different sort than is usually attacked on this site.
left anarchists ... Chomskyites at this site ... half the ,OMs are these anarchist propagandists ... Other prominent contibuters are also anarchists ...
Curses, comrades! We are unmasked! Retreat to the barricades! La lucha continua! Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer, we'll keep the black (or possibly, depending on your inclination, diagonally-divided red-and-black) flag flying here.
No, really, @137 was boffo entertainment -- really made my day.
Not sure why, but I just flashed on a sudden image of AG as Jack Nicholson at the end of The Pledge.
Brian Coughlin#152,
Partial touche. Europe may not have freed eastern Europe, but it has definitely help increase their economic success.
"The EU has created and stablised more democracies in the last 40 years than the US has had wars, and that's saying something."
However, the US deserves as much credit for the creation of those democracies, and I know why you limited it to 40 years, you wanted to rule out the marshal plan, that preserved European democracies, and established new ones and formed new ones in Japan, S. Korea and Taiwan.
Curses, comrades! We are unmasked! Retreat to the barricades!
ATTICA! ATTICA!
Hello, Mrs. T.
AG as Jack Nicholson at the end of The Pledge.
I'm not familiar with that. It's probably just me, but AG reminds me of the Wm. S. Burroughs bit from Naked Lunch, about the man who taught his asshole to talk (read aloud here by Frank Zappa, thanks to Giorno Poetry Systems).
AG as Jack Nicholson at the end of The Pledge
Praise Youtube. Yep.
I noticed that he said something to the effect that everything Lincoln accomplished, was due to his own efforts, not due to god...that's refreshing.
And, I agree about the "god bless...", but notice that he did not say "god bless America", but rather "MAY god bless America", a subtle difference, and at that, almost as an afterthought.
Just imagine what would happen if he left it out!! That is worse than forgetting to wear his flag pin. This is why these precedents are so insidious.
The US established a democracy in South Korea? Are you kidding me?
However, the US deserves as much credit for the creation of those democracies, and I know why you limited it to 40 years ...
Easy tiger ... I limited it to 40 years, because that is when the EU (then EEC) expansion began. Thats it.
As to deserving credit? I'll give you the Marshal Plan, with the caveat that the mixed economy socialists that implemented that little stimulus package couldn't be elected in the modern US.
As for Greece, Portugal, Spain and everything in the Warsaw Pact barring the Soviet Union? That is pretty much down to the EU. Perhaps the US contributed the occasional bit of conflicted cheerleading, but little else. The US did not help in the years of negotiation, the billions in infrastructural assistance and the painstaking formulation of the series of EU treaties that have culminated in the 27 state, 500 million strong EU we see today.
In fact, in the same time frame the US was actively destabilising democracies. Iran, Nicaragua, Chile. No, there is no comparison.
It's ironic that I use "valid" instead of "validate" in the first sentence of the last paragraph in my previous posting 150. I smile - I correct, will Dr. Mann?
Hey, what's with this blog software, my post 150 became post 151. What's that post doing budding into the queue. Sigh... the blog software doesn't pass the ACID test failing the atomic transaction model by allowing the insertion of an earlier post. Sigh. A correction to my correction. Double sigh.
"It always amazes me just how much wrath a differing opinion can generate around here. It's like watching ants attempt to clear a tree they share a symbiotic relationship with. It can be amusing to throw debris just to see the sycophANTs do their thing."
It's not a difference of opinion: it is his repeated statement of "facts" that are proven not to be facts.
If your 'return to law" statement implies going back to policies that were around in 1700s and 1800s, as a way of guarding against financial crises, you need to go back and read about some of the problems that bubbled up then.
trying to assign simple causes to complex situations is probably a human trait, but systems as complicated as world economies are not that easily analyzed (I'm not saying I can do it either, but I do know that simply repeating "This followed situation A, therefore it is caused by situation A" is foolish and counterproductive)
Translation: The world consists of only two groups: Libertarians and Left Anarchists. You know which you are.
Jebus, now I'm a left wing anarchist. I'm also on the payroll of the AGW big science cabal. I've never met a ballot I haven't split, which kills the first inane accusation, and the 13 year old car I drove to work kills the second inane accusation. The True BelieversTM of any stripe have trouble with people who don't agree with them based on their faulty premises. So they develop all sorts of illogical explanations have to follow, usually with some type of conspiracy present. Kind of amusing at the end of the day.
However, the US deserves as much credit for the creation of those democracies, and I know why you limited it to 40 years
Why stop there? Who deserves credit for helping create the US?
Anyway, why are you still talking in the first place? I'm baffled where you get the nerve to do so after your "Europe's closed borders" whopper.
Jebus, now I'm a left wing anarchist.
You're not? That wasn't you on the barricades with the Molotov cocktail?
AG we are not 'frightened' by your arguments, simply bored to tears of the same old, same old, while frustrated at the continual assertion of supposed facts which are anything but. Much like the creotards do in fact. If all you want to do is continual libertarian masturbation on seemingly every post, why not simply congregate at Walton's blog where you can both grow as much hair on your palms as you wish. For various reasons I normally use IE, but thanks to you I am moving over to Firefox, at least for this blog, so I can killfile you and your fellow boring, oh so boring, libertards.
Stu,
"Europe's closed borders". It can be quite difficult to emmigrate to Europe. They are stingy with that free health care, while the US allows quite porus borders, and probably would become stingy too if they were financing a large social benefits program.
Brian Coughlin: Kudos, sir.
But please don't feed the troll - it just makes him shit all over his cage, and then we have to clean it up.
Wow. That's a lot of crap to wade through. PZ might make his way toward a full dungeoning for libercrap if this keeps up.
As for myself, every time I re-read Snow Crash (like I am now), I remember why I don't care for Libertarianism. That book is the model of what happens when they get their way; miniature nation-states, law enforcement payable by the hour, rampant consumption, and no rights but what you can enforce by contract. Sure, I'd join a Mr. Lee's if the opportunity came up, but given the rest of the crap there is to deal with, I'll take what I've got.
It can be quite difficult to emmigrate to Europe
Yes it can, because rather than enslaving people as housemaids and garden boys, the EU engages in a lengthy program of EUification prior to accession talks and eventual integration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_the_European_Union#Criteria…
Really, its the better system. As evidenced by the fact that the EU has integrated 300 million plus in 40 years, while the US has killed about 5 million in wars, and "integrated" max 40 million, and those as slave labour.
If the EU absorbs Turkey, the model could be global in a generation. Maybe the US could be the EU's 51st state ... I'm sure you'd get generous terms:-P
@Tony
But please don't feed the troll ...
Oh alright then ... :-)
Walton:
You seem to be confusing corrupt behavior with behavior contrary to the public good. Obviously you can solve the "corruption" problem by getting rid of regulations. Corporations won't do anything illegal if nothing is illegal.
But the only way that makes sense is if you hold the bizarre view that bad corporate behavior is entirely<\it> due to their having to dodge government regulations that shouldn't be there in the first place.
A peek over into the reality-based universe suggests otherwise. I contend that there are certain behaviors that corporations will engage in that are essentially mandated by competition but are in fundamental conflict with the public good, in obvious and inarguable ways. I doubt that anybody would claim that the regulatory structure in the US is a monument to perfection. But eliminating regulation serves to destroy one of the few means available for encouraging corporate accountability.
Until libertarians can provide a realistic mechanism for preventing corporate malfeasance, it's hard to take then seriously. And, no, looking skyward and intoning "The market will provide" does not constitute an argument.
Libertarians and other free-market fundamentalists remind me of the story my dad told me about some engineer who was building something at high altitude--he called his boss to communicate his desperation at a piece of wood he was trying to cut to a certain length: "I've cut it, and I've cut it, and I've cut it, and it's still too short!" That's pretty much what the GOP's been doing with our country's money since Reagan. They just keep cutting the same piece of wood, and still wonder why it's too short.
Epikt,
"I contend that there are certain behaviors that corporations will engage in that are essentially mandated by competition but are in fundamental conflict with the public good, in obvious and inarguable ways."
Can you contend that such conflicts happen often? There are millions of corporations in the US alone. Fraud and anti-pollution laws seem to cover most of the cases.
"No model that does not include a strong contribution to recent climate change from anthropogenic sources has come anywhere near accounting for that change. In other words, there is no coherent alternative to the theory of anthropogenic climate change."
That is not "in other words"! The conclusion doesn't follow.
It most certainly does follow. Since no model without a strong anthropogenic contribution comes anywhere near accounting for recent climate change, it is absolutely the case that there is no coherent alternative. If you claim otherwise, point to it.
The models under represent both aerosols and solar, and that has been documented.
That older GCMs underestimated solar effects (at least so far as the solar cycle is concerned) is clear; whether those used in the AR4 is not yet clear, AFAIK; but in any case the solar cycle effect on surface temperature is very unlikely to be more than .2 degrees C; and the secular effect is unlikely to be greater. In both the solar and aerosol cases, what papers are you referring to - specifically, what papers that actually present a coherent alternative to a major anthropogenic contribution? What evidence is there that any of the flaws in the models - which certainly exist - are sufficent to undermine the conclusions, which are agreed not just by modellers, but by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists - and, incidentally, by solar physicists.
It is decietful of you not to acknowledge that. It will be two or three years before corrected models can be produced. You've seen the references. Are you in some kind of denial?
No, it is you who are deceitful, and a classic denialist, with your dishonest, unsupported accusations that climate scientists are lying, motivated by politics or financial gain. You have a superficial familiarity with parts of the literature, but use it in classic denialist fashion. Sometimes, you refer to a highly contested claim, such as Solanki's that solar activity is currently at an 8,000 year high, as if it were settled science. More often you to refer to a paper that includes a point which you can use to throw doubt on the consensus among climate scientists that anthropogenic climate change is real, and an urgent problem; but the conclusion of which shows that the authors do not share that view (e.g. Camp and Tung 2005). When this is pointed out, you skip to another paper which you claim shows that their conclusion is wrong, using the same tactic. Eventually, of course, whoever you are arguing with tires of the wild goose chase, and you then think you have won the argument. In exactly the way creationists do with evolutionary theory, you present ongoing scientific arguments between those convinced of the reality of anthropogenic climate change, as casting doubt on the theory itself. On occasion you reveal the most astonishing ignorance, as for example misunderstanding the elementary term "physically-based modelling".
You refuse to debate your claims at RealClimate, because you know they would be shredded. You claim dedication to science, yet reject its findings when they conflict with your political ideology. You are, in short, a politically-motivated liar, who projects these characteristics onto honest scientists.
It can be quite difficult to emmigrate to Europe.
Yes, it can be. Yet many manage to do so.
They are stingy with that free health care
Umm, no. By the way, see also: Canada.
while the US allows quite porus borders
As a European who moved to the US, a hearty shut the fuck up, you have no idea what you are talking about to you.
and probably would become stingy too if they were financing a large social benefits program.
They're stingy with non-free care, moron.
All of this information is available to you. Within minutes. You don't even bother looking shit up before spouting idiotic things AGAIN? You have no shame.
Knockgoats:
Bravo, sir!
There are millions of corporations in the US alone. Fraud and anti-pollution laws seem to cover most of the cases.
Sure, if you don't care about monopolies, price-fixing, workplace safety, infrastructure, living wages, and...
Oh, I give up. Thy head is like a brick.
The left anarchists are the Chomskyites at this site. About half the ,OMs are these anarchist propagandists. - Africangenesis
Sometime Ag's thought processes are so bizarre one really does wonder if he's literally insane. SC is the only OM I know of who self-identifies as an anarchist; I don't, and most anarchists would not accept me as such, although my views could be described as intermediate between democratic socialism and anarchism. But it can hardly be me Ag is referring to, as he also thinks I worship the state. I can't think of any other OMs who would come any where near anarchism - most, if they have expressed any political views at all, look to me like liberals (in the modern US sense). Weird; just weird.
Amen Brother. Tell it like it is.
Knockgoats,
".2 degrees C" from solar is a significant part of the 0.6 or 0.7 degrees warming of the 20th century. The positive feedbacks to CO2 apply in general to solar warming as well. The separate works of solanki and lean point to the deficiencies of the models in representing the solar influence, implying of course, that the models over represent GHG sensitivity.
John Phillips @159, to AG:
If all you want to do is continual libertarian masturbation on seemingly every post, why not simply congregate at Walton's blog where you can both grow as much hair on your palms as you wish
Can I get an amen?
AG,
seriously, listen to the man. He's giving you sound advice. Your pronouncements would be just as dogmatic, unconnected to reality and ill-informed (have you ever even been to Europe?!) over there as they are here but, here's the crucial thing (it's a subtle but important point, so do try to follow), they would be welcome and appropriate there. If any of the countless people here who are tired of your endless off-topic threadjackings followed you to that site to continue the fight, you could fairly expect them to marshall cogent arguments, proffer evidence, raise reasoned objections to your assertions and all that sort of thing. Over here, you can't fairly expect anything more than "fuck off, you boring git".
Or better: start your own blog. Be Master of your Domain. It doesn't cost much, you know. Why, you can even find providers that will host your blog for free. I know, I know: stupid left anarchists. There's a lot of that going round these days.
But where were we? Ah, yes: fuck off, you boring git.
Gotta give AG one thing: he is quite persistent in the face of embarrasment.
AG, pro-tip: nobody's laughing with you.
do you really mean to accuse of being "given to or characterized by deception or falsehood or divergence from absolute truth"? - pwl
Yes indeed - in act that understates it, because you're a barefaced liar. You come here spewing denialist crap and claim you're not a denialist. The simple fact is that the vast majority of relevant scientific experts agree that anthropgenic climate change is real, and an urgent problem.
It seems, by the way, that Alexandre Aguiar is a professional Meteorologist which certainly gives him the educational background to know what he's talking about.
No, it doesn't. A meteorologist (it doesn't have an uppercase first letter) studies weather. You do know there's a difference between weather and climate?
There was a wonderfully illuminating article in the National Post last week by Lawrence Solomon that excoriated Dr. Mann et. al.
Is that a peer-reviewed journal?
If they can't get the science right enough for fully auditable peer review and public scrutiny then should they really be funded off the public teet?
It is of course peer-reviewed science that has established the consensus. You prefer denialist blogs, and op-ed pieces in newspapers, I see.
They claim our lives are at stake, well, if that's the case then PROVE IT beyond any shadow of any doubts which means answering ALL the questions put to them.
If we'd listened to morons like you, the ozone layer would have been destroyed by CFCs. Or perhaps you reject the science there as well? Oh and then there's HIV and AIDS. AFAIK, Duesberg is still claiming there's no connection. In this case, morons like Mbeki did ignore the consensus scientific, and hundreds of thousands of people died unnecessary deaths. Smoking and cancer? Well, there are still unanswered questions there I'm sure. It is abundantly clear that you, and your fellow-denialists, will never be satisfied: you'll always be able to think of more questions to distract the climate scientists from their work.
By the way, you juvenile little shit, if you really want to know why I'm "Knockgoats" you can find out, and find my real name, on this site.
Wow, Mrs T. noticed a post of mine and quoted from it, blushes, mumble mumble, thank you ma'am, doffs cap and goes off all chuffed :)
BTW, totally OT, but I am enjoying a BBC wildlife special on the Japanese macaques. Comparing the difference between the lives of the mountain troops against the ones that spend winter luxuriating in hot springs. I never tire of the wonders of this Universe.
Comparing the difference between the lives of the mountain troops against the ones that spend winter luxuriating in hot springs.
A.k.a. the dumb ones versus the smart ones.
John @188,
a BBC wildlife special ... Comparing the difference between the lives of the mountain troops against the ones that spend winter luxuriating in hot springs
Left anarchists want to expropriate the rich macaques in their luxurious winter resorts, forcing all macaques to huddle in frozen misery. And then where would we be? And don't look to the mythical "global warming" to make winters more bearable, because, hey, wasn't there more snow this year than last?
@Stu, more do with the geographical distribution and opportunity as the Snow Macaques in general appear quite intelligent and are spread over the islands. The ones who spend their time in the hot springs are a relatively new phenomena, 1963 by all accounts, after one young female went in after some food and liked the warmth. Similarly, others living along the coast have been observed learning new skills, such as rinsing potatoes or grain in water to remove sand, and the rest of the troop then pick up on it.
Mrs. T. LOL, while we are at it we must watch out for all those leftist anarchist OMs that so worry AG and apparently infest this blog.
Mrs Tilton,
You are incorrigable, but there may be hope for the others. Even Knockgoats won't ignore evidence for long, he tries to be rational.
I've lived in Europe, loved the Thames and the Mein, Greenwich, Dover, London and Bath, and was appalled that the Louvre was not air conditioned. A private collector would take care of such treasures. I guess it is an example of the tragedy of the commons. With all their nuclear energy, air conditioning the Louvre wouldn't even contribute to greenhouse gasses. Should the US invade, Knockgoats? Those treasures really belong to ALL THE PEOPLE.
I've lived in Europe
But the borders are closed! A really smart Libertarian said so!
And now we're slagging the Louvre? Are you off your meds?
Great, Africangenesis and pwl prove that scientific illiteracy correlates with bonkers libertarianism!
Anyway, only a moron brings up solar, when nobody can find any correlation between any measurements of any solar variable and the last 30 years of warming. The sun was responsible for much of the warming in the late 19th/ early 20th century, but the later 20th century warming is due to manmade greenhouse gases.
The AGW denialists are such fun. Why should we believe known liars and bullshitters (they are libertarians, so that goes without saying) compared to scientists who must be scrupulously honest in their profession work? The deniers can rant and rave all they want, present all sorts of meaningless data in an attempt to confuse the issue, but they still fail at the end of the day to convince us. The truth will come out. If they don't like the truth, they need to go elsewhere to get their prejudices reenforced.
For the record...
Per the DHS, the US in 2007 admitted 1,052,415 immigrants. That's about 1 immigrant per 300 residents.
Let me pick a European country. The Netherlands in 2007 admitted 116,600 immigrants. That's about 1 immigrant per 137 residents.
appalled that the Louvre was not air conditioned. A private collector would take care of such treasures. I guess it is an example of the tragedy of the commons. - Africangensis
Ah - africangenesis, reliably ignorant as ever. The "tragedy of the commons" is of course a complete misnomer, and Hardin's article has done considerable harm, being used by states [boo! hiss!] to expropriate functioning commons (which generally have elaborate rules and graduated sanctions for overuse), and in most cases, subsequently privatise them. "Tragedy of the open-access regime" would have been accurate, although I admit it's not so catchy. I'd recommend a Scientific American article by George Monbiot on the subject, but you'd just conclude he was a "left anarchist". You might try looking at Elinor Ostrom's work though.
I believe you're referring to the Main.
I'll take "European Rivers" for $1000, please, Alex.
Tis Himself,
No it was the Mein in Germany.
'TH @199,
I believe you're referring to the Main
Of course he isn't. I hope you're not so naive as to believe the overwhelming consensus of the world's atlas-makers (they're left anarchist consiprators, you know) or, for that matter, me, who can see the thing out my window. AG knows better.
"Loved the Mein [sic]", BTW? I have lived at various places along its banks for years. I have even eaten the tiny fish called Meefischli (battered and fried, head and all) that the Franconians net up out of it. But (probably because of the fish heads) I don't think I'd say I loved it.
Guthrie,
The temperature was increasing during the last 30 years, and the solar activity was essentially flat (averaging out over the cycles) so how could there be any correlation. GHGs were increasing, but the correlation isn't good there either. We must include aerosols to explain the mid century cooling and the warming of the 80s and 90s. Surely you know that solar does not have to be increasing to explain the continued warming of the earth. There is the thermal inertia of the oceans and the confounding by anthropogenic and natural aerosols.
AG repeated it. So it must be Mein!
I prefer the jasmine rice, personally, but to each his own, I always say.
Umm the Mona Lisa at least is protected by an air conditioned and humidity controlled glass case and I would imagine that they are capable of doing this to other sensitive items too. Maybe they just don't number American tourists among the priceless treasures that have to be sheltered from natural temperature fluctuations.
Mrs. Tilton,
I lived within a block of the Mein, and found it quite peaceful. I enjoyed laying beside it and watching the barges and locks.
and just to rub it in.
Those Germans must feel really really stupid, publishing their maps all wrong...
Franfurt am Main, Hofheim am Main, Florsheim am Main... Maintal, even (and those are just in the outskirts of Frankfurt)!
And those bastards have the effrontery to suggest they are meticulous and precise!
Bloody Germans! Whatever next, eh?
!
Or maybe they're trying to sell more FrenchFreedom vanilla ice cream to the heat-afflicted. Hey, they don't bathe anyway, them Frogs, right? What do they care about a little BO?
Dastardly clever, the French.
I am shocked! When did they change the spelling? I should have looked it up before posting. My bad. Main is so unromantic, fortunately it is pronounced Mein.
your idiocy knows no bounds. not only do you make a typo/spelling mistake, you then defend it and compound your idiocy. The river is called Main.
also, comparing immigration to the EU and the USA is disingenuous at best. but of course, maybe you're advocating the American method? ok then, let's exterminate all native Europeans, and then give out all that newly empty land to immigrants. problem solved!
oh yeah. it's so much better to be dependent on the private donations of fickle rich bozos who get insulted because they're not allowed to light candles in the galleries.
after all what could POSSIBLY be bad about smoke and flame in a room full of priceless artworks. *facepalm*
AG,
I've been in Frankfurt am Main and Mainz, so I know where the Main River is, but I'm unfamiliar with the Mein. Could you enlighten me, please?
I'm a liar? What have I lied about knockgoats? I've simply quoted and posted links to articles, how is that lying? I never said that I agreed with the quoted material or the linked articles, in fact I said that I've not taken a stand one way or the other.
I've denied nothing except being a denier. I simply think that science is a process that requires the open and welcoming of questions from all, otherwise how will the masses be educated in rational critical thinking skills?
By accusing people of being deniers implies that you are against the scientific method and that you subscribe to authority dictating information that is to be believed rather than knowledge that is to be tested. It also shows that you're of the notion that anyone who questions is a denier. If that's the case that just posting what seems like a reasonable question of AWG is enough to have one labeled a denier then so bit it jedi. At least I'm in good company as Einstein denied Newton.
I could care less if all the scientists agreed with each other. The point isn't their agreement but whether or not their hypotheses can be tested and verified or falsified repeatedly by others inside their scientific field and by those outside of it as well. If their science is so sacrosanct that they fear it being tested by simple questions then that alone is a basis for serious doubts about their so called science.
No scientific claims are sacrosanct. All are open to being questioned, over and over and over and over again. That is the very basis of science. If you don't like it too bad, get over it or get out of science. The whole point of asking questions of theories is to improve them or find better theories or falsify the existing ones. Preventing that process is being anti-scientific!
Yes, there is a difference between weather and climate. Weather is the specific data through time that averages up to be climate.
I like how you attack Alexandre Aguiar's credentials yet you don't provide your credentials when requested to do so. At this point he is more qualified than you from what I can tell. You seem to be a shrill member in the cult of AWG haranguing anyone who asks any questions that they are deniers of the one true word. Shameful.
Ah, no the National Post isn't a peer reviewed journal but if you read the article you see how Dr. Mann was chastised by HIS PEERS at the NAS!!! Yeesh.
It seems that the so called "peer review" process in the climate science field is severely lacking of substance. From what has been reported the journals haven't even been asking for the raw data let alone the analysis steps in detail or the software or the spreadsheets and whatnot. Reviewing is NOT the same as auditing, but then I guess you'd not know that. The bottom line is that the standards of the climate science needs to be raised. Why? Our lives could very well depend on it as is claimed by the feakaclimatists. If their claims are correct then no one making the claims can complain when they are asked to prove it by being audited in depth.
The limited auditing that is being done is turning up lots of mistakes. It's denial to deny that fact!
CFC's were a bad thing. The evidence was much more conclusive. I don't know what this has to do with AWG. I certainly don't know what AIDS or HIV or any of those other topics have to do with it. Your analogy is poor since it's constructed upon your false premise that anyone who raises a question is a "denier". Your hypothesis of "deniers" has now been falsified! You failed even at goat knocking up.
Conclusive evidence satisfies. Computer models and simulations don't. Al Gore talking about extreme worst cases doesn't satisfy especially when he says that he is intentionally attempting to scare people by exaggerating the likely cases to the worst possible of all cases as if they are what will happen.
Oops: record ice reforming last year and this year. Oops, Nature stop making new ice in the great white north, come one Nature follow our human theories of AWG and melt quicker would you? Please. Al Gore needs the coasts to rise 20 feet to vindicate himself.
The best case is that we will all die. Somehow. Sometime. Get over it. Al Gore is wrong and a shmuck. Get over it.
Irresponsible soothing of futures isn't science, it's Nostradamusism. Al Gore is a modern day Nostradamus, as it seems is Dr. Mann.
You could save me the trouble of searching around a web site for why you're chosen your screen name. I'm not juvenile and unfortunately I'm not as little as I'd like to be but I gather that from your narrow minded perspective I might fit the third word you used. But that's only from your perspective. I'm simply attempting to make sense of this climate stuff with a critical and rational scientific process and when ever I ask questions everybody freaks out. It shows that you've got a bit of nut job in you. Either that or you need to eat(food, pills?) and get your mood in balance so that you can think rationally in some manner connected to objective reality.
Can we archive this thread for next time africangenesis pops up? I think the "write for comprehension" debacle and the river "Mein" are both to be treasured.
By now, africangenesis, you should have grasped that your arguments are not as impressive to other people as they are inside your own head.
Talk about derailing a threat.....From Obama to the Main...
Somebody call pwl a waaahmbulance; science will never recover, he's been scorned on a blog.
knockgoats even the google can't find your cryptic reference to your knocking up of beasts on this web site. How about you just come clean and give us the glow of your wholly cryptic qualifications on climate science and your nick name?
Science is doing just fine with or without me and certainly it's doing fine without YOU! It's you guys who seem to need everyone to agree with you and your conviction and soothed beliefs.
It didn't bother you that he plagiarized shamelessly from Lincoln? :P
oh, and just to make it more fun, I checked on AG's idiotic claim that they "changed" the spelling from Mein to Main. I found a map printed in 1911. It says "Main".
This would however explain why AG pines for the 18th century. it's one of those "When I was young, everything was better" nostalgias! ;-p
Pwl, if you have scientific evidence against AGW, you are very welcome to submit a paper with it to a peer reviewed scientific journal. That is the only way science is properly debated, in the journals. Unless you submit a paper, you need to accept the present state of the journals as true. So your questions and criticisms are irrelevant. Publish or shut up.
Oops: record ice reforming last year and this year.
And again, you demonstrate you don't know weather from climate. Unbelievable. Not. Even. Wrong.
The best case is that we will all die. Somehow. Sometime. Get over it.
What is it with Libertarians/AGW deniers and these "oops, forgot my thorazine this morning" morbid outbursts? Especially in the middle of WATB screeds full of fail?
Al Gore is wrong and a shmuck. Get over it.
Ah, sweet sweet projection. Also, paging Dr. Freud over the Gore fixation.
Tool.
19th century even. ah well, ancient is ancient. but it did ruin my joke *sigh*
Nerd of Redhead, I have no interest in publishing a paper on AWG. At this point I'm learning about it by asking questions. Whenever I ask questions people like you and knockgoats come up with "denier" and "publish or shut up" type of anti-scientific comments. Shameful of you. Shame.
Science is not just debated in the journals. The journals are the record of a portion of the debate in science.
As I said before I'm not a climate expert, I'm a systems scientist with a focus in computer systems, modeling and simulations.
What is your background? Redhead? Have you vetted the science or are you just a mere believer in the cult of AWG?
I have no interest in joining any belief based cults - whether they have invisible immaterial gods or if they believe in science!
As a scientist I apply the scientific method and process using rational and critical thought, knowledge and tools to find out and vet the science.
As a systems scientist I'm very interested in seeing the source accurate climate models. So far what I've seen is very primitive and doesn't give much confidence. Be that as it may, I'm interested in the actual science yet I find that you folks simply attack with "denier" and "publish or shut up". Shame on you.
Holy crap, I missed this nugget:
I am shocked! When did they change the spelling?
It's been known as Moenus and Meune. "Mein" has been wrong for at least 2,000 years.
AG: finding new ways to embarrass himself every hour of every day(TM).
Pwl, as a 30+ year practicing scientist, you are full of shit. Science is done in the journals. Non-science is done outside of the journals. If you want to learn about climate stuff, go here. Then quit asking us questions because we aren't the experts, nor do we pretend to be. We just believe scientists over cranks.
"systems scientist" - is that a glorified engineer? what, exactly, is your science background? if there is none, your opinion is as "useful" (take that as not worth spit) as mine would be on the issue of building a nuclear reactor.
"I could care less if all the scientists agreed with each other."
so you are open to scientific proof, unless you aren't - not only are your ideas stupid, they aren't consistent.
He speaks American well.
His English sucks.
As does mine.
The temperature was increasing during the last 30 years, and the solar activity was essentially flat (averaging out over the cycles) so how could there be any correlation. GHGs were increasing, but the correlation isn't good there either. Africangenesis
However, as you forgot to say, models including both solar and anthropogenic factors show a pretty good fit to the entire 20th and early 21st century, attributing the early 20th century warming (when the sun was actually getting brighter) mostly to solar influence, and the late 20th and early 21st century warming largely to greenhouse gases. Aerosols play a smaller but still significant (cooling) role.
We must include aerosols to explain the mid century cooling and the warming of the 80s and 90s.
The reduction in aerosol cooling in the late 20th century (thus explaining some of the late 20th century warming) was probably small - because even as emissions fell in North america and Europe, they rose in Asia - and moreover, did not start until around 1990
Global 'Sunscreen' Has Likely Thinned, Report NASA Scientists. Before that (1970-90), sustained surface and tropospheric warming faster than any in the historical record (and specifically, faster than in the early part of the century (when solar radiation reaching the surface was increasing) coincided with a reduction in sunlight reaching the Earth.
Surely you know that solar does not have to be increasing to explain the continued warming of the earth. There is the thermal inertia of the oceans and the confounding by anthropogenic and natural aerosols.
See above - and of course thermal inertia cannot explain why the oceans have been warming, with a consistent trend since 1970:
(Catia M. Domingues, John A. Church, Neil J. White, Peter J. Gleckler, Susan E. Wijffels, Paul M. Barker & Jeff R. Dunn: "Improved estimates of upper-ocean warming and multi-decadal sea-level rise", Nature 453, 1090-1093).
However, the model showing that solar changes, aerosols, volcanoes, and whatever else could plausibly fit together to produce something close to the observed spatio-temporal pattern (including of course the cooling of the stratosphere, exactly the opposite of what would be expected from increased solar radiation), without a hefty contribution from greenhouse gas increases, is described in the paper by... Oh. There isn't one.
At this point I'm learning about it by asking questions.
Except, apparently, "what's the difference between weather and climate?"
Whenever I ask questions people like you and knockgoats come up with "denier" and "publish or shut up" type of anti-scientific comments.
Okidoki, let's see. [Scrolling up]
I'm just willing to use the scientific process to actually ask questions - pro and con - and demand that the so called evidence and falsifications be explained and audited in exquisite details so that it doesn't take experts to verify the data and conclusions as it currently does.
Sounds like "I don't understand! Dumb it down for me!"
Well, here it is: AGW is real. Simple enough? And yes, stomping your feet with your eyes and ears shut will get you called a "denier".
Shameful of you. Shame.
You owe me a new irony meter.
"Oops: record ice reforming last year and this year." - pwl
"And again, you demonstrate you don't know weather from climate. Unbelievable. Not. Even. Wrong." - Stu
Actually you are not correct Stu. Here is an definition which I had paraphrased.
"Weather refers to current activity, as opposed to the term climate, which refers to the average atmospheric conditions over longer periods of time."
This also helps. I mean this too:
http://amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary/search?id=climate1
What does Stu think? That the temperature data and fact of ice growing or melting doesn't have significance to climate? Silly Stu.
"Al Gore is wrong and a shmuck. Get over it." - pwl
"Ah, sweet sweet projection. Also, paging Dr. Freud over the Gore fixation." - Stu
The Gore comments are relevant and current due to Al Gore's recent talk at a Congressional Committee with new mistakes and the denial of factual changed climate patterns in recent years.
"Tool." - Stu
Look in a mirror Stu.
However, the model showing that solar changes, aerosols, volcanoes, and whatever else could plausibly fit together to produce something close to the observed spatio-temporal pattern (including of course the cooling of the stratosphere, exactly the opposite of what would be expected from increased solar radiation), without a hefty contribution from greenhouse gas increases, is described in the paper by... Oh. There isn't one.
WAY too many big words there. He wants "exquisite detail" that "doesn't take experts to verify", remember?
Stu, saying that "Gravity Sucks" proves that no human being could ascend to the heavens (space) is accurate enough for demonstrating that that part of The Book is just a fairy tale and didn't happen in objective reality.
Even though Gravity Sucks is good enough one can still refer to Newton's equations of Gravity. But that's not good enough for you then use Einstein's equations. Still not good enough then go further if you need to. However, gravity sucks sums it up for most people who will ever read this sentence.
So yes, climate and weather are two sides of the same coin. Split hairs however you want in as many one sided ways you want... doesn't change objective reality where weather occurs and climate is perceived.
Pwl, you aren't going to change our minds with questions. If you don't understand it all, look it up using RealClimate, which is run by real scientists in the field, versus one of the denial sites. If that doesn't satisfy you, then ask what your real purpose here is. If it is to get us to question AGW, you need to leave, or accept the abuse you will receive. Ignorant questions repeated incessantly just irritate us.
pwl, if you actually wanted what you claim you wanted you would be contacting the actual scientists. Every paper has a corresponding author. Go talk. Popping up here and screaming to be shown source codes is utterly pointless and indicates that you're only really interested in being disruptive. It's like boarding a train and yelling at other passengers that you want to be allowed to look inside the engine; it doesn't make you look scientific, it makes you look like crazy.
Al Gore != scientist. he's irrelevant to the actual, scientific debate. get over him, he's not that into you.
I'm just happy to have, finally, a president who can pronounce "nuclear."
Indeed, it would be irresponsible not to draw that conclusion from that article. Heads are flying right and left! There'll hardly be a head left in the western world to hang a hat on at this rate. *yawn*
Nerd, what makes you think I'm attempting to change your minds, let alone change your minds with questions? You've got the wrong idea about me. Your limited hypothesis about me that you just stated has now been falsified dude.
I've clearly stated my purpose here Nerd. You just don't read what people write as your silly hypothesis that I'm here to change your minds proves.
My purpose in this thread originally was to post information about Darwin's temperature measurements and an interesting article about that. That purpose has shifted to dealing with sniviling anti-scientific cult like statements calling names like "denier" and the like.
I could care less if you question AWG. That's up to you. Again you demonstrate a failure to read what people actually read and consider that they might mean what they write.
So you're upset and ask people who don't agree with you to leave. That's shameful nerd dude.
I'm not here to irritate you. That most certainly is not my purpose or intention. Obviously I was - as I said in my first post in this thread and in this post - posting an interesting article about Darwin's observations having relevance to the climate conversations, and was doing so on Darwin Day at that!
Everything else is your own "reading" that you "brought with you" and not what I meant nor implied.
Yes it's clear that Al Gore is NOT a scientist - that goes without saying which makes one wonder why you said that...
The point about Al Gore is that he's claiming the support of many climate scientists. He has a social influence and he has made statements that are factually incorrect - and continues to do so. That's all Jadehawk.
If he's wrong will you correct him even if you are on the same "side"? No? Then you're not a scientist but a cult member doing politics not science. Yes, then you're a scientist and thank you.
Okay, pwl, I get it. To you, two years is a "longer period of time". It's still an insignificant period when looking at climate change. Might as well call it "pancake" to avoid confusion.
The Gore comments are relevant and current due to Al Gore's recent talk at a Congressional Committee with new mistakes and the denial of factual changed climate patterns in recent years.
[Citation needed]
Pwl, why are you continuing to post, unless it is to keep the AGW pot roiled. You can go away you realize.
The point about Al Gore is that he's claiming the support of many climate scientists.
And he has it. That you found a few cranks online that do not support the IPCC is irrelevant.
He has a social influence and he has made statements that are factually incorrect - and continues to do so.
Again, [Citation needed]
Ah, no the National Post isn't a peer reviewed journal but if you read the article you see how Dr. Mann was chastised by HIS PEERS at the NAS!!! Yeesh. - Denialist liar pwl
People can check for themselves what the chair of the NAS expert panel said about Mann's work in testimony to Congress at:
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ocga/testimony/Surface_Temperature_Re…
Rather different from the impression pwl gives, to say the least.
From what has been reported the journals haven't even been asking for the raw data let alone the analysis steps in detail or the software or the spreadsheets and whatnot. - Denialist liar pwl
Exactly which journals and papers are you talking about? Be specific. What raw data has not been provided? The fact that you apparently think going through software written for a particular scientific study line by line - rather than writing your own independent software - is the only or even the best way to check the study's accuracy, leads me to doubt you're actually a scientist.
Al Gore talking about extreme worst cases doesn't satisfy - Denialist liar pwl
What's with this ludicrous obsession with Al Gore? It has precisely zero relevance to the science, as anyone who was really a scientist, or interested in that science, would know.
As I said before I'm not a climate expert, I'm a systems scientist with a focus in computer systems, modeling and simulations. - Denialist liar pwl
And I'm the King of California.
Oops: record ice reforming last year and this year.
- Denialist liar pwl
You're just repeating the very stupidest denialist talking points. Did you ever hear of winter? Of course the arctic sea ice reforms in winter, you moron - there's no sun for months, remember? The fact remains, 2007 and 2008 showed the two greatest Arctic Sea summer thaws on record - considerably ahead of predictions: if anything, the models are too conservative.
You could save me the trouble of searching around a web site for why you're chosen your screen name.
I could, but why should I do you any favours? You made an issue of it, not me.
Pwl, you apparently have a very selective perception. in case you didn't know, Al Gore HAS been corrected by climatologists on the occasions that he's gotten something wrong. the point is that an "Argumentum ad Al Gore got something wrong" is not a scientific argument, and cannot invalidate the existent scientific stand on a subject.
He's a promoter. he happens to promote something that at its base is scientifically correct and in the long term beneficial and necessary. you can criticize him on how well he does that job, but you cannot use him in any way in an argument about Climate Change. so stop whining about him.
My purpose in this thread originally was to post information about Darwin's temperature measurements and an interesting article about that. - Denialist liar pwl
Denialist liar lies again. Nothing new to see here.
Stephen, what is your background?
Actually in another thread someone did point out source code for a NASA software program used in climate simulations. I have downloaded that and taken a look at it. It's written in FORTRAN with GOTO statements. No possible errors in that. No one's ever lost a space probe with software written in FORTRAN have they NASA?
So your hypothesis that it's utterly pointless has been falsified since it was her in a science oriented blog that I learned of the NASA software.
I wasn't intending on a big long debate about a progressive attitude towards science but if that's the education that you guys need then I'll respond as I'm a big supporter in a grounded science education for all.
Oh, so now it's claimed that I'm disruptive. Very strange assertions from you guys. How about some substance? So asking people who have confidence in AWG is disruptive? If so then so be it jedi.
I'd not want to look inside a train engine while the train is in progress unless there was an emergency reason to do so Stephen. There isn't a reason, and your metaphor is horrible as it doesn't apply.
In posting 238 I explained and clarified my purpose.
What is your purpose with statements that clearly are aimed at stopping scientifically valid questions about relevant topics discussed on this blog? Repression of dissent?
This is a blog about science. Darwin. Climate Science. Religion. It is appropriate to education people about science here and I suppose that includes educating you.
You just don't like to consider that you could have an anti-scientific attitude that needs adjustment. Well here I'm saying it. If that's disruptive or irritating to ad hominem attacks upon people with "denier", "disruptive", "publish or shut up", ..., then so be it jedi.
Jadehawk:
Not at all.
Anyway, I'm in a great mood today (almost feel guilty about my peals of laughter at Ag's posts - can I declare my work here finished, now that I've converted all and sundry to anarchism?):
1) The ice is gone! Even if we have more storms, they won't come on top of the inches of ice and snow that had previously made my commute long(er) and dangerous. And spring is around the corner. Yay.
2) MAJeff is on a dissertating roll, and will defend in the not-too-distant future.
3) As of today, I have (barring unforeseen circumstances) work for the next several months. My department likes me, and I like them. (No, I still can't afford both health insurance and utilities.)
4) I received packages today from my sister's family and one of my best friends, with clothing, trinkets, and See's candies. I would say that makes this weekend bearable for a single person, but honestly I've never loved it even when I've been with someone - spontaneity and uniqueness are essential for romance as far as I'm concerned, and the holiday usually kills both. Being reminded that people love and care about you is amazing, though. I have the best family and friends in the world. AND, I was just invited to a barn raising next month! wOOt!
Anyway, I'm in a sentimental mood, so thank you PZ, KnockGoats, and everyone else who makes this blog a special place.
PWL, why can't you just leave? Be honest (I know I'm asking the impossible).
Good news to hear. Let him know we wish him well. May his orals be not as bad as it could be.
I wrote: "My purpose in this thread originally was to post information about Darwin's temperature measurements and an interesting article about that."
knockgoats replied:"Denialist liar pwl. Denialist liar lies again. Nothing new to see here."
What? Read post #19 where I wrote "Note that I'm just the messenger, please don't shoot me if you disagree with Darwin's assessment of the climate patterns or with the author of the article, Alexandre Aguiar - MetSul Weather Center (Brazil). Please respond as if speaking to him. Thanks very much in advance."
Obviously you didn't heed my request knockgoat who has a serious attitude problem. You still haven't told us why you knock up goats?
PWL, you have a serious attitude problem. You need to go away. Why can't you go away?
lol, Argumentum ad FORTRAN/GOTO. I like it. As if GOTOs are unique to FORTRAN, or we haven't lost spacecraft running software written in SPARKAda. Also, sad that 200 posts later the troll is being fed. It creeps me out that he's posting with my initials as a handle.
One could ask the same about you Nerd #248.
Read my post #19 and #230. Not impossible as it's already accomplished.
It would be nice if someone was able to add something relevant to Darwin's climate observations and to the two articles I linked to by Alexandre Aguiar and David J. Ameling.
Saying that some one is a "denier" isn't a valid answer to valid questions - it simply proves an unscientific attitude of the person saying "denier".
It's written in FORTRAN with GOTO statements. No possible errors in that.
Oh Buddha on a crack binge, are you serious? You have the entire code in front of you, and your only reaction is that it could be wrong? Of course there could be. Go check.
Pray tell, what language would you recommend that prevents all possible errors?
Obviously you didn't heed my request knockgoat who has a serious attitude problem. You still haven't told us why you knock up goats?
If you fail to see the mind-bending irony in putting those two sentences together, there is no hope for you.
I wrote: "My purpose in this thread originally was to post information about Darwin's temperature measurements and an interesting article about that."
Yes, but you didn't quite stop there, did you? Have you googled "climate" yet?
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/02/06/m…
"Mann’s main conclusions are not to be believed."
"Why not? Because “Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions” and because he downplayed the “uncertainties of the published reconstructions.” And, the NAS added, because of what Mann did not do — he did not let others examine his data for accuracy and he did not reveal his analytic methods. For this, the NAS rightly chastised Mann: “Our view is that all research benefits from full and open access to published data-sets and that a clear explanation of analytical methods is mandatory. Peers should have access to the information needed to reproduce published results, so that increased confidence in the outcome of the study can be generated inside and outside the scientific community.”
From what I can see PWL is just here to disrupt things. In other words, just an ignorant troll. Otherwise he would shut the fuck up. And PWL, I do mean ignorant.
You know, for various reasons I usually prefer IE7 or IE8, but I must admit that I am quickly becoming a big fan of Firefox+killfile on Pharyngula :)
Knockgoats @ 77
I personally believe that it is indeed so. I also am of the opinion that there is not a whole lot that can be done about it. Sort of like the Titanic after it had struck the iceberg. It is going down and I'm afraid she is starting to list rather badly, there are still a few lifeboats left but most certainly not enough for all on board. On the Titanic there were two types of people, those who knew the ship was sinking and those who would know the ship was sinking. I think were are in the same boat (no pun intended).
Here is another link which adresses another wrinkle.
http://www.canada.com/Complexity+Theory/1286263/story.html
Post 230 Stu. Obviously you don't read the posts that people post in reply to your earlier posts.
Perhaps it is a silly but still witty corruption of his actual name. But what does that have to do with your arguments?
PWL, why can't you go away like a good little stupid ignorant troll? And why do you keep avoiding that question?
Nerd I'm here to dialogue but you folks keep using personal attacks - which I will bounce point out to you one way or another - and you have a shockingly poor attitude to the process of science.
If anyone has a relevant comments to #19 please step up. Thanks.
[aside] Stu,
Are you StuV?
So, in a post about the President's speech, pwl thinks it's appropriate to post that "Charles Darwin took notice of the periodicity of droughts, but nowadays we are forced to read catastrophic claims that ignore history."
BTW, pwl, has it occurred to you that, when you write "I could care less if you question AWG", that means you do care?
I'm mildly amused by pwl's harping on Knockgoats' cognomen, too, as if it were of any relevance. FWIW, pwl, you might wish to check out the commenters page, KG is there.
africangenesis #203-
I'm afraid I don't get what you are saying. There is a correlation between ghg and temperature, not a perfect one though, obviously, given all the other noise in the system. You have at least heard of aerosols anyway, thats a start. However you lose it again by ignoring the thermodynamics. Heres a hint- the oceanic thermal lag could be compared by the previous changes in temperature and solar output. And oddly enough when you run the models, which I belive you have dismissed out of hand before, like a good little denialist, no other way can be found to replicate the warming int he later 20th century, except by adding human caused greenhouse gases.
Thats the short explanation. Give me a reason I should waste thousands of words giving the longer one.
Well Nerd, I actually answered your question a number of times even though it's not relevant and clearly is an indicator of your very bad attitude to the process of science.
You are no different than someone saying don't question the existence of god and to go away with such questions.
However, science is about asking these questions about any and every scientific hypothesis and theory. Science is about questioning the facts. It's shocking that you guys don't get that as indicated by your attempts to ignite a flame war when someone asks simple and valid questions.
PWL, as a professional scientist of 30+ years, get off the bad attitude toward real science bullshit. The questions must be asked in the proper venue, which isn't here, and you know it. That makes you a liar and bullshitter. Now, either write paper, or ask the questions to the primary author of any work you disagree with. Those are the proper venues. Otherwise, go away.
It's shocking that you guys don't get that as indicated by your attempts to ignite a flame war when someone asks simple and valid questions. - Denialist liar pwl
They are not "simple and valid" questions. They are tired denialist talking points most of us have heard fifty times before - and the insults to Mann, and absurd obsession with Gore, tell us that you are not asking them in good faith. Now fuck off, there's a good moron.
"BTW, pwl, has it occurred to you that, when you write "I could care less if you question AWG", that means you do care?"
Actually the phrase means a person doesn't care at all. You just can't read it literally like you did. Sheesh, you guys are very much like the literal bible thumpers such as my evangelical preacher of a sister. Not one pro-scientific statement out of you guys. You're like the mob attempting to run someone out of town. Shivers.
And no, I don't have an invisible friend.
PWL, why aren't you writing to the primary authors of works you have questions on?
I guess you've never taken a real science class Knockgoats. Very sad. And if you did you'd have failed.
Have you read the two pdf documents I linked to?
By the way fool I never said that I agreed with either of the papers. I haven't made any conclusions yet since I'm learning the science first. However, I've not learned any here interacting with most of you. (I have learned some from some of the posts that contain comments that are discussing the science so thank you).
PWL, Liar and Bullshitter. Go away. You have nothing to offer except your ignorance. Bye
SC: Yes. There used to be another Stu, but I haven't seen him in ages so I just decided to drop the V.
SC@247,
Thanks very much, that gives me a warm glow, and the sentiment is mutual! All the best to MAJeff when you next see him.
Science is about questioning the facts.
Can we frame this one?
PWL, you are a proven liar and bullshitter, so every link you offer is presumed to be the same. Unless, of course, you cite the primary peer reviewed scientific literature. Until you are ready to do that, you have nothing but lies and bullshit.
always glad to be of service. I'm still laughing at that myself... a measly spelling mistake, and he couldn't even admit to that, instead of digging himself in deeper *snort*
pwl, since you ask, I'm a physicist; I work mostly on simulations in mineral physics and biophysics. I'm sure you'll understand when I join "Nerd of Redhead" in pointing out how tedious you are. If you were actually trying to learn any of the science, you wouldn't be acting the way you are; if you actually want information you'll write to the authors of papers (you can read an author's name, can't you), and if your only response to seeing a code is "it has GOTOs!" then you're not adding anything constructive to the debate. And, as you so rightly point out, you are not learning anything about climate science by arguing with people here, because you never go and do any learning and instead stay here arguing with people. Tedious little person, so you are.
pwl:
Really. Let's apply the principle.
· Sheesh, you guys are very much like the literal bible thumpers such as my evangelical preacher of a sister. [means we're not]
· Not one pro-scientific statement out of you guys. [means many]
· You're like the mob attempting to run someone out of town. [means we're not]
· Shivers. [means you don't].
I think I'm getting it now, thanks ever so much, pwl!
Ok, Nerd you show your true anti-scientific colors by running away to momma when someone asks a question about what you consider to be scientific truth.
I am learning about the climate science because of the possibility that our one home in the universe might be in danger. If the climate-fear-mongers are correct then that is of great concern. If the nay-sayers aka deniers aka skeptics are correct then the real dangers come from the attempts from reversing the false claims of the fear-mongers. I'm attempting to learn the facts, the methods of analysis, and the tools and models used that go into the conclusions. Yes, eventually I may contact the authors, however, at my present level of knowledge I don't have enough to fairly do that.
I was (and still am) interested in pz's take on the Darwin temperature measurements which is why I posted here on Darwin Day after I saw the articles posted earlier in the day on another site.
Working yourselves into a frenzy about someone asking a few questions isn't good for your health guys. It is also a shameful way to treat someone asking basic questions about the AWG. If I wasn't already a scientist you'd have scared me away with your ranting and raving of "denier", "shut up or publish", and other such mind poo. It really shows a very low level of engagement of your intellect to resort to those types of comments. Instead you could show that you either know something about the topic and are willing to share that information or knowledge with someone who is asking or you could be honest and say that you don't have anything to say about it. It's shameful how you've reacted. My science teachers would be shocked at your attitude.
Be that as it may. I'm willing to learn, are you?
PWL, your basic questions will be answered at RealClimate. Why are you persisting in aksing them here? By the way, don't tell me what is science and what is not. I know better. You don't.
Oh, in case your are interested PWL, you would have flunked general chemistry when I taught it years ago. Your ignorance of science and the scientific method is that bad.
I'm always way late to these threads, but if anybody's still looking for The Voyage of the Beagle, Project Gutenberg has a nice illustrated edition. You have to download the HTML .zip file to get all the embedded thumbnails and the illustrations linked to them. This is an actual transcribed version, not a Google-Books-scanned-by-drunken-3-year-olds-from-a-worm-eaten-copy-that's-been-in-a-fire-and-then-turned-into-an-insanely-large-PDF-file version.
It's evident by your attitude that you don't comprehend the scientific process. If you did you and your bunch would not label people as "denier" as your bunch does. You are so much a belief based cult that it's really sad day for science to have your type of comments on a blog devoted to science.
PWL, cite the primary peer scientific literature to back up your claims. Time to put up positive information, or to shut up. Welcome to science.
pwl, what part of "your basic questions will be answered at RealClimate" are you not understanding?
we're bored and frustrated with AGW deniers and doubters. we come to this blog to talk to intelligent, educated and informed people (and for the occasional troll-stomping), and having every thread hijacked by AG, Denker, Scott or Walton has made us allergic to Libertarianism and AGW denial.
we.don't.want.to.listen.to.any.more.of.that.crap.
you want info, you've been provided with an excellent resource. stop trolling this blog
Oh, so you're a chemistry teacher Nerd. Wow, then it's even more shocking that you have the attitude that you do have. Truly shocking. Is the way that you've treated me the same way you treat every student who asks a question about the science of chemistry? Horrifying.
If a student asks you to prove that atoms exist you'd call them deniers rather than begin a proof!!! Shocking.
PWL, just asking questions isn't science. The questions lead to doing actual experiments (I know, I started one today). Now describe your experiments and/or postulates. Not questions, but answers.
Jadehawk, I'd suggest that don't respond to questions you're tired of.
I don't know who those other people are.
Ah so you admit to an organized "stamping out" of opinions you don't like. Shocking for a science blog. Really. Embarrassing in fact. I've been the sole person in non-invisible friend blogs and been treated better. Shocking that people devoted to science can't get over being petty. You guys sure have a lot to learn about interacting with people.
I knew it! Quality is easy to recognize. :P
BTW, I'll convey everyone's sentiments to MAJeff. More evidence, as if it were needed, that the Pharyngula community rocks.
Actually that should say:
Ah so you admit to an organized "stamping out" of opinions you don't like. Shocking for a science blog. [*** I've been the sole person without an invisible friend in pro invisible friend blogs and been treated better. ***] Shocking that people devoted to science can't get over being petty. You guys sure have a lot to learn about interacting with people.
My question here was posted in #19 relating to Darwin's climate observations and we're on #291 or greater now and yet no serious dialog which is fine except that much mind poo was received instead. Nothing of substance given by any of you who have responded to my posting. Sigh. You guys sure are jaded, cold and stuck in your point of view. It is very shocking.
PWL, Describe your postulates and the experiments to prove/disprove them. Anything else is not science. Yawn, you are getting boring with your lying and evasions.
Have you read the two pdf documents I linked to? - Denialist liar pwl
Clicking on the first gives me a 404 error. The second, David J. Ameling's crap, shows such an amazing level of ignorance combined with arrogance that I think he may actually be you - and his reference to his career in computer software strengthens this suspicion. To take just a few examples of Mr. Ameling's ignorance and stupidity:
Just as you don't need a degree in astrophysics to know the sun will rise tomorrow, you don't need advanced degrees in climatology to know there will be another ice age. The simple proof is "They have always occurred and they will continue to occur". Carbon dioxide has no influence in the matter.
No, they haven't "always occurred". There have been several periods during which ice ages have occurred, the most recent starting about 1m years ago. Carbon dioxide does indeed have an influence. The primary cause of the glacial/interglacial shifts during this period are the Milancovich cycles; but these make too little difference to the amount of insolation reaching Earth to account for the changes in temperature we know have happened. Feedback (you've heard that word somewhere, perhaps?) from changing carbon dioxide levels, and from albedo changes, is required to explain this. Are you really so stupid you can't understand that even though changes in carbon dioxide levels lag the start of changes in temperature, they can still have a causal role? I thought you claimed to be a systems scientist.
We are presently about 12,000 years into the latest interglacial warming. Should we worry about the earth returning to its normal state of an ice age?
Well, there might be one in 20,000 years; more likely in around 50,000 years - neglecting the extra greenhouse gases we're pumping into the air. The timing of ice ages is considerably more complex than you suggest: several cycles of different length, involving precession of the equinoxes, changes in obliquity (axial tilt) and changes in orbital eccentricity, interact. This is well understood, and the combination of these cycles would not allow a new ice age to start anytime soon, even if we had added no extra greenhouse gase to the atmosphere.
Yes there is a greenhouse effect and it can be seen in how a greenhouse works.
No, not really. The "greenhouse effect" as understood by physicists is actually quite different from how an actual greenhouse works. Look it up.
If global warming had been caused by carbon dioxide it would have occurred equally in the northern and southern hemispheres.
Good grief but you're - sorry, I mean good grief but David J. Ameling is stupid. Look at a globe. Notice anything about the difference between northern and southern hemispheres? Yes, there's more sea and less land in the southern hemisphere. Now, what do we know about the difference between sea and land? Yes, that's right, land warms up more easily.
I could go on, but I'd rather not waste any more time on this fuckwit.
"PWL, you are a proven liar and bullshitter, so every link you offer is presumed to be the same." - Nerd
When have I lied Nerd? I've made no lies. You have a very strange definition of lie. You're like someone who believes in god and when confronted by an atheist who says god doesn't exist you explete: "you're a liar".
It's comments like your comment above that are so shocking for someone who claims to be a teacher of science. You'd be fired from any school in Canada for your attitude and false claim of me "lying". Prove that I lied.
"Unless, of course, you cite the primary peer reviewed scientific literature. Until you are ready to do that, you have nothing but lies and bullshit." - Nerd
Well, after you Sir Nerd since you are the one making the extreme claims of the doom of the world.
Knock, Nerd and SC
Sorry
I was just outside letting the dogs do their nasty fecal business and I think I must have stepped in some.
When I scraped it off, it said it's name was PWL and started spouting some global warming denialist malarky.
It didn't have any facts or knowledge of climatology to back it up, just vague assertions and various apeals to nonsense so I figure it was harmless, but it appears to have smeared it's shit all over the thread.
I'll be more careful next time.
Oh, the link for the first article was messed up by the scienceblogs software attaching the subsequent period, ".", to the link. Here is the link that works. http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ICECAP-200YEARSOFCHARLESDARWIN.pdf
That is more proof that no none of you reads what is posted and just assumes what it is. Shocking. It diminishes you sir.
No I am not David J. Ameling. Since you thought that likely you're again deluded thinking I'm someone I'm not. Clearly you're jaded sir and prejudiced by being as jaded as you are. You bias reeks putrid.
back to something actually interesting.
Fernando Magyar @ #65 and #258 provided some excellent articles about the global economy. I never thought about our current situation being basically "between a rock and a hard place", i.e. either we'll have cheap oil and a depression, or relatively quick economic return and expensive oil.
I gotta say it's not quite the end of the current global capitalism as we know it. the worldwide bailouts will probably prop the currently existing structures up long enough so that the eventual collapse is still a while off, but it will be even nastier for it. as much as i hate to agree on even a single point with Scott, the ginormous corporate/banking network on which our world economy is build should have been dismantled (or left to crash) a very long time ago. every bailout that does nothing to change the situation is making the eventual crash worse.
where i'm strongly disagreeing with him is that it should be let to crash without at the same time cushioning the blow for the actual people affected, and that I don't believe a purely local system is better than a global network. it's the inaccesibility, non-responsivity, and arcaneness of those corporations that are the problem, not its globality. for example, I couldn't do my job without a global market, and without paypal as a global cash-depository (and even so I wish they'd let us attach foreign accounts to paypal accounts), but I can live and work just fine without the immense bureaucracy and hierarchy of the corporate system.
also, I disagree about giving more power locally about certain things. if multinational corporations have taught us anything, it's that we need a single global government to deal with a global economy. it would have to be one that's far more transparent and responsive to people though, and since we're having a hard time instituting such at a continental level (see the EU's notorious issues at trying hard to ignore the votes of those who think the new E.U. constitution is crap), we're still too far off from being able to do that
most likely, we won't be able to get those massive reforms to the way we run our world within the current system, so the crash is pretty much a given.
No actually Main is pronounced like "mine", it's the English word "main" that's pronounced "mein" like in "chow mein". The German word "mein", in turn, is pronounced like "mine". ;)
Also it's important not to confuse Main with Meine.
"The timing of ice ages is considerably more complex than you suggest"
I don't suggest anything knocking up goats, the author of the article did. I'm not the author. I'm not asserting that I agree or disagree with the article. As I've said I don't yet have enough knowledge of climate science to have vetted the science. You people read way too much into people's intentions. As such you're highly jaded and have lost your ability to be unbiased. Very sad.
pwl, out of curiosity I unhkilled you temporarily and went back and reread your post #19. So we are talking about El Nino and La Nina. So what? In terms of AGW that is. We started understanding their significance to the weather patterns of the world in some detail from the 1970s IIRC. However, what have they to do with AGW. They happen irrespective of AGW, as possibly noted, at least their effects, by Darwin and his contemporaries.
The only thing that you may say as far as AGW is concerned is that due to the extra energy in the system from AGW, all else being equal, their global effects could well be even worse in future as more energy in the system tends to mean more instability. However, the fact that they were happening 200 years ago, as they are today, means little overall in terms of AGW as existing models take into account historical data from a wide range of different temperature proxies and the global effects of historical El and La Nina events are in the various proxies. So what was your point again.
Bye. Back to killfile.
You have also not stated your qualifications knockgoats. Seriously I could not find any info about knockgoats at all on this web site. What is your background?
If you're really PZ Meyers I'll be very disappointed.
pwl:
Where did Nerd of Redhead make these claims?
That you don't see any oddity in lying to protest claims of being a liar is, however, not surprising.
PWL, who do you think the blog is going to believe on what is and isn't science. A self admitted non-scientists, or a PhD. chemist with 30+ years experience working in science. You are a liar for pretending you know more about science than I do. Now, either show some peer reviewed primary scientific literature, or just fade into the bandwidth. We have your liar and bullshitter number, and nothing you say at this point will prove you otherwise., other than you admitting your lies.
So John you don't think that the linked article has any relevance.
What about David's article?
pwl
"You people read way too much into people's intentions."
In every post that I have read from you, you have been an arrogant git and an insulting little shrew.
With the available evidence, I assert that your intention is to be an insulting little shrew.
You seem to be an angry and lonely little person.
Not surprising, considering your obvious lack of social skills.
Of course I am "biased" by the available evidence.
"I don't yet have enough knowledge of climate science to have vetted the science."
Uh...yeah...that seems to work with your statements and attitude.
Run away child. The grownups are talking.
Pwl, denialist liar,
I've now read the first link. I'm underwhelmed: Darwin made climatic observations on his Beagle voyage - wow, what a surprise! As to why no-one bothered to follow your link initially - you forget again that we've seen you here before, so we know you're a denialist liar. Hence anything you link to is, justifiably assumed to be crap. The text you link to in this instance refers to another paper, but does not even give a reference - what sort of science is that? The ENSO and PDO are of course well-known - although unpredictable - and fully taken into account by climate scientists. You might (but of course won't) ask yourself why, given that the PDO is now in a "cool" phase, the last decade has been the warmest on record.
I don't suggest anything knocking up goats, the author of the article did. I'm not the author. - pwl, denialist liar
I don't believe you. It wouldn't take more than an hour with google to discover that Ameling's blitherings are full of elementary errors - so if you're not him, why didn't you?
Nerd, I have no idea of who you are. It's clear that you have a shocking attitude towards people asking basic questions about science. Your efforts to mock and label them disqualifies you as a someone who should be trusted or given any respect.
I never said that I know more about science that you do Sir Nerd. I said you have the worst attitude of anyone that I've ever encountered who considers themselves a scientist. You're a total disgrace to the profession sir.
By making false claims that I'm a liar and a bullshitter you are verging on slander. I've said no lies here.
You have a very perverted view and agressive way of relating with people Sir Nerd.
You have an invisible friend for sure.
It's also not about people believing you verses believing me. It's about whether or not the science is correct and that has nothing to do with belief nor how much belief you can con out of people.
You're just afraid to prove your science Sir Nerd.
You're a repulsive man due to your bad attitude and if you're typical of the scientists involved in climate science or at the school that you taught/teach at that is just horrific and bodes poorly for American Science.
If you're really PZ Meyers I'll be very disappointed. - pwl
Who's this PZ Meyers?
pwl:
See #294.
BTW & FWIW, you messed up the link, not the scienceblogs software.
PWL, you are just a liar and bullshitter. You have evaded every chance to come clean and admit your trolling. Until you wise up and listen to real scientists, like you those at RealClimate, or myself, that won't change. Time for you to fade into the bandwidth. You have nothing to offer with just questions. The answers are elsewhere, and you know it. Bye
I am not a denialist liar knockgoats and your continued labeling of me that way is inconsistent with someone who is committed to science. You're being a very nasty person sir. Your method of debate is to mock people and run them out of town so that you don't have to defend your science. Shocking indeed.
I'm not trolling, that is what you are doing with all of your ad hominem personal attacks and name calling Sir Nerd.
I've read the notorious Dr. Mann who refuses to open up his so called science and have found him unconvincing.
I have Real Climate on my blog roll. Not impressive since it's just extols the party line without actually explaining or proving he science or opening it up to auditing to outside auditors.
You're one messed up person Sir Nerd. If I was ever a student of yours or if I knew your real identity I'd sued you for the liable that you've made here today.
pwl: from your post #19
Seeing that nobody in the AGW community has ever blamed EL/La Nina on AGW, understanding from at least the 1970s onwards that it was natural cycle, I can probably dismiss the rest of his work as equally shoddy. Though it is illuminating about your outlook, as even the minimum of research by yourself would have shown you that no one in the AGW community blames it for El/La Nina.
You have a lot to learn about doing 'science', good luck with that. However, for myself, I can't be bothered to waste any more time on you so permanent killfile for you.
pwl. why are you here? the anwers are at RealClimate. Why are you here instead? the people over there are committed to explaining this stuff to people incapable of googling basics for themselves. we are not. your insistence on being here and arguing for no reason shows that you want to argue, not larn. if you wanted to learn, you'd take your questions to RealClimate, where they belong.
The fact that you call it an "AGW community" is part of the problem John.
It was an article and not a paper as was suggested by some.
ah, 314 answers my questions: you don't want real answers, you want answers that fit your preconceived notions (and don't say you haven't made up your mind. clearly you have resistance to the answers of one side, but none from the other), and as such are trawling the internet for a way to feed your need of confirmation. so, how many science blogs did you check out and abandon for lack of catering to pseudo-science?
Re #311, no it was the science blogs software. I've written web site software before and never has it captured a trailing period character as part of a URL. It simply doesn't belong, so I do know what I'm talking about on this. What is it with you people. You just attack and attack rather than get it. You're a nasty and highly rabid bunch with overly sharp teeth who just don't know what you're talking about since you constantly jump to conclusions without backing up your statements with evidence.
PWL, where is the peer reviewed scientific literature? Or are you a sham? I know you are a sham. Now, either show your work or go away. Your questions are meaningless tripe. Put up or shut up.
I have been at real climate many times.
#318 is your attempt to run off people whose point of view you don't like and as such is inappropriate for any science blog actually devoted to science rather than parroting a set of beliefs.
pwl, you really are a piece of work. AGW community was just shorthand for all those involved in the work. But why am I not surprised that you jump on a form of words I use rather than the gross inaccuracy in the 'article' you posted quotes from. However, whether an article or paper considering the gross inaccuracy of the statement I highlighted, which I notice you don't address, quell surprise, means that I would trust very little else he had to say so will not waste my time reading further. Much like the attitude I am developing towards you as you display all the classic characteristics of a denier.
cute, but no. if you've been at realclimate as often as you claim and are still claiming to be unconvinced you're either thick as a brick or don't WANT to be convinced. people like you are boring to talk to after a while, and your whining is eclipsing any conversation on any interesting topic that might have developed
and considering that I've been chewed out for disagreeing with some of the regulars here on other subjects (a really nasty argument with SC once of twice comes to mind), I certainly don't come here for herd mentality. it's willful ignorance that i despise, not differing opinions
PWL, then why aren't you asking your question over at RealClimate. We are not experts, and like true scientists, acknowledge such. You are not behaving rationally, because you know your answers are elsewhere. We want your to pursue the answers you want in the proper forum, which is RealClimate, not Pharyngula. You have been remarkably dense on that point. Now, either go to the people who can answer your questions, or just go. Failure to leave means you are nothing but an ignorant troll, keyword ignorant.
Where is the peer reviewed scientific literature on climate science Sir Nerd?
The very fact that a man, Sir Nerd et. al., who claims to be a scientist says "Now, either show your work or go away. Your questions are meaningless tripe. Put up or shut up." is proof of a very bad attitude towards science.
If you don't like my questions then why have they bothered you so much? Just leave them alone and don't answer. But no, instead you keep up your attack rather than conducting yourself in a professional manner.
I've already said that I have no papers published in the field of climate science and that I'm just beginning to learn about this field. I've been up front about that before even being asked about it for hecks sake.
You people are so used to bullying people that you don't even know how repugnant and disgusting your attitude is. I'd be ashamed to have you as collegues. Shame on you.
PWL, if you aren't a troll, why do you continue to ask questions here?
Fernando Magyar@258, Jadehawk@298,
I disagree with the claim in the article Fernando linked to that you can say in general that more connectedness means less stability. Although I must admit I haven't kept up with the fast-growing literature on networks, complexity theory is close to my area of work, and it actually depends on what the connections are doing, and what sorts of disruption they are liable to. If you're talking about the spread of disease, say, clearly the more pairs of people meet and touch, the more chance of an epidemic. Long-dsistnace links (e.g. air travel) make modern society potentially very vulnerable; although of course the same links mean help can be got to an affected area quickly. If you're talking about a communications network and its robustness in the face of local malfunctions of nodes or links, more connectedness gives more stability - more can go down without the network being disrupted. For food-webs, it used to be thought that more connections improved stability, but this was based on a false analogy with communications networks, and current thinking IIRC is that it depends on which food-webs you're talking about: some have "keystone species", removing which will have a drastic effect, others don't, and this is not reliably related to the density of the web of connections. For economies, I'd say having more connections will give you greater robustness to some kinds of problem (like locally generated shortages), but greater vulnerability to others (as we've surely seen with the spread of the current crisis). We need to aim at a combination of a fairly high degree of local autonomy and self-sufficiency, and barriers to the spread of financial "contagion", with the ability to get help to areas in trouble, and to tame "social dilemmas" - situations where every individual, or local group, has an interest in exploiting a common resource (like the atmosphere's ability to absorb pollution without causing problems, or the global supply of a rare metal) to the maximum, but if everyone can agree to limit their behaviour, all will be better off. (This is what africangenesis wrongly referred to as the "Tragedy of the Commons" - he has an excuse, because that's what Garrett Hardin called it, but he was wrong too. Real, historical commons are - or in most cases, were - solutions to social dilemmas, and involve systems of mutual surveillance and coercion.)
Eek! 2am here - must get to bed.
I am continually shocked by your immature and bad attitude to science. You might be a scientist (assuming one can believe your statements) but you're attitude is horrific. No wonder people have a bad impression of scientists, you lower the average perception to next to the point of no return.
One could ask the same question of you Sir Nerd: "if you aren't a troll Sir Nerd, why do you continue to ask questions here?"
If this is how you respond to all people on all the topics discussed here then wow what a nasty corner of the internet your postings are Sir Nerd.
PWL, you will never be a colleague of mine. Truth is what scientists seek. Your truth is in your presumptions, which is an unscientific lie. Not ours. I follow my real colleagues, who have degrees and work in the field. There is no way I would believe you, a proven liar and bullshitter. That comes from asking questions where they cannot possibly be answered, because we were not part of the research teams writing the papers. So your pretending we have the answers is a lie. Your questions are irrelevant to our belief, because we trust our truth telling colleagues. Something you can never understand. Your failure to ask your questions in right venue, that being RealClimate, tells me you have no desire to learn. Again, another lie. Your veracity is proven false. There is no reason to believe you at all.
Where is the peer reviewed scientific literature on climate science Sir Nerd? - pwl, denialist liar
Duh. It's in the peer-reviewed journals - primarily, weirdly enough, climate science journals. The literature up to some time in 2005 is extensively reviewed in the IPCC's AR4 reports - all available online. More recent papers you can get at by using google scholar. The fact that you don't know where the peer reviewed literature on climate science is, haven't bothered to find out, yet claim to be interested in climate science, is truly breathtaking.
You're just like those that have invisible friends Sir Nerd, committed to the bad attitude driven by rigid beliefs that are unsupportable. I feel sad for anyone who learned science from you.
No wonder people don't want to go into science. There are goof balls like Sir Nerd and knockgoats abounding about with a caustic attitude towards science and even worse towards the public who have science based questions.
You people have got a lot to learn about educating people about science.
PWL, if you aren't a troll, put up from the primary peer reviewed scientific literature. Or shut the fuck up since you are nothing but a repetitive troll.
I've written web site software before and never has it captured a trailing period character as part of a URL. It simply doesn't belong, so I do know what I'm talking about on this.
No, you don't. From RFC 2396 (I haven't looked at this for years but still remembered the number):
Pardon me for the typo, that should read "Where is YOUR,/b> peer reviewed scientific literature on climate science Sir Nerd?"
Of course I know where to read papers. I am a member of groups such as The ACM.
Yeah but "nothing's sacred", URLs never have a "." as the last character. I've never met another blog that can't handle a period character at the end of a url by not putting it into the url. Most other places - if not all - where I post the blog software can figure out that the trialing period is not part of the url. This is so that urls can be at the end of a sentence. Yeesh. It's a bug or a bad design to intake that tailing period as part of the url.
Re: Knockgoats @ #327
I think you're probably right that you can't say complexity/connectivity itself weakens a system. it seems it's a question of horizontal, generalized and redundancy networks (communication networks, for example) versus hierarchical, specialized and efficiency-based networks (food supply networks in urban areas).
the former tends to remain strong, and even strengthen a society (more advanced communication and faster travel making large stable nations possible), and the fact that they're basically duplicate and triplicate networks (we have internet, phone, satellite, oldfashioned snail-mail etc. as means of communication) makes them robust to disruptions. the latter is what permits science and luxury within a society, but since its hierarchical, based on an ever decreasing base with longer connections (fewer and fewer people who produce food, and do so farther and farther away from where it ends up) with an efficient delivery system (i.e. no redundancies, thus full of potential weak points) a blow to just the right spot could easily cause collapse.
I guess we should definitely focus on building redundancies in our single-use networks (diversifying the American Transporation systems to include public transport, biking, and even make walking-distances possible again), as well as broadening our bases and shortening the supply chains (local food movement, vertical gardens in urban areas, etc.)
unfortunately i don't see any of that happening really, at least not on a large enough scale. and the giant hierarchies that are the main nodes in our global economic network are being patched instead of being streamlined. that doesn't bode well either.
"Where is YOUR peer reviewed scientific literature on climate science Sir Nerd?"
Still no citations. Yawn troll, you are a bore, and boring is the top of PZ's plonking criteria. Now, if you want your questions answered, you need RealClimate. As I have explained about dozen times already, we cannot answer your questions because we were not part of the research teams. Now, your continued questioning is nothing but harassment at this point. If you have a point, posit it with evidence from the primary peer reviewed literature to back up your assertion. If you have nothing but questions, and can't go elsewhere, I foresee the dungeon (see the masthead) in your future. Your choice sir troll.
We will still believe the scientists who publish in the peer reviewed primary scientific literature to you any day. They have earned our trust. You have demolished it. Bye.
How many peer reviewed scientific papers or articles on climate science have you written or co-written Sir Nerd?
If the number is greater than zero under what name can I find them under? Out with it. You're a scientist after all with the nasty "put up or shut up" attitude to quote one of your favorite phrases to me.
If the number of your papers is zero or is less than zero then you're in the same camp as me.
In either case, that doesn't mean that we can't talk about it - except that you have a singularly caustic attitude that prevents you from talking with anyone who presents themselves in your eyesight with questions that you don't like. You must be a very unpleasant person in person too. You're a very sad case sir. You need professional psychological help, seek it. Really.
Our cyberstalker is back. PZ, I accuse PWL of trolling, stupidity, and being boring.
PWL, go elsewhere to get your questions answered. There is nothing left here for you. Fade into the bandwidth.
I'm intrigued. how do you publish a negative number of articles?
I've already told you that I've been to Real Climate for a very long time.
I was seeking commentary on Darwin's climate observations but instead I got a nasty jaded so called scientists such as you Sir Nerd and knockgoats with your bad attitude towards people asking simple questions (post #19). You're a so called scientist due to your bad attitude! You might even be a highly successful scientist Sir Nerd but the evident bad attitude destroys any contribution you think you are making. Get a correction quickly Sir Nerd and your life and the lives of those around you will be better for it.
pwl, what part of "el nino and la nina have shit-all to do with global warming" [i paraphrase] didn't you get? how much more of an explanation do you need? if you want details, you have to talk to climatologists, i.e. the crowd over at RealClimate, not us.
plus, if all you were doing was asking questions you wouldn't be posting those articles while begging the question. that was a tip-off to your dishonesty right there.
PWL, I am in the peer reviewed literature. Under a different name in chemistry, not climate. Your taunts mean nothing. Just more ignorance on your part. Take your questions elsewhere, like RealClimate (afraid?), where real climatologists post. Your questions are meaningless to us, and won't change our minds.
PZ I promise you that I'm not a troll. I simply find the attitude of some of those here, such as Sir Nerd and knockgoats to be contrary to the progressive forward pursuit of science. Banning me would be an injustice. Asking Sir Nerd and knockgoats to adjust their attitude would be appropriate.
To most of you who've been debating with me today I'm simply shocked by your nasty attitude towards people who ask questions in the pursuit of scientific knowledge. I find it shocking that you'd admit to attempting to drive people away - clearly it takes quite a bit of energy to counter the agressive tactics used against me today. It's very shocking and all of you should raise your standards to a level that is appropriate and commensurate with a man of PZ Meyers stature. If you are his defenders you are doing a lousy job for the perception of him in the marketplace of ideas.
Time for dinner.
you weren't asking questions, you were begging the question. learn the difference, understand the attitude. it's quite simple, really
Anyone who's been around computers for the past 30 years has heard of Edsger Dijkstra's famous letter denouncing GOTO. Fewer people know that Donald Knuth wrote a paper, Structured Programming With Go To Statements, which showed that GOTO is the optimal language construct to use in certain programming circumstances.
It's easy to get sloppy using GOTO. However, there are times when it's a reasonable, even correct, term to use.
PWL, Knockgoats and my attitude are scientific. Yours is the trollish attitude. PZ is well aware that Knockgoats and I are not liars and bullshitters. I will simply say we have been around long enough and posted enough to be trusted, not only by PZ, but also by the regulars. You haven't, and your performance today says you can never be trusted.
We don't have the answers you seek, which you know, and have referred you to a proper source to find them. Just like any good scientist would do. If you can't handle being referred you have a problem, but that is not our problem. We also don't have to consider your questions further since we referred you to a better source than us.
Now, either posit an argument backed with a citation to peer reviewed scientific literature, or fade into the bandwidth. Your continued posts here are considered harassment/trolling.
pwl: And yet it has been pointed out to you that it is totally irrelevant as far as AGW is concerned. Plus, when you consider the, lets be kind and call it a glaring error rather than something more malicious, that was pointed out to you in the piece you quoted in #19, you know, the one where he claims that the AGW community (there's that phrase again) blamed El/La Nina on AGW when it has done no such a thing as the AGW community has known for decades that El/LA Nina is a natural cycle, I still have not heard any response from you. Especially considering that even minimal research on your part should have proved that the statement was wrong. Instead, you took me to task for a phrase that I used and then you concentrate on those who call you nasty names and ignore valid criticism of what you have posted. Perhaps now you will understand why we consider you nothing better than a troll and a denier. Even more so when you consider that while this post was about Obama's speech there are other posts on Pharyngula about Darwin's birthday where you could have posted this without appearing a troll, even with the glaringly inaccurate statement in your quoted piece.
And ironically, he begs PZ in advance for clemency and can't even be bothered to spell his name correctly. I almost feel sorry for the fool. BTW, whatever a systems scientist is, if this fool is a representative sample, I'm glad I have no need for one.
I'm a liar? What have I lied about knockgoats? I've simply quoted and posted links to articles, how is that lying? I never said that I agreed with the quoted material or the linked articles, in fact I said that I've not taken a stand one way or the other.
Well, that's clearly a lie, as prior to posting that, you posted #151 in which you did far more than quote and post links -- you made numerous tendentious assertions, without any support, that are essentially denialist talking points. For instance,
I was referring to anything presented as evidence for or against AWG. Some of the pro-evidence has be highly successfully refuted, such as much of what Al Gore presented in his infamous movie. Much of what he asserted was deliberate scaremongering and had little to do with actual science
Odd that you only complain about pro-AGW claims, not anti-AGW claims, and that your complaints, such as the one above, are not only unsubstantiated but are well known by people who have made even a cursory examination to be false -- for instance,
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/060524-global-warming.h…
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/
- although he might "believe" that it does. That is where the "beliefism" comes into it. AWG seems to be more based upon beliefs rather than hard science that is fully open and auditable.
Hypocritical much? This "seeming" of yours is sheer "beliefism". And what was it you wrote? "I've not taken a stand one way or the other." A blatant lie.
pwl:
you haven't stated any information about your background.
you haven't stated any science that backs up your assertions.
you have engaged in widely-sprayed name calling, and dubious claims (writing scores of web applications, etc)
you have stated that you don't believe experts in the areas you doubt, but you have faith in your "colleagues", whatever that might mean
and you take offense at being labeled a troll?
I don't know that you're a liar - you may actually believe the things you say: but you are certainly amazingly stupid.
Does anybody but me suspect "pwl" of being a "teach the controversy" creationist in disguise?
You've got the same torturing of the word "science" to mean: adding up every opinion anyone has ever had, no matter how ill-informed or worthless they might be, and then weighing up the piles to see who comes out on top, unless it would force me to believe something I don't want to believe; in that case, you're all meanies, wah, wah, wah!
And oh yeah:
I can't believe you piled on AG for misspelling the name "Main" (although that was funny) and let pwl get away with his uniform use of AWG for AGW.
He's trying to learn about the science, he says, but can't even learn the name before spouting off at insane length about it.
Actually in another thread someone did point out source code for a NASA software program used in climate simulations. I have downloaded that and taken a look at it. It's written in FORTRAN with GOTO statements. No possible errors in that. No one's ever lost a space probe with software written in FORTRAN have they NASA?
Uh, wait, let me get this right ... you downloaded it and took a look at it and what you saw is that it's written in a language and with a style in which it's possible to make mistakes? Two attacks on strawmen (no one has claimed that no errors are possible, nor that a space probe wasn't lost -- which had nothing to do with GOTO statements, and of course ignores all the NASA programming that has functioned without a hitch) and a bit of wacky innuendo without any indication that you actually found any mistake? Do you have any idea how foolish that makes you look? How unreliable and dishonest a thinker you appear to be?
A little xkcd mockery for you: http://xkcd.com/292/
If all you want to do is continual libertarian masturbation on seemingly every post, why not simply congregate at Walton's blog where you can both grow as much hair on your palms as you wish.
Erm, thanks for trying to direct more traffic to my blog... believe me, I wouldn't complain.
Just an aside: the apparent lack of comments at my blog is, in fact, slightly misleading. I have it set up to automatically import blog posts to my Facebook profile as notes, and most of my RL friends (who make up the bulk of my readership) comment on the Facebook rather than Blogger versions. So I'm not just writing to a non-existent audience. :-) (I only realised today how sad I must look...)
I'm not going to get involved in the acrimonious climate change debate, since I know next to nothing about climate science; I would be the first to admit that I'm a political activist and would-be pundit, not a meteorologist, and there's no reason why my view on global warming should have any particular force. I am, however, inclined to be sceptical of claims made in the media (who, as we all know, tend to sensationalise and distort, and will always run with the worst-case scenario because it sells more papers). At a guess, I would imagine that the reality probably lies somewhere in between the two extremes. But I could be entirely wrong.
Guess what Walton, most scientists would say AGW is happening, but the argument is over the extent of it. A lot would agree with you, still a problem, but not quite as bad as the media (worst case) scenarios.
actually, that's only true for novel things. so 10-15 years ago, global warming would have been THE news-seller, by now it's not news anymore. compare it to the steadily decreasing war coverage: first we're inundated in that stuff24/7, now it's all about the economy and it's as if there were no war (especially true for Afghanistan)
also you gotta remember that only certain stories are good for sales. drama is good, sheer panic is bad(telling you you can't remain seated on your ass comfortably forever, also bad). personal stories good, abstract concepts bad.
look at how the rise in oil-prices was reported: lot's of personal stories and "it's just temporary", very little in the way of "well, we're starting to run out of this shit, that was kinda predictable tho"
as such, AGW is too deeply steeped in numbers and polysyllabic, non-English words and too little personal drama to make a good news-story most of the time. not saying it doesn't get media coverage, but it doesn't lend itself to good, blown-out-of-proportion news much anymore
Pwl, you're a tedious shit-stirrer. Back off and change your tactics or I will toss you out of here.
Yeah but "nothing's sacred", URLs never have a "." as the last character.
If you would read the document I referred you to, you would find that there is no such limitation. One can easily construct a real URL of that sort ... e.g., http://google.com/search?q=.
It's a bug or a bad design to intake that tailing period as part of the url.
One can just as well argue that it's bad design to break perfectly valid URLs. I don't really want to defend scienceblog's crappy blog software, but the fact is that most people know enough not to affix a period to a URL -- it's basic knowledge, sort of like knowing how to spell "AGW".
If you are his defenders you are doing a lousy job for the perception of him in the marketplace of ideas.
He hasn't written anything in this post about the subject you're debating (off-topic), so why would he need defending, and why would the comments of others here reflect upon the perception of him in the marketplace of ideas? (I understand that some people hold him responsible for everything written here, but that's the marketplace of fools, not of ideas.)
the media (worst case) scenarios
What media worst case scenarios? The reality is in fact much worse than what one gets from mainstream outlets (owned by vested interests). Please don't add support to Walton's (self-admittedly) ignorant statements.
Tsk,tsk children.....
Playing with the handicapped cousin again,are we....
I told you not to provoke it with rationality,and this annoying habit of asking for,*shudder*,evidence, and,*shiver*,arguments !
The quality of trolls so far this year is really appalling.They cant even remember the lies they spouted 20 posts upthread.....
But mummyclinteas, he started it :)
BTW, agreed on the quality issue. But what are you going to do, you just have to work with what you have.
My oh my, we've caught ourselves a prolific one.
pwl:
- You have not addressed any substantive points anyone has made to you about AGW (KnockGoats for OM, amazing work).
- You accuse people of ad hominem attacks when you attacked KnockGoats and Al Gore repeatedly on anything but the issues. Pro-tip, cranial vacuum: the arguments for AGW do not depend on Darwin, Al Gore or any other single person. The facts are all that matter, and they are not on your side.
- You are singularly and demonstrably uninformed on every single motherfucking issue brought up in this thread. At least AG had the sense to slip away. You're still at it. Take a hint. I take it you're in some way professionally involved in software development? You even suck at that.
You know nothing. It's painful, but toying with you is still entertaining because of your pig-headed blithering ignorance. It seems I have a penchant for such toying... until your welcome will presently and deservedly run out.
@Stu, Knock already has a well deserved OM under his old user name, though some of his recent work definitely merits adding a tentacle or two to it. Look in Commenters and you should see who I mean.
At a guess, I would imagine that the reality probably lies somewhere in between the two extremes. But I could be entirely wrong.
Walton, Walton, Walton...
What you have done there is Fallacy of the Golden Mean
Claim A: Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.
Claim B: Pink unicorns created life one afternoon because he was lonely, and we haven't changed since then because he loves us as we are.
One of these has evidence to back it up, and the other is a wild-ass assertion. There is no middle ground. You can't say that well, maybe a pink unicorn's day is 4.5 billion years and it only seems like things changed a lot during that day. That's in the middle, so it must be the truth!
That's just more baseless assertion piled on top of the last one. It's ludicrous.
The truth doesn't always lie in the middle.
It's obvious that most of these AGW denialists are wingnuts with Acute Al Gore Derangement Syndrome. Their hatred of him is so fierce that if he says something, they have to scream the opposite, no matter how ludicrous. That's how they operate. Their hate has blinded them to all reason. But then, if they had reason, they wouldn't be wingnuts.
Sooner or later in most AGW claims you will see AAGDS manifest. It may take a while, like it did here, but it rarely stays hidden for long.
John: Ah, I see. How dense of me.
I agree, an OMWET (Order Of The Molly With Extra Tentacles) would be in order.
Shit, I just figured out who KnockGoats is. Was.
Duh.
It's written in FORTRAN with GOTO statements. No possible errors in that.
For an example of the sort of errors that can result from avoiding gotos, see this bit of wankery. Neither the anti-goto ideologue (Rob Wilkens), nor the people who debate him (including Linus Torvalds), notice that his gotoless rewrite is broken (it omits the spinlock call) and can't be fixed without putting back the goto, duplicating the spinlock call, or adding a control variable and a test. (This sort of goto can be avoided via other mechanisms such as try/finally or RAII, but C doesn't have those.)
Figure a Brit to go for a vowel shift.
It's obvious that most of these AGW denialists are wingnuts with Acute Al Gore Derangement Syndrome.
BUT HE IS FAT!
DON'T YOU GET IT?
HE... IS... FAT!
(Of course, Rush Limbaugh is excused for a glandular disorder. That said disorder is drug-induced is COMPLETELY besides the point.)
Dangit, I think that's my ALL CAPS quota for the week.
and can't be fixed without putting back the goto, duplicating the spinlock call, or adding a control variable and a test
Oops, that's not true in this case. (But it is true in more elaborate cases.)
nothing's sacred: I remember my first college lab programming assignment: "write a non-recursive QuickSort".
I'm game, and I have a FORTRAN compiler handy. If pwl provides his implementation in his magical, still un-stated, non-GOTO language, I hereby vow to do it in FORTRAN.
And I promise... no GOTOs.
nothing's sacred: It is funny when someone barges in here and talks smack about a programming language. It's funnier if they don't know the first thing about the language. It's even funnier if they try to do it in the presence of someone who just ported a 4,000,000 line FORTRAN codebase to a different compiler, and thence to 64-bit.
Pro-tip to pwl: Yes, I am calling you out.
Stu said
You're more than welcome to that :) as I haven't used Fortran since I last used Fortran-80 on RM380Z CP/M machines nearly thirty years ago.
:). Really? About what? People keep mentioning these disagreements that I honestly don't recall. Am I a sleeparguer?
This is giving me flashbacks to alt.flame and alt.config.
I just wish to timidly and modestly note that while I'm a libertarian, small ell, it's a philosophy that seems attractive to those prone to self-serving rationalizations. Not unlike Christianity. Which I also profess in a small c sense.
I would also modestly point out that the sort of Libs that use it in defense of such publicly annoying defenses of clearly anti-social behaviors understand Adam Smith to the same extent that Jerry Falwell understood the reputed words of Jesus.
I might also point out that if a militant libertarian acts like an asshole in a forum such as this, it's probable their very own philosophy would argue that they should be content with being shot in the face as a legitimate defense of private property.
The virtue I see in my own brand of anti-authoritarian libertarianism is that it seems to advantage a working understanding of human nature, rather than imposing demands on others to act as I think they ought. I see no value in justifying various punitive limitations or deprivations on those I deem "undeserving" of participation in the culture I would prefer and would, perforce, be naturally hailed as a natural figure of intellectual leadership.
More to the point at hand; I suspect in this troll a sad and incurable malady that is quite independent of professed philosophy.
It's a quite touching americanism that "one opinion is just as good as anyone else's" and of late, there is not even the slightest sense that any factual frame of reference is required to found that opinion. A sincere - or at least strident - assertion is to be treated with equal weight to the geological record or the hundred years or so of relatively high-resolution climate data that we have.
I think we have had far too much practical evidence of that sort of "fair and balanced" approach to public policy to accord it even the most minimal respect. There can be only dialog between rough peers willing to consider evidence and argument.
When one is dealing with clearly unethical behavior - even on a minor level - my own view is that one should refuse to engage.
Ah,we've all been there Jadey...
Cant wait for Xmas to come around so I can be in the doghouse re: nativity displays again !! LOL
"Pwl, you're a tedious shit-stirrer. Back off and change your tactics or I will toss you out of here." - PZ Myers
I'm not sure what to think let alone say to your statement PZ.
Certainly, I apologize if anyone was offended by my cutting directness or anything else I said. When it's dished to me I tend to dish it back with an equal level of intensity to make the point clear.
What do you suggest as an acceptable tactic or means of interacting with your crowd PZ, and will that apply to just me or to everyone under the fairness principle of people being treated the same?
*facepalm*
Way to miss the point.Like,completely.
Heaven forbid that a person hold different views to yours, PZ. ;-)
And while Im at it....
Pike,
do you actually read the posts here sometimes?And comprehend whats written? It wouldnt appear so.
For anyone with half a braincell left and those not blinded by ideology it should be blatantly obvious that people here are as diverse and different in their opinions and ideas as can possibly be.
Aquaria at #366: Yes, I'm perfectly familiar with the Golden Mean fallacy, and I certainly wouldn't make the claim that the truth "always lies in the middle".
Indeed, if you go to my blog, you will see that it starts with a quotation from Barry Goldwater making a similar point, albeit about politics rather than science: Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is not a virtue. Just because a particular viewpoint is perceived as "extreme" (as, indeed, mine is) does not necessarily make it wrong.
However, as regards AGW, the fact is that - just as with economic predictions, and any other expert prognosis of doom-and-gloom - the media (who usually have no more expertise in science than I do) will read a report, ignore all the complicated facts and analysis, latch on to the worst-case scenario and run with it. If a scientific report says "The temperature may rise between 1 and 10 C" (or "The number of unemployed in five years may be between 2 and 3 million"), the press headlines will always be "Temperature set to rise 10 C" (or "Unemployment set to hit 3 million"). Because sensationalism is what sells newspapers. This is why, while I don't doubt that climate change is a problem and that there is scientific substance to the concerns, I am sceptical of what I read in the papers on the subject. Without knowing more about climate science - which would take years of study - I can't offer any more of an informed opinion, and everything I've said must, of course, carry the disclaimer that it is merely an educated guess and could well be complete nonsense.
That,Walton,was something I didnt think I would ever hear from you,well done mate.Kudos.
Hmm, people asking someone to go away instead of answering his questions? I'm suspicious that there might be arrogant nerds about.
And I didn't know that blog comments were for debates between readers. That goes for all involved in the above fracas.
the first time was I think really early in my posting days here, when I agreed with something SfO said, and then accidentally concern-trolled at the automatic rejection of everything coming out of a libertarian (in my defense, he DID say something half-sensible, and I didn't know how flamingly unrealistic the whole context of Libertarianism was); the second time was one of those gender-slur-fights, because we had several threads with men being called dicks and being made fun of sexually, and then one thread about some stupid woman who then got called a cunt which set off the standard argument, which I found a bit hypocritical.
actually, it wasn't "cunt", it was "hag", which spiraled into an argument on the linguistic origins and corruptions of those words in several languages
pwl,
There's no presctiptive rule, but Pharyngula dislikes mendacity and thread derailment.
PZ is exceedingly liberal regarding commenters, but even he has a threshold of tolerance; if you avoid routinely engaging in "High Crimes and Misdemeanors", you will not be banned.
Cutting direcness, good.
Piteous indignant self-justification, not so good.
Oh yeah: Clinteas #383, IIRC PZ wrote once that he's not an uncritical supporter of Obama. Which politician would he be uncritical of? I hope the answer is 'no such thing'.
I find his political comments just a little weird sometimes.
pwl, if you want a tip at how to not get ripped a new one, don't start your conversation with posting a screed by a blatant denialist, on a thread that wasn't about climate change and then "demand" to have it explained to you in detail, and in small words (by people who aren't expert climatologists, no less)
and don't get all huffy when an explanation comes with well deserved insults regarding the quality of the provided material. please note that Knockgoats answered your question re: relevance of screed to actual AGW science pretty much in the post right after yours.
Ah. I remember that now.
Leaving aside the differences already pointed out on those long threads which I have zero interest in rehashing, I'm just going to point out yet again that an entire blog can't be hypocritical. Only individuals can be hypocritical. If you want to point me to examples of my hypocrisy, then go ahead. Otherwise I'd thank you to cease the insinuations. (And if you can't see the difference between, for example, my referring to Vox Day's readership as the ExtenZe target market and people calling a woman a "dumb cunt" or "stupid bitch" then I really can't help you.)
By the way, I don't think you've ever been "chewed out for disagreeing with some of the regulars here." This implies that someone scolded you simply for disagreeing with people, which I haven't seen.
However, as regards AGW, the fact is that - just as with economic predictions, and any other expert prognosis of doom-and-gloom - the media (who usually have no more expertise in science than I do) will read a report, ignore all the complicated facts and analysis, latch on to the worst-case scenario and run with it.
As I noted, this is false, and it should be obviously so even to the most casual observer, one who knows next to nothing about climate science. The fact is that the media constantly downplays the threat and creates a phony "balance" between "the two sides" -- even worse than with Intelligent Design.
SC, did I ever say I'm stubbornly sticking to the position from which I started that argument?
plus i've definitely been chewed out for simply pointing out that a videoclip of talkingheads yelling over each other doesn't count as real, convincing pwnage if the pwnage is implied because no full sentences can be heard
anyway, that's completely besides the point now.
That was a different discussion, it was about more than just the word "hag," and IIRC I wasn't really even very involved in it. I think you may be confusing me with truth machine (although I did agree with him in that instance).
i remember it as being both of you actually. but like i said, i'm not trying to defend my position then or rehash that argument
anyway, i mentioned those as examples of having my ass handed to me on a platter for saying stupid shit, just like pwl is having his handed to him for his stupid shit.
You ended your post with "...which I found a bit hypocritical," with no indication of a changed viewpoint.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Was I involved? (I'm not asking because I think the world revolves around me, but because you said "considering that I've been chewed out for disagreeing with some of the regulars here on other subjects (a really nasty argument with SC once of twice comes to mind)," which suggested that you were chewed out by someone for having disagreed with me.)
What do you suggest as an acceptable tactic or means of interacting with your crowd PZ
Having revealed yourself as a thread-hijacking troll who coopts Darwin on his birthday to push known-to-be-fallacious "AWG" (sic) denialist talking points and doesn't acknowledge any of the criticisms of those points, it's probably too late for you.
I may have been more involved than I recall, though I think it was truth machine and Carlie doing the heavy lifting in that particular debate. As far as I can remember, I joined the discussion late, primarily to argue with John Morales (hi, John!).
Oh. Very well, then. Carry on.
:)
Hmm, people asking someone to go away instead of answering his questions? - Pikemann Urge
I notice this thread is verging into meta-debate, so I'll join in. Telling people to go away (or insulting them, generally my preferred option) is entirely reasonable if it is clear their questions are not being asked in good faith. This was so with pwl, both from his intial comment here@19 - which had no real connection with the thread topic and ended with a "ps" full of tendentious arrogance; and from his previous appearances on site. Further evidence was forthcoming as the thread continued. When I did look at his links and comment on the one that worked @294, he simply ignored the comments - the text he linked to was full of elementary errors that could, as I noted, be identified as such in an hour with google. He pretends to be undecided concerning AGW, but constantly parrots denialist talking points, and has a tedious obsession with Al Gore. In short, he's a troll, here just to annoy us and waste our time. The only reason I don't ignore such people is that doing so will just lead to "See, none of you can answer me", when visitors can be left thinking the troll must have a valid point.
Ahem Ladies,
could you 2,the good guys here ,maybe stop the hairsplitting war? Or if you want to continue it,could we move on to mud wrestling so that we others get something out of it too?
Tsk,tsk...
(should probably stay out of it lol)
Windy#299,
"No actually Main is pronounced like "mine", it's the English word "main" that's pronounced "mein" like in "chow mein". The German word "mein", in turn, is pronounced like "mine". ;)"
You switching languages too quickly for me here. I pronouced Main like the english "mine", so I also pronounced it like the German "nein", and that is why I spelled it "Mein" using German phonetics. I never went through a "chow mein" pronounciation. Strange that after decades I remember the pronouciation, but my recollection doesn't call up any pictures of the street or lock seins (sic) to guide my spelling.
You're lucky I'm in such a good mood, clinteas. :)
yes, i'm pretty sure it was you, but that was a long time ago. and if it makes this silly conversation end, i'll apologize for any hyperbole/mistaken identity that might make you look more vicious than you are.
it's almost 6am, i need to finally go to bed i think.
SC,
I realize it was a risky statement to make LOL...
But you guys are both with the good team,and I get flamed here all the time,so why the fighting over a non-issue long in the past....
This thread started out with a post about Obama,and look where the derailers got it...
Er, no need to apologize. You were pretty much right about my viciousness on that thread:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/a_real_true_american_woman.p…
Sorry about failing to remember - I do, um, a lot of arguing around here.
SC, OM wrote:
Hmm... posted 4:20 AM... are you sure you're not doing it now? ;)
Sort of on topic, I've been seeing advertisements for American cars on free-to-air TV here in OZ with a voice-over that copies Obama's speech pattern (accent, cadence and intonation) saying When people ask, "Can you offer Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles at a price like never before?", we say "Yes we can!.
--
PS Hi SC! I do remember arguing with you was one of the more stupid things I've done here...
:D A good question! Can someone remind me of this in a few weeks to see if I remember?
I see no reason why we can't both blame tm. ;)
Knockgoats,
"However, as you forgot to say, models including both solar and anthropogenic factors show a pretty good fit to the entire 20th and early 21st century,"
Perhaps I "forgot" to say that because they don't. I've referenced both Camp et al, and Lean, et al, that note they don't capture the amplitude of the signature of the solar cycle, and Camp concluding that they shouldn't be used for multidecadal projections. You conveniently "forgot" that.
I've referenced Roesch that showed that ALL of the AR4 models have a positive surface albedo bias several times larger than the energy imbalance per Hansen.
I've referenced Scambos noting that the models are 30 years behind in the melting of the Arctic ice cap. The models somehow "matched" the warming even though they significantly underepresented these two positive feedbacks. They must be overrepresenting some other phenomena elsewhere, probably clouds. You conveniently "forgot" that.
I've referenced work published since the AR4 showing that cloud feedbacks in the climate appear to be negative while those in the models are positive, and that aerosol impacts over western and eastern Europe are much larger than thought at the time of the AR4. You convenientnly "forgot" those.
And you know my references were to the full text of the peer review literature, not just abstracts like those reviewed Orieskes team.
The modelers failed to reproduce the 20th century warming with a significant solar contribution, because they haven't tried. They make their runs with the best estimate of the variance in solar "irradiance", not the upper bound of the error range of that estimate (Hansen for instance), they don't incorporation the latest estimates of UV variation, and estremely nonlinear couplings such as that through chemistry, the production of Ozone in the stratosphere and troposphere (per Lean again and many others).
I presented references that the models reproduced less than one third to one half the precipitation increase associated with the recent warming. You somehow conveniently "forgot" that.
It takes two or three years to modify their models and make new runs in response to the diagnostic literature, and then they won't really know how they have done until new diagnostic studies have been performed. Face it, it is premature to consider the models "evidence" for a phenomenon as small as the recent warming.
Guthrie,
You haven't been following the previous discussions so your ignorance is excusable. This argument is invalid:
"no other way can be found to replicate the warming in the later 20th century, except by adding human caused greenhouse gases."
As you become familiar with the literature I've outlined above, you will see that there hasn't been any attempts to replicate the warming with models good enough to matter, because those models don't even exist yet, and won't for several years.
Your admission that the GHG correlation "isn't perfect", is a red herring. It isn't even "good", because it doesn't explain any of the mid-century cooling, and only a small part of the steep late century rise. The modelers don't even try to claim a good correlation, they combine GHGs with anthropogenic aerosols instead and claim a good fit with total "anthropogenic" vs "natural" forcings. Of course part of the "warming" was due to the reduction in aerosols, which we have considerable evidence since the AR4, must account for a more significant part of the warmng than was previously beleived.
"Give me a reason I should waste thousands of words giving the longer one."
I'm sorry I can't give you a good reason to give a longer explanation, because you won't be able to give one worth considering for several years. You need some evidence of sufficient improvements in the models, and that doesn't exist yet. If you have evidence that the issues that have been raised have been addressed and assessed in the diagnostic literature, then present it, but save your explanations until then.
Just when I plan to finally drop Walton into the dustbin of killfile, he makes a statement such as, "...everything I've said must, of course, carry the disclaimer that it is merely an educated guess and could well be complete nonsense", and once again I stay execution. I would change "could well be" to "highly likely is" in his statement, but why quibble.
OK, Walton is completely unwilling to meet a rude colonial for free drinks, but the offer is open to other UK residents. Should be in country in late Feb - early Mar and would love to meet some of our contributors. Write me at keltixx at yahoo dot com if there is interest and we can make plans once I am settled on dates, etc.
Ciao y'all
Face it, it is premature to consider the models "evidence" for a phenomenon as small as the recent warming. - Africangenesis
I'll return in detail to your references when I've more time, although I've already pointed out that Camp and Tung say, in the very article that you cite, that climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is shown observationally to be close to the values the models produce: I've no doubt the rest of your cites, not all of which I've been able to read, are similarly cherry-picked (by the way, references complete enough to identify the specific papers you are referring to would be helpful); if you had papers that said "increased greenhouse gases probably make little difference", you'd have produced them by now. I'd be interested in your explanation of (a) stratospheric cooling; (b) the steady warming of the ocean in the period since 1970, when solar activity has been effectively constant. In other words, even if your dismissal of the models were correct (it isn't - and such faults as there are suggest the models are more likely to be underestimating than overestimating climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases), there is ample observational evidence of anthropogenic warming. Face it, AGW is real, and an urgent problem. That we don't know exactly how sensitive the climate is, or the size of all the feedbacks, is not, as you claim, reason to do nothing. We need to act now to avoid possible disaster - but you prefer to clutch your ideological comfort blanket, in the face of the scientific consensus.
Knockgoats,
"I'd be interested in your explanation of (a) stratospheric cooling; (b) the steady warming of the ocean in the period since 1970, when solar activity has been effectively constant"
It is easy, (a) is due to GHGs, note that solar UV also produces a GHG, ozone. (b) is due to the warming of the climate, just as a pot of water can continue warming even though the flame has been kept constant. In this particular instance it is more complicated because the reduction of the aerosols actually allowed more solar to heat the surface despite the top of the atmosphere solar activity to be constant.
And here you mischaracterize Camp and Tung:
"that climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is shown observationally to be close to the values the models produce"
Camp and Tung only evaluated climate sensitiviy to SOLAR. They then translated that to sensitivity to CO2 doubling via a generally accepted mathmatical forumula. Neither they, nor climate modelers, nor you know whether CO2 sensitivity is bracketed by that range. You also conveniently "forgot" that I cite Lean's claim that Camp and Tung may have gotten that a factor two too high. That takes the climate sensitivity well below the range of the climate models.
That forumula that Camp and Tung used to "convert" the response per W/m^2 to a sensitivity to CO2 doubling figure is based purely upon the assumed variance in solar radiative forcing, and making the linear assumption that CO2 radiative forcing is equivilent. First of all, the radiative forcing of CO2 is coupled to different components of the climate than solar radiative forcing. CO2 mainly to the troposphere, and solar mainly to the stratosphere, the surface and the oceans. Secondly the climate is pretty good at integrating non-radiative solar coupling into the observations, things like the atmospheric chemistry effects of UV which are increasingly well documented since the AR4 and like the hypothesized but still poorly understood cosmic ray mediated coupling.
Feel free to read the peer review literature, it is good for you. Try to understand it before characterizing it however.
Knockgoats @ 327
I think that if you are referring to a web of interconnectedness such as that which might exist in a rain forest ecosystem I would agree that such a system is relatively stable.
However imagine for a moment that there is a nearby volcanic eruption or some other catclysmic event that blocks out the sun for many months. The entire system will collapse due to the fact that its fundamental source of energy has been cut off.
The analogy to fossil fuels and the global economy is quite appropriate. While the fundamental source of inexpensive energy is easily available the entire web flourishes and remains in relative equilibrium.
Just to focus in say, on modern industrial agricultural which is completely dependent of fossil fuel at all stages, from plowing, planting, fertilizing, harvesting, processing and distributing the final product to the consumer. Now make oil unavailable to this system. You end up with a highly complex interconnected sytem that is complete vulnerable to catastrophic collapse.
I live in South Florida and have experienced first hand what happens to the interconnected sytem when do not have power and there is no delivery of gas to the local gas stations. Things tend to unravel very quickly and this is usually a temporary disruption and things slowly revert to normal. So what happens to the system when there is permanent disruption to the fuel supply?
Here is an interesting story, it is about just one little tiny thread being pulled out of the tightly woven fabric of the system, by itself it is not enough to unravel the entire tapestry.
http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0209/594464.html
Yawn. AG still trying to debateobfuscate AGW. The climate is warming up, the exact mechanisms that are causing the warming are still being debated. I'll let the real scientists work on it and listen to them when they have results. Otherwise, boring...
Fernando Magyar,
I quite agree about the interconnectedness. Another example is the US subsidy for the conversion of fuel to ethanol. It took less than a season for the market phenomena to covert that to much higher food prices for the poor of the world. Jakehawk would demonize the market for having no compassion, but the results were predictable, and the blame belongs on the ignorant environmentalists, Congress and the Bush administration for pushing the subsidy. To their credit, Castro and the more thoughtful environmentalists and the free market right wing all saw this coming and opposed it.
Make "fuel to ethanol" read "food to ethanol". My bad.
Nerd the Redhead,OM
"Yawn. AG still trying to obfuscate AGW."
You understimate yourself. If the evidence has you confused, perhaps waiting for further development of the science is the proper response. However, the process of science sorting this out is not boring, although the time it will take may frustrate some. such is the pace of science. If you think this science with new results published every month is boring, perish the thought of what you must think of nuclear fusion research.
Africangenisis @418,
Actually you have to input energy from fossil fuel to grow the corn and to produce the ethanol. This means that the EROEI is very low for ethanol produced from corn. So it is a bad idea all around even if it didn't impact food production in any way.
It is easy, (a) is due to GHGs, note that solar UV also produces a GHG, ozone. (b) is due to the warming of the climate, just as a pot of water can continue warming even though the flame has been kept constant. In this particular instance it is more complicated because the reduction of the aerosols actually allowed more solar to heat the surface despite the top of the atmosphere solar activity to be constant. - africangenesis
My, you are getting desperate!
(a)The stratosphere has been cooling since the 1970s, while solar radiance has not changed - so the sun could not have been responsible for any increase in ozone, if there had been any. AFAIK, no-one has claimed that solar production of ozone could be the mechanism for cooling the stratosphere. It is, of course, produced largely in the stratosphere (and it quickly reacts and vanishes in the troposphere), where it would have the effect of warming at least the lower stratosphere. The stratosphere has cooled as a whole.
(b) Rubbish. You have been claiming all along that ocean thermal inertia is responsible for the warming of the surface - which could only be possible if it were drawing heat from the ocean (where about 90% of any warming occurs, in terms of heat content). But if an increase in solar radiation in the first half of the last century had been responsible for the ocean heating since 1970, this would inevitably have decelerated - just as a pot of water's heating would decelerate if the flame is kept at the same level. It hasn't.
Re Camp and Tung -you are again doing exactly what I said you were - cherry-picking the finding you think suits you, while ignoring what the authors themselves conclude. It is you, not me, claiming to have a better understanding of the literature than the vast majority of climate scientists, despite not even knowing what a "physically-based model" is. Pfft.
If your elaborate attempts to avoid the obvious conclusion were really plausible, someone would have put it all together into a coherent model. They haven't. Because you're clutching at straws to save your ideology.
Amen brother.
Knockgoats,
a) I don't claim that the solar produced ozone is a large contributer to that stratospheric cooling, I just thought it was interesting to note a nonlinear solar connection. A significant influence of GHGs on the stratospheric temperature is not a counter to a significant role a solar contribution. The AGW contribution is significant. However, the stratosphere is also poorly modeled, see Rind and Lean again:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Rind_etal.pdf
b) "You have been claiming all along that ocean thermal inertia is responsible for the warming of the surface - which could only be possible if it were drawing heat from the ocean (where about 90% of any warming occurs, in terms of heat content)."
You misunderstand completely, the ocean thermal inertia is NOT responsible for warming at the surface. Heat is being stored into the ocean. The thermal inertia of the ocean is responsible for MODERATING the temperature response at the surface and DELAYING the full temperature response of the ocean and the atmosphere. It takes a long time to heat up the ocean, and the mixing layer is coupled to the deep ocean. If equilibrium were ever to be achieved it would take decades for the mixing layer and millenia for the whole ocean. Heat would be stored into the ocean for this whole time period.
"just as a pot of water's heating would decelerate if the flame is kept at the same level."
The specific heat of water doesn't change that rapidly. The number of joules of energy required to raise water 1 degree at temperature n+1 degrees, is not that much less than that required to raise water 1 degree at n degrees. This "deceleration" is minimal at climatic temperatures.
Hmmm, the specific heat of water actually increases at some increases in temperature. Interesting. But it is all negligable vis'a'vis the climate discussion, for our purposes we can assume it is constant.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-thermal-properties-d_162.html
AFricangenesis #411- ummm, you didn't reference any of those people upthread, I just searched it and the only mention of them were in your post just there. You made assertions based upon what you claim is those peoples work, but havn't provided any quotes or links or suchlike. Now, as a non-academic, I can't access papers online, but I can access blogs, articles, and abstracts. Care to give us some to play with?
Having looked up Camp and Tung, I still can't see what you are complaining about.
Looking up ROesch, all I can find related to the AR4 is something about snow cover, especially in Europe, which is not the same as saying that the models are broken.
ACtually it would be nice if Knockgoats added some as well, just to prove their point.
Oh, and finally, if you are so sure about this, why isn't climate audit and watts up with that screaming all this from the rooftops?
Guthrie,
“Currently no GCM has succeeded in simulating a solar-cycle response of the observed amplitude near the surface. Clearly a correct simulation of a global-scale warming on decadal time scale is needed before predictions into the future on multi-decadal scale can be accepted with confidence.”
http://www.amath.washington.edu/research/articles/Tung/journals/solar-j…
The cite for Roesch is:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005JD006473.shtml
The purpose of his IPCC diagnostic subproject was to investigate the temperate zone discrpencies the models have with the observations. He calculated globally and annually averaged surface albedo biases resulting from the failure of the models to reproduce the scale of the earlier snow melts being observed in the temperate zones. The turned about to be rather small globally, but still about 4 times larger than the even smaller energy imbalance responsible for the warming.
"The mean annual surface albedo of the 15 AR4 models amounts to 0.140 with a standard deviation of 0.013. All AR4 models are slightly above the mean of PINKER (0.124) and ISCCP-FD (0.121)."
"The annual mean surface albedo of the AR4 models is 0.140 with a standard deviation of 0.013. All climate models are slightly above the average derived from t he PINKER and ISCCP climatology. The participating models all capture the large-scale seasonal cycle of the surface albedo quite well. However, pronounced systematic biases are predicted in some areas. Highest differences between the models are found over snow-covered forested regions. The winter surface albedo of CNRM-CM3, averaged over the latitude zone from 50N-70N, is nearly 0.3 lower than in MIROC3.2 and INM-CM3.0. Comparisons with ground-based and remote-sensed data reveal that most AR4 models predict positive biases over primarily forested areas during the snow period. These substantial deviations are still far too high to meet the required accuracy of surface albedos in GCMs."
I also have posted cites on the precipitation shortfall, the paper by Wise published in Science is avaiable on the internet, I can't currently find it. There are papers on the recent "grand maximum" in solar activity, and Solanki's paper in Nature on the unusually high level of solar activity.
Sorry, it wasn't Wise it was Wentz, my bad:
Wentz stated in the journal Science: "The difference between a subdued increase in rainfall and a C-C increase has enormous impact, with respect to the consequences of global warming. Can the total water in the atmosphere increase by 15% with CO2 doubling but precipitation only increase by 4% (1)? Will warming really bring a decrease in global winds? The observations reported here suggest otherwise, but clearly these questions are far from being settled."
http://www.remss.com/papers/wentz_science_2007.pdf
Here is a cite on the grand maximum:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL035442.shtml
And here is one on Solanki:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7012/abs/nature02995.html
I do have access to the full texts through subscription, but it is surprising how many can be found on the internet with a little searching.
"Oh, and finally, if you are so sure about this, why isn't climate audit and watts up with that screaming all this from the rooftops?"
Just about everybody questions the models, but they are for the most part satisfied that they have poor and unproven skill, and that given the considerations of a complex nonlinear system, what they are attempting isn't possible anyway. climateaudit tends to stick to its statistical strengths. I've haven't read much of "watts up with that".
I guess the main difference is that I am not that negative on the models. I think that even though the climate of a chaotic system cannot be predicted, perhaps the shift in the attractors of that system in response to forcings can be characterized. Some phenomena such as el Nino and la Nina should be able to be predicted a short number of years out, and multidecadal oscillation behavior should be reproducable, if not actually predicted. Given my optimism about the models I've actually analyzed their credibility in supporting the IPCC conclusions, and eagerly follow their progress. The other skeptics are not too far off the mark in just dismissing them at this time.
Africangenesis on the conversion of food to ethanol:
Man, are you on crack? This whole fiasco was a right-wing plot from the get-go. They wanted to force us to buy 1.4 barrels of oil from the oil sheiks in order to produce enough corn to convert into the equivalent of 1 barrel of oil, and buy that (again) from the red-state land barons, thus permanently cementing their stranglehold on the political process in this country.
If anyone could make a statement like that, I think it's unnecessary to debate any more of their drivel, as they've shown where their head is at, and the constant temperature in there would insulate them from any appreciation of climate change.
Lurkbot,
You harangue without substance, I doubt you are capable of a reasonable debate. A simple google search on "ethanol subsidy vote", turns up McCain's opposition to ethanol subsidy, Bush's threat to veto the bill, VP Gore's tie breaking vote to pass the subsidy, etc. The issue might be too complex and subtle for your mind. The right wing has long opposed agricultural subsidies. There is bipartisan support for the subsidies in agricultral states, but that is not ideologically based. Thinking is hard, thank you for at least trying.
if by "ignorant environmentalists" you mean the Agribusiness lobby (the same assholes that ruined Coca Cola by putting HFCS in it) and the armchair-environmentalists who think paper bags are better for the environment than plastic ones, you'd be right. other than that, you're talking out of your ass. greenwashing is a game played by neocons and big business to not actually do anything while making themselves look good.
however, i'll take the occasional cockup like ethanol, if in return get things like getting lead out of paint and fuel, the clean Air Act, the ban of CFC's, the end of acid rain, etc. ad infinitum. i have already witnessed first-hand what happens when the government fails to enforce pro-active measures, and instead we wait for the market do to it's re-active, violent thing. there were actually people i know who had to quit their jobs because they were duped into buying a gas-guzzler (safety! won't someone please think of the children!?) and then couldn't afford to drive the thing to work anymore.
as a matter of fact, i see that the best way to avoid things like ethanol is to prevent neo-cons from ever getting elected, and generally vote for the candidate LEAST in the pocket of corporations. it's a tall order, but it beats giving up my freedom of choice to walmart and monsanto.
re: Fernando Magyar @ #415
you're right, fuel/energy is our single weakest link. I think some communities, if they have enough foresight, and political-staying power combined with individual involvement, will be able to succeed at developing enough alternative energy-sources to sustain themselves... but that still means they'll be negatively affected by the communities that couldn't, and it still means our cities are basically fucked until we have a MASSIVE re-do of how our cities function. too much to do, too little time. very depressing indeed. this entire process should have been started in the 70's.
The right wing depends on agriculture subsidies. You're a idiot. Thank you for playing, but AGW is happening, everybody knows it, your side is composed of drooling morons.
I almost hope that those few million square miles of Antarctic icepack do slide into the ocean soon, causing a worse than Christmas-day tsunami worldwide and raise the sea level by 20 feet in the course of a day, just to shut you denialists up. That's how much you and your ilk have poisoned the debate: you have people hoping for worldwide disaster just to show you brainless dildos what's really happening.
Jadehawk,
"i'll take the occasional cockup like ethanol, if in return get things like getting lead out of paint and fuel, the clean Air Act, the ban of CFC's, the end of acid rain, etc. ad infinitum"
Ad infinitum? Food riots and vaccine scares and increased solar warming due to reduced aerosols are a small price to pay in your book. You have the "compassion" of a central planner, just as F.A. Hayek predicted.
you're supporting your Lie#1 with your Lie #2? I think that makes you a meta-lier...
It's difficult online to have people get that you are sincere and honest about what you write. Case in point, you can even directly tell people your intention (#19 and other posts) and yet they still come at you like you were a Frankenstein monster of some kind just because you asked a few questions which they find distasteful or didn't want to hear.
Grab the torches, wake everybody up, get the weapons, sharpen the swords, a question was asked that we don't like! Kill the questioner for he's a lying denier. An evil monster who must be run out of your town of Lacking The Scientific Method.
If you are correct about climate science then you should not fear any questions no matter how many times they are asked of you as supporters of your theory. To get mad at the questioners reveals more about you than the student asking the questions.
Thank you Pikemann Urge for your rare kind words, which are a voice of sanity in this unfriendly endarkened corner of the intertubes.
I don't take kindly to the attempts at social control this crowd has applied as I'm an independent thinker, a free thinker and I'll make up my own mind on things with or without the kind assistence of the crowd here - (obviously without given being pounced upon by the crowd).
I've read this blog for years. I had respect for the opinions of people here, including the fearless leader, since we have the no invisible friends thing stridently in common, however that commonality isn't enough, I was sadly mistaken that this group could rise above the usual noise of those lacking scientific training and actually respond to my questions as professional scientists with a modicum of respect.
It took hundreds of posts before anyone even bothered to point out that the link was broken. Obviously a highly reactive crowd ready to pounce and defend - what exactly? - till the end at all costs including the cost of not making of a new friend. I have stuck in there yet how many other potential friends has your angry mob chased away by screaming "denier liar"? Many I would say given the experience here since posting #19.
Be that as it may, the running away from questions that your group engages in by the use of the vapid childish name calling such as "liar" and "denier" and "publish or shutup" reveals a deep set of psychological issues not to mention being against the spirit of the pursuit of excellence in science. A mirror might be a useful tool for those of you in the crowd. Calling people names like "denier liar" should be added to the list of crimes and misdeeds as violations of the highest standards in the pursuit of science.
You all seem to be defenders of the faith of, well, of some kind of faith and get all worked up in a tissyfit the moment a question is asked that you don't like, or that is from a different point of view than your own. Then your blog guards pounce digging in deep cutting and thrashing with petty name calling and categorizing and taunting people you don't even know. Very weird. Very cult like behaviors.
I expected more from my fellow atheists and anti-theists and I am very disappointed in the crowd here. I fear that some of you lack basic essential social skills. I fear that you are so battle weary from your many skirmishes that you have become the worst kind of online jaded individuals. No wonder some out there think atheists are mean and nasty people without morals or manners.
Knockgoats in #401 certainly has made his mind up about me and his view isn't a view that I'd want to have of anyone. What he doesn't get is that he is so wrong about me and my intentions. I guess you can't be honest in this crowd for you get excoriated for it - as has been proven by his confession in #401 that he spoke with his prejudice before even reading the materials - some scientist he turns out to be. Some kind of human without kindness he has demonstrated that he is.
While some here might know more about climate science than I they have a lot to learn about interacting with people in a respectful manner. Once the intensity of the crowd's pouncing with the "denier liar" type of comments reached it's crescendo yesterday I wasn't particularly thinking about climate science anymore as I was focused on the psychology of a crowd/mob/gang/cult behaviors in response to questions they don't like, questions that violate their belief systems. I was responding to the lack of quality in their comments and wondering why are they so vindictive and mean?
PZ Myers, your crowd here are like soccer fans aka hooligans, quick to enrage, ready to fight the good fight even if it's against the wrong people. They need some coaching and leadership and direction towards respectful social interaction and on the pursuit of excellence in science.
I used to have respect for you but you let your hooligans get away with name calling (which they started as the record shows) way too much sir. They lower your stature sir and do you a great disservice. I had no intention of committing any offenses here sir, I really honestly was attempting to simply get some insights to some questions I - mistakenly - thought this group could answer.
I never anticipated being pounced upon so viciously by the hooligans in the crowd here. I wish you the best in your battles sir, I just hope that you realize that kindness and respect towards people are not just for the religious but that we atheists can and must raise our standards above the non-scientific minded.
I trust that you embrace the best of the ideas of science, and respectfully request that you ask your crowd to stop the labeling of people with terms such as "denier, liar, put up or publish" and many of the other names I was called. Your regular crowd is out of control in such a nasty way and they are embarrassing to the rest of us atheists out here who approach people with respect and take them and the open scientific process seriously.
It was not fair for those regulars to pounce upon me as they did with names such as "liar" and "denier". Certainly for Nerd and knockgoats who seem to be men of science it is highly inappropriate. That isn't the proper response for those engaged in proper scientific discussions. I still wish to be a friend of pharyngula. Towards a brighter future where those involved in the discourse show a minimum of social kindness.
On this valentine's day I hope that the crowd here - specifically the hooligans - find love and kindness to fill the void of darkness that currently poisons their hearts as evidenced by the way many of they interact with people.
I rest my need now to enjoy the light of this wonderful day.
Gee Jakehawk,
You don't know how to quit when you are behind.
"These facts and our measurements, as well as recent reports on aerosol reduction over western continents Streets et al., 2006] and the oceans [Mishchenko et al., 2007] show that solar dimming and the subsequent brightening – or rather solar recovery – is very likely related to changes in anthropogenic aerosols."
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/library/Aerosols-Global-Warming-Study-…
oh ffs, you still don't get it psl. does it not penetrate your thick skull that you didn't ASK anyquestions, but posted (and quoted) a blatantly denialist screed and then demanded to have us, who are not climatologists for the most part, explain it to you in small words and great detail
if I went to a mountainbiking forum, posted a large screed about the benefits of ATV's over non-motorized vehicles, and demanded that they explain themselves, i'd have my ass handed to me, as well.
you don't get to demand things. you don't get to insist that we explain things to you because you don't like the answers the real climatologists are giving you
pwl @436, piteous indignant self-justification, not so good.
stop fucking mistyping my handle.
and your argument that we should just balance our pollutions and everything will be fine is disgusting, factually wobbly, and pretty much expected from someone who worships the market
@pwl: how many people told you to go talk to authors if you have questions for the authors of papers?
How many times did you ignore us?
Whiny baby.
Jadehawk @ 432,
It almost was, by then president Carter, but we blew it.
I think someone posted this link from the Onion a couple of months ago.
Enjoy.
yeah, that pretty much sums it up right there.
John Morales your attempt at social control is in appropriate in a blog devoted to scientific topics.
Stephen Wells if you actually had read my posts in this thread you'll see that I've already responded to your kind suggestion that I go elsewhere to ask experts about climate science at Real Climate for example. I have read real climate for some time now as I already indicated, just as I've read pharyngula for years. It should be noted that the people here do seem to consider themselves as experts in climate science as evidenced by the many threads - including this one - that has people discussing that topic which is why I posed the question here on darwin day and since the article I was asking about was about darwin. If you have anything of substance that I might learn from you regarding my original inquiry then please proceed, otherwise...
[Before I forget - Happy 34th anniversary, Patricia! Hope you're having a lovely day!]
*snort*
pwl, your concern is noted, and buffoonish.
(And I want to go on record as standing firmly in opposition to this creeping alternative meaning of the word crescendo.)
Actually it wasn't. It started off talking about Darwin, then linked him to AGW denial and went on from there. It wasn't a Darwin article, it was a blatant AGW denial article.
I haven't got involved in this discussion because I don't know enough about AGW and climatology to talk about them. However, I can recognize when someone is taking one side or other in a discussion.
SC:
Oops, I missed it. What alternative meaning?
PWL, still lying and bullshitting. As I explained to you yesterday, the answers you seek are elsewhere and you know it. You keep trying to hijack threads for you anti-AWG agenda. (Holding up card as Carnac the magnificent), I see a plonking in your future. Go before that happens.
This one:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE4D61130F932A2575BC0…
(This is from 1991, and the battle appears to have been all but lost now. Alas.)
pwl | February 14, 2009 5:23 PM
So you know that the climate expertise available at RealClimate substantially exceeds that available here at pharyngula. Nonetheless you come here with you questions.
SC,OM,
I thought the American Heritage was more descriptive and Websters was prescriptive, but on this word, evidently they are reversed.
And seems to think we are too stupid to notice. PWL, go to the experts or shut up. We have no reason to answer your questions. The only reason you ask questions is to show your ignorance of where the true answers are to be found. Which says we can legitimately ignore your questions, as they are asked under false pretenses.
SC:
Pardon my denseness, but I'm still not following you. To most non-Italian speakers it is a musical term but to Italians it is a common word not completely relegated just to music but to any noise or sound and commonly interchangeable with forzi when describing a rise in strength.
Crescendo means the rise; it's incorrectly used for the peak, or climax.
forza dammit
Did you read the Safire piece?
Ahhhh. nevermind... (crawls back in hole)
"crescendo" is a present participle meaning "increasing", it comes into Italian quite directly from the Latin (verb "crescere", I think), its use in music is just one application. Latin saying: Luna mendax, the lying moon, as it spells a C when "decrescens" and a D when "crescens", at least in the northern hemisphere.
Someone needs to alert the Italians since they evidently are misusing it as well.
The Italian word crescendo is a gerund, meaning "growing, rising", both in music and any other context, literal or metaphorical. The -endo desinence is equivalent to the English "-ing" desinence, used for verbs of the second and third conjugations.
(BTW, why isn't "desinence" recognized by the spell checker?)
Who is?
It wasn't recognized by my brain's English-checker either. Congratulations; that doesn't happen much anymore.
Desinence! I learned a new word. I am Happy Monkey :)
Thanks, Aureola. BTW was it gerund or participle? English is a sucky language to learn grammar in, there's so little of it :)
In the present tense it would mean the process of growing louder, but in the past tense it can be assumed that it grew to an ultimate volume which would imply an end point of that particular crescendo. It crescendoed would mean it grew from a lower point to its highest point (from ppp to ffff with ffff as the resulting level) or I am being obtuse?
Stephen Wells:
Crescendo is a gerund; the present participle is crescente.
I'm going to catch hell for this but I feel Bill Safire is prone to unnecessary pedantry at times.
yes, of course you can express the same meaning with non-synonyms, but not by pretending they're synonyms
the sentences "the noise rose to an unbearable level" and "the noise peaked at an unbearable level" both express the same, but the phrase "the noise rose at an unbearable level" is nonsensical, because "rose" and "peaked" aren't interchangeable like that, even in the past tense.
Oh geez, now we're going to quibble over forte as FORT in non-musical terms and For tay. Just don't imply I'm inferring the wrong answer.; )
That's what it means in any tense.
Yes, but that doesn't make it OK to use crescendo instead of climax for that point. pwl was using it as a noun. (S)he could have said "When the namecalling crescendo reached its climax" or something like that.
and i'm all for that kind of pedantly. the english language, being completely free of the grammatical rules that define relationships and meaning of words within a sentence in other languages, depends on such details to remain coherent
figures i'd misspell "pedantry". it just wouldn't be fun any other way :-p
@465: grazie mille.
On with the quibbling, guys, I'll get popcorn.
Possibly. I have no idea - I don't read him regularly, and just linked to that piece (which I found through a quick Google search for "crescendo misuse") to answer your question. I agree with him on this one, though...or he agrees with me :).
We assimilate foreign words and readapt their meaning all the time. Off the top of my head - two words for you: robot and bistro.
Yes, but you would sacrifice any semblance of meaning if you weren't speaking to some fluent in Italian.
So many brilliant writers invented and bent the language, two of my favorites were James Joyce and John C. Gardner. I understand the concern for rules of grammar but we can't get so pedantically rigid. I'll be very happy if we stamp out nukuler and irregardless.
pwl #436, I understand who 'started it' but you don't need to sink to their level. ;-) I'm still unsure of whether our understanding of climate change is as good as it pretends to be.
So I'm glad that you and AG have no qualms in challenging the current consensus. And I hope you keep doing so - again and again and again, as long as you don't repeat answered questions etc.
Seems that if you disagree with consensus, you're not an expert, but if you agree, all of a sudden expertise doesn't matter anymore.
someone fluent in Italian... *hangs head*
E.V., while general artsy messing around with the language and assimilation of words is one thing, the abuse that results in 50 words all meaning the same thing and none meaning what those ones originally meant is not very enriching, but it's fucking confusing.
plus i'm generally disgusted by how lax americans are with using words they don't know the meaning of. worst example of that being a friend of the boyfriend who constantly uses "perspire" when he means "transpire". and i don't even know why... don't they do those language exercises with synonyms and antonyms in school in the U.S.? that was the one and only commendable thing I've seen during my one year in a Canadian High-School that my German school didn't do
I'm also guessing that to most people who (mis)use crescendo in this manner reason that climax is implied and therefore unnecessary. Where would a crescendo grow to if it wasn't a climax for that phrase. Would using decrescendo require the addition of anticlimax by your reasoning?
I'll check in later, I'm off to dinner with my wife. Happy Valentines' Day.
E. V.:
Well, robot is especially egregious, but I still go after anybody who calls an android or a "replicant" Blade Runner-style a "robot", because the usage is thoroughly established now, wrong as it may be.
But "bistro" (originally "cheap working man's dive") coming to mean in America: "Hold onto your wallet!" That's just a capitalist plot!
Sorry, but you are starting to sound rather obtuse. No one's arguing against this. The word crescendo already had an English meaning. What I/we have a problem with is its use to mean something else for which we have many good terms - a use that is contrary to the sense of the word. I'm also annoyed with this because as people increasingly use it incorrectly the original use, it appears, is declining, and I like the original use.
(BTW, are you saying that bistro was given a new meaning, or simply that it was assimilated?)
Jadehawk:
I know. I live on "Occidental Ave. S." and I have to spell it two or three times whenever I give anybody the address.
I want to shout: "You know the word oriental don't you? How can you know the word 'oriental' without knowing the word 'occidental'? That's like knowing the word 'high' without knowing the word 'low!'"
*headdesk* They're using it instead of climax, on the mistaken assumption that it means climax. I doubt they reason that way at all - they simply don't know what crescendo means, having heard it used incorrectly so often.
on a tangentially related and hilarious note, the boyfriend used to live on Soo St. The tax returns came back calling it 500 St. *snort*
E.V.,
I am fluent in Italian. Italian is my first language, and my source of income as well, since I am a certified English-to-Italian translator.
Formally correct Italian is routinely spoken in my household, and my kids, when they visit the Old Country, don't sound any different from local teens (except, of course, in their use of slang, which is outdated).
And the most maddeningly hilarious (or hilariously maddening, you decide) thing that happened to my daughter was being "corrected" in her music class because of her supposedly mistaken pronunciation of the words crescendo, diminuendo, staccato, andante, fortissimo, and so on.
Of course languages evolve. Still, I cringe whenever I hear someone saying "different than", "I could care less", or "after reaching a crescendo". In time, I'm pretty sure these will become accepted and taught as correct. That time, however, isn't now.
C'mon SC, no *headdesk* needed. When we anglicize words we distort them, redefine them, all the time. Using crescendo as a synonym for "climax" is a logical progression since the term, as used by those who don't speak Italian, implies a peak level or climax. The meaning of the word evolved. We don't consider crescendo as a gerund even when used by most English speaking musicians. We use the imperative grow louder not growing louder. We even are known to objectify any musical term as a noun as in, " pay attention to the dimminuendo for the last four bars of the coda."
I can personally introduce you to some major American classical conductors whom you can feel free to correct.
This inflexibility toward the integration of foreign terms into English is incredibly nitpicky since we don't even use many of the cases that foreign language use. Any Russian's last name's suffix depends on a specific case but English speakers would never understand how the spelling for anyone's name would change or why that would be relevant. - Ovo? -Ovich? WTF?
The language (American Standard English in this instance) ebbs and flows. Few modern writers/speakers use awesome, fantastic or terrific according to their original meanings without seeming pretentious. We are in a new global era where regionalisms and have given way to worldwide audio/visual media. Witness the newly coined words and phrases that have become universal memes: lol. drama queen. manga. anime. wingnut. And a not so new word - gay.
Words are going to keep evolving, but at a rate unknown before the present era. I wonder, was Shakespeare lamenting the decline of the language of Chaucer? Trying to police specific usage is futile - especially with foreign terms.
oopsie
actually, i've pointed out above that that's half the reason for me to be nitpicky about fucking up the language. It's already very hard to understand native english speakers with no concept of grammar, letting them get away with not having a concept of vocabulary will render american english completely incoherent. just look at our regular crop of illiterate hatemail: do we really want everyone to talk like that?
Of course you cringe, it's your language that's being abused. My condolences.
You illustrate my point:
For non Italian speakers, the rules are lost but the essence of the context remains.
(I spent several weeks working near Anghiari. My wife and I were able to travel northeast to Venice and south to Rome and see many cities in between. We would love to return someday, but the recession has clipped our wings.)
I pronouced Main like the english "mine"
Well, AG, you were doing it wrong then. The vowels would have been too soft, and the n too prolonged.
You are 0 for oodles on anything from political history, political reality, geography and pronunciation. I'll leave your laughable AGW denial for evisceration to those who can, and have been doing it far more competently than I ever could.
I agree. But that's not what I'm referring to. I'm all for standardizing established syntax. I lament the loss of -ly too, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. Most people no longer freak out at a splint infinitive and ending sentences with prepositions (something I would not up with put).
But specifically foreign words or phrases are subject to usage by those writers and speakers that use them in the native language.
We use paparazzi oh wait - PANINNI !!! it's already plural. Paninno is the singular, so when we say paninnis, Italians do a *facepalm*. Don't get me started on how the restaurant chains pronounce bruschetta.
We need rules yes, but not language Nazis. (and no, SC, I would never call you or Jadehawk a Nazi)
E.V.:
Italians use crescendo as a noun too. Of course, since the word is alive and well, it is used as a noun meaning "the part of the musical piece when the players gradually increase the volume". That is also its technical meaning in English, which isn't going to change anytime soon.
As to popular usage, nobody can police that; however, the fact that a practically unchanging technical usage exists could and should act as a kind of anchor, preventing popular usage from straying too far.
E.V.:
Thank you, but I was actually referring to English. None of those examples are correct, as of today, despite their increasing popularity.
P.S.: diminuendo, panini. Sorry for the pedantry. But I agree with you: whenever an Italian hears someone saying paninis, the reaction is a facepalm. Much like the reaction of a native English speaker listening to an Italian trying and failing to capture your slurred vowels... (and to our ears, all your vowels are slurred, and slurred in slightly different ways by different people all claiming to speak "English"!)
It implies that to those who speak Italian, too. If people were proposing using some modified form of the word to mean this peak level or climax (which would be entirely unnecessary as we have the word "climax" and several others for that purpose, but could be cool), that would be different. But they're taking a word that has a meaning and using it to mean something else out of ignorance (in the process obliterating the original meaning).
What are you talking about?
Of course we use it as a noun to mean "the growing" or "the process of increasing" - that's the proper use of the word that has long been established in the English language! That's what I'm trying to protect! I honestly don't know why you're having such a hard time grasping this.
Oh, duh. I judge changes on a case-by-case basis, and in this case I think the second meaning is imprecise and annoying. Since you do the same thing - you've said that you're unhappy about "nukular" and "irregardless," for example - you can hardly argue that we should all just accept every development in the language's evolution.
E.V. well, my point is that the battle to preserve a semblance of English grammar is lost (those examples you cite make the point beautifully), and sentence structure is now fully context-dependent. you start playing too loose with the vocabulary, you end up with content-free strings of words.
don't we already have the problem that in almost every discussion, a significant number of key words are misunderstood/misinterpreted/misused, thus resulting in complete failure to communicate?
granted, the word crescendo is a minuscule part of it... but we have so many words for climax already, and none really for crescendo.
Sorry, I had to run an errand
Assimilated by the French from the Russians" phrase for "hurry up". We've americanized the concept as well.
I assumed this was a goodnatured conversation, so I'll ignore the "obtuse " remark.
SC:
After rereading your combative and patronizing responses, I think I'll say adieu to you. If were were somehow in agreement and I misunderstood, I apologize. I'm obviously not your intellectual peer.
In case you weren't aware of it, you're an overbearing patronizing ass. So take it down a few notches Ms. Intellectualism and save it for the fucking trolls. Jesus, do you have any fucking friends?
Forgive me for intruding on an impressive display of pedantry, but wouldn't the Russian root for "bistro" be pronounced as "bishtrey"?
Also, where the hell are the "davai"s?
Also, EV, you might have to entertain the notion that you are taking things just a teensy bit too personally.
The prohibition against splitting infinitives is one of those rules brought into English from Latin. Since a Latin infinitive is one word, it's impossible to split it. Back in the 17th and 18th Centuries, Latin was considered high class and English grammarians tried to shoehorn Latin grammar into English. That's how we ended up with silliness like "don't split infinitives."
I can think of only two reasons not to split an infinitive:
1. Because you feel that the rules of English ought to conform to the grammatical precepts of a language that died a thousand years ago.
2. Because you wish to cling to a pointless affectation of usage, even at the cost of composing sentences that are ambiguous, inelegant, and patently contorted.
SC:
I did not make myself clear which was my fault. I apologize for the sloppy thinking and sloppier writing. The "we" I was referring to was "we musicians interpret the word crescendo as 'grow louder' not 'growing louder'." Silly point, nonetheless. whatever.