Forty years from now, my grandkids and yours are going to be asking "Now let me get this straight...the pitch was 'pay more taxes or the world will end' and supposedly large numbers of people FELL for this??"

It'll be like trying to explain the pet rock.

Just as an aside. The average car driven by a global-warming believer, is about 600 pounds heavier than the average car driven by a global-warming "denier," and gets ten miles less per gallon.

mkfreeberg: Forty years from now, my grandkids and yours are going to be asking "Now let me get this straight...the pitch was 'pay more taxes or the world will end' and supposedly large numbers of people FELL for this??"

I think the things my kids (not yours, I doubt you'll manage to reproduce) will find most astounding is that the mentally retarded were given exactly the same Internet access privileges as people who don't have to wipe Cheeto dust off on their bib before they post.

mkfreeberg: Forty years from now, my grandkids and yours are going to be asking "Now let me get this straight...the pitch was 'pay more taxes or the world will end' and supposedly large numbers of people FELL for this??"

It'll be like trying to explain the pet rock.

Just as an aside. The average car driven by a global-warming believer, is about 600 pounds heavier than the average car driven by a global-warming "denier," and gets ten miles less per gallon.

Is there a name for this illness you have?

mkfreeberg: The average car driven by a global-warming believer

I don't know about average, but I have a BMW, so you might be right about that part.

kmmontandon: mkfreeberg: Forty years from now, my grandkids and yours are going to be asking "Now let me get this straight...the pitch was 'pay more taxes or the world will end' and supposedly large numbers of people FELL for this??"

I think the things my kids (not yours, I doubt you'll manage to reproduce) will find most astounding is that the mentally retarded were given exactly the same Internet access privileges as people who don't have to wipe Cheeto dust off on their bib before they post.

Oh that's right, I gotta include that part...when it starts to get really awkward. The believers, see kids, they called the "deniers" a bunch of stupid idiots and fell back on that reliable scientific method called "raw intimidation."

Kinda like you used to do, kids, back when you were six.

That's cute, the little freeper thinks he's actually going to have grandchildren some day.

Mordant: That's cute, the little freeper thinks he's actually going to have grandchildren some day.

he may have grandkids one day. And my grandkids will arrest them for elder abuse. Their excuse will be "he needs to take care of himself and stop leaching on us. He has some sort of sense of entitlement."

mkfreeberg: Just as an aside. The average car driven by a global-warming believer, is about 600 pounds heavier than the average car driven by a global-warming "denier," and gets ten miles less per gallon.

You had to be expecting this, right?

McCain takes the 'Senex' bit of Senator a bit too seriously.

Is there a name for this illness you have?

It's called "Brain AIDS". It results from years of unprotected homosexual fantasy mixed with worship of Bush. Also known as "Craig's Disease".

mkfreeberg: ...Just as an aside. The average car driven by a global-warming believer...

Yeah... I remember my first beer.

NewportBarGuy: Is there a name for this illness you have?

I believe the technical term for it is "Cranial-Rectum displacement".

"One largely unremarked aspect of global-warming denialism (as exemplified by George Will and demolished by Mike [below] and Zachary Roth at TPM) is that it amounts to a conspiracy theory. All of the world's actual climate scientists, and everyone in an a allied field capable of understanding their models, would have to be co-conspirators in the plot, with only a rag-tag group of economists, meteorologists, petroleum geologists, astrologers, and political pundits capable of seeing, and willing to say, that the emperor has no clothes.

Most of the glibertarians, cultural conservatives, and gadget-heads who constitute the useful idiots around the core oil-and-coal-company global-warming denialist constituency would be horrified to imagine themselves playing the role of 9/11 Truthers, or RFK Jr. pumping the thimerosal/autism link, or Thabo Mbeki claiming that AIDS isn't caused by HIV. But all four "movements" are alike in depending on compete mistrust of actual scientific experts. (Holocaust denialism is similar in that respect, but different in being almost entirely insincere: the Holocaust deniers seem to be saying, "Hitler didn't kill all those Jews, and I'm glad he did.")

One possible reason that global-warming denialism is more prevalent in the U.S. than elsewhere is that more Americans than Europeans are Biblical literalists. That involves believing that all biologists and paleontologists are either massively incompetent or deliberately trying to mislead the public about the central facts of their disciplines. [The alternative theory, held by some, is that the entire fossil record is a trick by Satan, intended to deceive those whose faith isn't firm.] I haven't seen any data on the overlap between global-warming denialism and creationism, but thinking about Sarah Palin and her fans you'd have to guess at a strong correlation between the two beliefs."

Why yes, I am planning on posting this in every GW thread. Source here.

mkfreeberg: "Now let me get this straight...the pitch was 'pay more taxes or the world will end' and supposedly large numbers of people FELL for this??"

Gunther: Why yes, I am planning on posting this in every GW thread. Source here.

Yes, reposting someone else's long-winded ad hominem attack on your opponents is a really effective debating technique.

mkfreeberg: Forty years from now, my grandkids and yours are going to be asking "Now let me get this straight...the pitch was 'pay more taxes or the world will end' and supposedly large numbers of people FELL for this??"


Actually, in 40 years it will be: "NASA faked the polar ice cap photographs..."

it's not surprising there's so much climate change denialism or at least denialism about it being man made in the US, conservatives and libertarians and the US are both the "fark you got mine" type, exemplified by their economic beliefs, and accepting that climate change is happening means accepting that the wasteful lifestyles most of us live will have to change

Phaid: Yes, reposting someone else's long-winded ad hominem attack on your opponents is a really effective debating technique.

he should totally post pictures instead.

log_jammin: Phaid: Yes, reposting someone else's long-winded ad hominem attack on your opponents is a really effective debating technique.

he should totally post pictures instead.

Aw, a white knight. That's so sweet.

Phaid: Gunther: Why yes, I am planning on posting this in every GW thread. Source here.

Yes, reposting someone else's long-winded ad hominem attack on your opponents is a really effective debating technique.

Phaid, just because something is critical of a viewpoint doesn't mean it's an ad hominem.

Phaid: Yes, reposting someone else's long-winded ad hominem attack on your opponents is a really effective debating technique.

Do you actually know what the term "ad hominem" means?

GW deniers are conspiracy theorists. That's not an insult, but a statement of fact - there's only two ways to reconcile the vast majority of climatologists accepting it whilst at the same time believing it to be false - either you think you are more learned in climatology than the vast majority of the world's climatologists put together, or you think they are lying about accepting global warming.

If you think an entire scientific community is lying about the truth of a theory, then you are a conspiracy theorist.

Phaid: Aw, a white knight. That's so sweet.

HA!

Yeah. Thats it. Pointing out your "debate style" is posting pictures white knighting for a chick named "gunther".

mkfreeberg: kmmontandon: mkfreeberg: Forty years from now, my grandkids and yours are going to be asking "Now let me get this straight...the pitch was 'pay more taxes or the world will end' and supposedly large numbers of people FELL for this??"

I think the things my kids (not yours, I doubt you'll manage to reproduce) will find most astounding is that the mentally retarded were given exactly the same Internet access privileges as people who don't have to wipe Cheeto dust off on their bib before they post.

Oh that's right, I gotta include that part...when it starts to get really awkward. The believers, see kids, they called the "deniers" a bunch of stupid idiots and fell back on that reliable scientific method called "raw intimidation."

Kinda like you used to do, kids, back when you were six.

Hmm, how often in history has a politically motivated, non-expert backed movement gone up against science and won in the view of history?

Heliocentrism? Pretty sure we consider Copernicus a great man and Galileo damn near a saint. Evolution then? Still some mutterings but definitely I'd say evolution is winning. The war on drugs? Well look how well that's turned out.

Gunther: Do you actually know what the term "ad hominem" means?

Yes, but you don't. Ad hominem doesn't mean insult, it means making a claim about your opponent in order to discredit them, rather than presenting evidence to support your own position. Calling your opponents "conspiracy theorists" is exactly that.

Phaid: Gunther: Do you actually know what the term "ad hominem" means?

Yes, but you don't. Ad hominem doesn't mean insult, it means making a claim about your opponent in order to discredit them, rather than presenting evidence to support your own position. Calling your opponents "conspiracy theorists" is exactly that.

But the article drew appropriate parallels to Truthers etc. So going all "ad hominem" here is a bit silly of you.

Phaid: Calling your opponents "conspiracy theorists" is exactly that.

except for when they ARE "conspiracy theorists".

And here's a clue. If you don't believe in GW because "They get grant money!" then you are a "conspiracy theorist".

Brockway: What climate change?

I'll ignore the fact that you have confused ACC with AGW and point out that the NASA data has a trendline that goes up if you chart it properly via SPSS or Excel using all of the datapoints rather than the scant handful you choose to use.

Brockway: Uhm, actually, there's another way. It's called "notice-that-the-"scientists'"-own-data-show-cooling",

and why would the "not notice" their own data shows that the earth is cooling?

log_jammin: Phaid: Calling your opponents "conspiracy theorists" is exactly that.

except for when they ARE "conspiracy theorists".

You still don't understand. Even if they were conspiracy theorists, that would have nothing to do with the validity of the argument they are making.

Saying Bob's argument is invalid because he is black, is ad hominem whether Bob really is black or not.

And here's a clue. If you don't believe in GW because "They get grant money!" then you are a "conspiracy theorist".

I don't know anyone who believes that.

Phaid: Yes, but you don't. Ad hominem doesn't mean insult, it means making a claim about your opponent in order to discredit them, rather than presenting evidence to support your own position. Calling your opponents "conspiracy theorists" is exactly that.

It would only be an ad hominem if I said "your arguments are wrong BECAUSE you are a conspiracy theorist". Merely noting that my opponents are conspiracy theorists is not a logical fallacy.

Climate change - change brockways can't believe in

log_jammin: and why would the "not notice" their own data shows that the earth is cooling?

You're talking to someone who thinks a decade spans 11 years, reading and understanding scientific literature isn't going to be one of his strongpoints.

Brockway: Uhm, actually, there's another way. It's called "notice-that-the-"scientists'"-own-data-show-cooling", in spite of these scientists running around like Chicken Little claiming "it's worse than we thought".

How is it you can be perfectly rational in some threads and utterly nutty in others?

Are you trolling or manic depressive?

Gunther: It would only be an ad hominem if I said "your arguments are wrong BECAUSE you are a conspiracy theorist". Merely noting that my opponents are conspiracy theorists is not a logical fallacy.

Then why bring it up?

Phaid:
You still don't understand. Even if they were conspiracy theorists, that would have nothing to do with the validity of the argument they are making.

Saying Bob's argument is invalid because he is black, is ad hominem whether Bob really is black or not.

what makes it invalid is the "conspiracy" that they have "theorized" about is impossible.

Phaid: I don't know anyone who believes that.

you're not paying attention then.

Phaid: I don't know anyone who believes that.

Your inability to pay attention to the arguments of those you are defending is your problem.

Murkanen: Phaid: I don't know anyone who believes that.

Your inability to pay attention to the arguments of those you are defending is your problem.

My ability to ignore the straw man you are raising is not a problem at all.

Murkanen: You're talking to someone who thinks a decade spans 11 years

I have a "joke" I like to play on my kids and nieces and nephews where I prove to them that I have 11 fingers and thumbs. I start with one hand and count down 10-9-8-7-6. then hold up my other hand and say "6+5 = 11. math doesn't lie".

I'm thinking brockway would fall for that joke.

mkfreeberg: Just as an aside. The average car driven by a global-warming believer, is about 600 pounds heavier than the average car driven by a global-warming "denier," and gets ten miles less per gallon.

Phaid: Then why bring it up?

OK dude, I'll step you through it. If you accept my little argument in this post, you are agreeing that for AGW to be as obviously false as the deniers proport, nearly every climatologist on earth would be in on a conspiracy to promote a false scientific theory.

Now ask yourself, does that sound likely?

Let me see if i can say this and you people will actually read it:

THE "GLOBAL WARMING" THEORY DOESN'T STATE THAT THE PLANET WILL LITERALLY GET HOTTER, IT STATES THAT WEATHER WILL BECOME MORE EXTREME AND MAKE LARGE PORTIONS OF IT UNLIVABLE

when the theory got its name, initially, yes they believed the planet would suffer some sort of heat-death and flood a la Waterworld.

However, like any good scientific theory, it is open to change following observations that provide more information

you see, finding out that data doesn't match the original idea doesn't invalidate a scientific theory, that information is measured and applied to the theory to make a more accurate explanation

further observation has discovered that, while greenhouse gas buildup in the upper atmosphere DOES increase the amount of heat the planet absorbs from the sun, this energy is often expressed in other ways than being "hot."

for example, thermal energy is the driving force behind hurricanes and tornadoes. Also, since snow can't form at temperatures below a certain point, it means that some areas will experience greater than normal snowfall. It also means more water is evaporated into the atmosphere, leading to more rainfall, all of which cools surface temps.

The fact that these things lower surface temps does not, however, change the fact that its hard to live under a landslide

or in a house that was not designed to be underwater.

or in a house that was not designed to be under 10 feet of snow

or in a house that was not designed to withstand direct hits from huge storms.


im sure you will all tl;dr this post, so carry on.

Brockway: What year was 10 years prior to 2008?

you first. and why would they "not notice" their own data shows that the earth is cooling?

Crocodilly_Pontifex: THE "GLOBAL WARMING" THEORY DOESN'T STATE THAT THE PLANET WILL LITERALLY GET HOTTER

yes it does. The average temperature will get hotter according to GW.

Brockway:
This is the bogus argument of the Chicken Littles - change the precept to one that cannot be measured, therefore never disproven. With satisfactorily vague and nebulous characteristics, one can simply claim it's happening no matter how the data turn out.

Nothing has changed. Climate change and global warming, while linked to a degree, have always been two entirely different subjects of study.

LOLZ! The "scant handful" that is this entire century.

Centuries are 100 years. 100 * 12 = 1200 To say your graph is off by a considerable bit would be a gross understatement on my part.

Is this value of 46 for the year that was 9 years prior to 2008, or 10 years prior to 2008?

10 years of data. Unlike yourself, I actually know how many years are in a decade.

Phaid: My ability to ignore the straw man you are raising is not a problem at all.

You don't seem to know what a strawman is. A strawman is a gross misrepresentation of your opponent's argument created for the sole purpose of making it easy to defeat. When an argument is actually used in a serious manner, in this case the argument being that scientist's can't be trusted due to grant funding, it can't be labeled as a strawman argument anymore.

I have 11 fingers and thumbs.

log_jammin: I have 11 fingers and thumbs.

my sympathies to your road-rage.

Crocodilly_Pontifex: my sympathies to your road-rage.

HA!

Brockway: Decade net: Change of _______degrees

why would scientists "not notice" their own data shows that the earth is cooling?

Murkanen: You don't seem to know what a strawman is. A strawman is a gross misrepresentation of your opponent's argument created for the sole purpose of making it easy to defeat. When an argument is actually used in a serious manner, in this case the argument being that scientist's can't be trusted due to grant funding, it can't be labeled as a strawman argument anymore.

I know exactly what a straw man is. And nobody is arguing that "the scientists" can't be trusted because of grants. The only people who have brought that up are you and log_jammin.