I Wish Global Warming Was a Hoax. Unfortunately, It’s Not.

I noticed in the comments to the previous item that shcb thinks I’m showing close-mindedness (or something) by virtue of my resistance to the evidence that human-caused climate change is a hoax.


63 Responses to “I Wish Global Warming Was a Hoax. Unfortunately, It’s Not.”

  1. knarlyknight Says:

    Convincing evidence of global warming. I agree it is simply ovewhelming. However JBC, shcb has also stated on many occasions that Global Warming is true. (During those times when he is not trying to suggest the earth is actually cooling ;-)

    The “weak” link, in comparison, is whether it is caused by us humans or not.

    Yes, fossil fuel emissions have increased in lockstep with CO2 increases in the atmosphere as the industrial age advanced. But I’m only 95% sure it is not a coincidence. My doubts (less than 5%) are due to the perhaps natural variations in temperatures that confuse the linkages / cause & effects. Up to 1950’s it seems temperatures were falling despite the CO2 concentration increases, and then it looks to me that temperatures increase ahead of the emissions. That is likely entirely consistent with the anthropogenic climate change meme, however there is some room for doubt. It may be possible that something else is increasing world temperatures (e.g. solar or cosmic radiation) and the increasing temperatures result in vast CO2 and other emissions from natural sources (e.g. algae and other plants’ respiration and increased growth/decay of organic matter producing methane.)

    The video says it is not increased solar radiation because “night-time temperatures increase more.” That sounds overly simplistic to me, as that could simply be explained by heat sinks (e.g. fill a large swimming pool with cold water in the morning of a sunny day and the heating effect will be more apparent from the increased water temperature as the air cools at night than it will be during the day.)

    I’d like to see more analysis of CO2 and other emissions from humans vs. that from natural sources resulting from warmer temperatures (yes, that could be feedback effects from the initial human industrial revolution jolts to the system.) Failing that, another cool one from the fridge would be nice.

  2. shcb Says:

    Is that a hockey stick I see there?

  3. shcb Says:

    I can’t help but think how comical it is that John used the hockey stick theory to show how wrong I am. Wasn’t this Jones’ first foray into massaging the data to meet his theory? This is probably the most thoroughly discredited portion of the global scare, this sort of proves my point about JBC, he could have at least used a study that used real data.

    Of course the earth has been warming since it cooled after the medieval warming; CO2 emissions have also been rising from burning carbon-based fuels. Yes man has had an effect on global warming, the question is to what degree and if there is anything we can do about it. Let me restate that, it’s not so much if there is anything we can do about it, as what we can practically do about it. If we just magically stop burning oil today how much difference would that make? How would it devastate the world’s economies? But more importantly if those economies were devastated how would that affect our ability to find a true solution to the problem? And of course the answer is the cure would be worse than the cause.

  4. shcb Says:

    So my question is, if John were in Georgia taking an environmental class and he kept blathering some religious nonsense about how correct the hockey stick theory is even though science has definitively proven it is false, should he be sent to remedial education or not graduate?

  5. jbc Says:

    If monkeys flew out of your butt, it might be interesting, but until or unless we inhabit a world where that’s possible, it makes for a fairly lame hypothetical question. Similarly, if your statements about what climate scientists have and haven’t definitively proven had anything in common with what actual climate scientists say, the point you raise might be an interesting one.

    But they don’t, so it isn’t.

  6. shcb Says:

    You mean actual climate scientists like the one that gave us that chart? “Damn Medieval Warming Period, and that pesky Little Ice Age, grab that bulldozer boys we got us some cutn’ and filln’ to do, massage that data to knock that hill off over there and put little bit in this hole right here, there we go, nice and flat, just what we need to match our theory” all in a day’s work.

  7. Smith Says:

    “massage that data to knock that hill off over there and put little bit in this hole right here, there we go, nice and flat, just what we need to match our theory”

    Pretty good description of the methods used by climate change deniers. Thanks, shcb.

  8. shcb Says:

    I am not sure what you are referring to, I don’t recall anyone who is skeptical of global warming being accused of manufacturing data the way they did with their hockey stick theory. They were found out and as I recall admitted to tweaking the data to fit their theory. The way they were found out of course was by simply looking at the raw data and re-creating the graph, not exactly rocket science. The hard part was figuring out how they had come up with their graph. But as you can see even though the truth was found out and exposed people are still using this graph to justify their predisposed notions and lo and behold there are others who still read it and believe it.

  9. Smith Says:

    “I don’t recall anyone who is skeptical of global warming being accused of manufacturing data ”

    Oh yeah, I forgot, you guys never pretended to have any data to back up your claims in the first place.

    “massage that opinion to knock that hill off over there and put little bit in this hole right here, there we go, nice and flat, just what we need to match our theory”

    Good job on that false consensus, shcb.

    “More than a dozen subsequent scientific papers, using various statistical techniques and combinations of proxy records, produced reconstructions broadly similar to the original MBH hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century “shaft” appears. Almost all of them supported the IPCC conclusion that the warmest decade in 1000 years was probably that at the end of the 20th century.”

    Keep pretending your opinion as the same value as data.

  10. shcb Says:

    Ha ha, they were probablyusing Jones’ data!

  11. shcb Says:

    I looked into this hockey stick situation a little today, what I found was it wasn’t so much that Mann used bogus environmental data as it was that he used poor statistical methodology. So it’s understandable that environmental scientists would agree that his methods and hypothesis are correct since they probably aren’t mathematicians. That’s not to say that he didn’t use some questionable research procedures cherry picking trees for his tree ring analysis and the like, but the real smoking gun lay in the formula and calculations. I’m not enough of the mathematician to understand all I was reading but in essence what was found was that virtually any set of data that was put into his equation would return a hockey stick graph.

  12. NorthernLite Says:

    Great video!

    “CO2 emissions have also been rising from burning carbon-based fuels.”

    Right, shcb.

    And increased CO2 in our atmosphere traps heat. Which makes the planet warmer.

    Human caused global warming.

  13. shcb Says:

    … but to what extent? You need accurate science to determine that answer, at this point the science is suspect.

  14. NorthernLite Says:

    It’s only suspect to people who watch Fox and listen to right-wing radio. Me, I’ll put my faith in the 95% of scientists who’ve studied this for decades.

    I mean the worst case scenario if we take action is that we end up with a cleaner planet, a more sustainable world and a whole bunch of green energy jobs.

  15. shcb Says:

    Actually it was suspect to the reviewers at Nature, don’t think they work for Fox.

    Yeah, ask California how those green jobs are working!

    Speaking of Fox did you hear that Fox got Helen Thomas’ front row seat, what a kick in the nuts to NPR and Bloomberg that must have been.

  16. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb did a poor job of looking into the “hockey stick situation”, his conclusions were long ago shown to be erroneous and probably nefarious. Further, “…More than twelve subsequent scientific papers using various statistical techniques and combinations of proxy records produced reconstructions broadly the same as the original hockey stick graphs, …”

    The “controversy” seems to be a media misconception of lame criticisms, the criticisms being set out and ultimately shown to be trivial, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

    While the scientific consensus on Global Warming is beyond dispute, its cause still has many individual scientists bickering or scratching their heads:

  17. shcb Says:

    I guess that proves Mann has at least 12 people on his Christmas card list. I don’t know how much of the wiki article you actually read, your quote from it was rather early in the article, but if you notice even the people who support his work say that there are errors in it, they just downplay the severity of those errors. I also like how they downplayed the Wegman report, I read a big chunk of it last night and one of its biggest concerns was how small the community of scientists that reviewed this theory. One of their criticisms was that when you only have 20 or so people in an area and those 20 or so people are reviewing each other, at some point the review process becomes suspect. They were also concerned with the fact that it didn’t seem as though any of the Mann’s group had much statistical background and seemed unwilling to enlist the help of statisticians. The Wegman report made the point that, in say the case of a pharmaceutical company running a trial on a new drug it is as important to enlist the help of statisticians to ensure that your statistics are correct as it is to make sure the science you are studying is correct, in this case it seems both the statistics and science are suspect. For what any Wiki article is worth I think if you read it you will find there are at least 12 studies that don’t agree with Mann to one degree or another, so do we call it a draw? You can still make a case for man-made global warming using a more reasonable and accurate chart, it is just harder to do since the actual temperature graphs are less dramatic.

    One more thing, I thought it was comical when one of the reviewers over at Nature said that he was put off by Mann thinking that if he yelled louder and longer it would make him right

  18. NorthernLite Says:

    I don’t think California is a very good example on how to do anything. Electing the Terminator to run the state was a pretty boneheaded move.

    If you want to see how investing in green tech can create jobs, look to Ontario, Canada. We’ve been creating jobs for the past several months and most are being created in Ontario and most are related to sustainable energy projects. Samsung recently announced a major investment here to create solar panels. We’ve almost closed all our coal fired electric plants (will be completed by 2014) and already Toronto has had a major drop in smog, even though it’s been the hottest July on record. Windmills are popping up all over Southwestern Ontario and they are a much prettier site than dirty coal stacks.

    Our premier (a liberal :) had a vision when he was elected in 2003 and it’s starting to become reality. Gone are many high paying manufacturing jobs but they are indeed being replaced with high-paying green jobs.

    This is actually happening. Seriously.



  19. NorthernLite Says:


  20. shcb Says:

    Good deal, glad to hear it, Colorado and me personally are on the green bandwagon as well, well not me personally, but my company and especially my boss (from the Netherlands, loves Boulder, you know the type:-) My only problem with it is it really isn’t “creating” jobs the way a new product does, it is just transferring jobs, and it usually does it with a heavy subsidy. I understand that is what is needed sometimes and I’m probably just being a grouchy old man, if it works and it is better for the economy and the environment I’m all for it, within reason, and I know there are transition periods, but I’m a nuts and bolts kind of guy and I see a lot of hype as just that.

    Thanks for the links, I’ll look at them when I get a chance. Tip a cold one for me this evening and I will do the same for you.

  21. knarlyknight Says:

    The wiki article presented a good summary of the vindications of the Mann report, shcb’s spin on it is plain silly.

  22. shcb Says:

    If you’re so impressed with that Wiki article and the fact that 12 people agree with Mann Knarly, look at the graph shown in the article of several other studies, then compare that to the graph on this page and tell me they are the same. Most everyone I have read that was critical of Mann has said he made some good points he just embellished to make his point more dramatic, which is fine if you are selling something but not so good for a serious discussion.

  23. shcb Says:

    sorry about the “was critical of Mann.. has said” the bad grammer of a redneck

  24. knarlyknight Says:

    Thank you for the suggestion to review the graph of temperatures from other studies, except you might have mentioned that the Mann graph is included graph of “other studies”. In fact, the Mann temperature line looks conservative in comparison as it sits pretty much in between most of the other studies.

    The only studies that don’t fit are a couple of studies that show it to be colder in the pre-thermometer days going back 500 years or more. If those studies are closer to the truth than the Mann and other studies, then it is even more reason for alarm.

    So in conclusion, yes the majority of the other studies are essentially the same as the Mann graph in terms of showing that there has been an alarming increase in temperatures relative to the past 1000 or 2000 years.

    You say that only 12 people agree with Mann? If that is true, you must also have a helluva conspiracy theory to explain why he has so much support and is so widely referenced.

    For more on the studies, see:


  25. knarlyknight Says:

    Sorry for the first sentence, should be “”except you might have mentioned that the Mann graph is included in the lines plotted for “other studies”.

    In the graaph, note that BLUE is Mann:

    (blue 1000-1980): M.E. Mann, R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1999). , Geophysical Research Letters, 26(6): 759-762.

  26. shcb Says:

    Look a little closer…

  27. knarlyknight Says:

    The hockey stick graph as shown in the 2001 IPCC report. This chart shows the data from Mann et al. 1999.

  28. shcb Says:

    If you notice all the lines that are close to Mann’s are either other Mann studies or Jones’ studies, remember climategate? They sort of have a vested interest in each other it seems, something Wegman raised an eyebrow over. Thanks for pointing that out to me, I hadn’t really looked at who did the reports, kind of funny when you think about it.

  29. shcb Says:

    Also, I always thought that the Wiki graph you are refering to and it seems Mann’s graph at the top of this page extrapolated the temps from 2000 on as an ever raising line, but now that we are a decade past that we see they have leveled off while co2 has continued to rise, just had another chuckle, this is fun.

  30. shcb Says:

    change that to “I always thought that it was funny that the Wiki…

  31. knarlyknight Says:

    * According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the planet has just come through the warmest decade, the warmest 12 months, the warmest six months, and the warmest April, May, and June on record

    What planet does shcb live on?

  32. shcb Says:

    On average that is probably true, “on record” is a key phrase there. But that doesn’t mean the temps haven’t leveled off, they have, to a certain degree they may even be dropping on an annual basis. The graph is high, but it is also flat, it doesn’t continue to peak as Mann’s graph shows. I’m right, you’re right, Mann is still wrong. You have a math degree and are naturally skeptical, read that statement and see how many places that can be tweaked to fit just about anything you want.

    The on record is important to this discussion because the record starts as we are coming out of the little ice age, or may have just come out of, so it is as natural to be getting warmer as it is to say July was a lot warmer than January this year. We don’t run around like Chicken Little because it gets warmer in spring.

    That statement simply has nothing to do with Mann being correct, nothing.

  33. shcb Says:

    That is one of the problems with Mann’s graph, it magically meets the measured temps as they start to be recorded, with a big flat spot preceding it, he knocked off the Medieval Warming Period hill and backfilled the Little Ice Age to the level of where empirical data starts, if the actual measurements had started a couple decades later his graph would have been perfectly flat! But he figured someone might catch it if actual data was colder than his graph so he had to put that little flat bottom in the graph. In your field of experience it is called “cooking the books”. You show some sales from this month on last month’s sales reports and you move a few expenses to this month and bingo! We had a profitable month, then you pray this month is good enough to cover it. But in Mann’s case it didn’t cover. And like every embezzler, he got caught.

  34. shcb Says:

    “the warmest April, May, and June on record” given that other months being colder than normal can offset that statement, and the obvious bias, don’t you think they would have included the first three months if they were also warmer? Or even average?

  35. knarlyknight Says:

    No. The National Climatic Data Center says that March 2010 was the highest on record, per their report:

    The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for March 2010 was the warmest on record at 13.5°C (56.3°F), which is 0.77°C (1.39°F) above the 20th century average of 12.7°C (54.9°F). This was also the 34th consecutive March with global land and ocean temperatures above the 20th century average.

    Likewise for February:
    The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for February 2010 was 0.60°C (1.08°F) above the 20th century average of 12.1°C (53.9°F). This is the sixth warmest such value on record.

    And January:
    The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for January 2010 was 0.60°C (1.08°F) above the 20th century average of 12.0°C (53.6°F). This is the fourth warmest January on record.

    Honestly shcb, the effort you go through to try and think of how to refute global warming is getting tiresome and increasingly silly.

  36. shcb Says:

    I’m not refuting global warming, just Mann’s chart. All the damage being done stems from that chart and it is a lie pure and simple. All those stats are a big so what, we know the temperature was rising through the 20th century because we are coming out of the Little Ice Age it will continue to get warmer until it starts to get cooler.

    I think you better look at your numbers again, according to the wiki graph the total change since recorded history is 0.6 c you’re saying we doubled that in one year?

  37. knarlyknight Says:

    Damage? What damage? The only damage I’ve seen is in your imagination.

    If Mann’s chart is a lie (snicker) then show us your supposed chart of truth.

    Not sure what your strategy is in accusing me of saying we’ve doubled historic warming in one year, another of your infamous strawman diversions no doubt.

    Funny to see you choke on on crow with the Jan – Mar temp stats not matching your most recent conspiracy theory. You’re wasting my time, and your own.

  38. shcb Says:

    Sorry it has taken so long to get back to you, I was busy getting ready for a trip; Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, before I fly out of Tennessee late Saturday night. I’m really not wasting my time, this is what I do for entertainment, some people play golf; I see what kind of knots liberals will tie themselves into defending an indefensible situation.

    If you look at the graphs in your Wiki article you will see that from the time they started recording temperatures in the mid-1800s the temperatures have risen about 0.6°, so the midpoint or average of that 0.6° is .3°. If I’m reading your statement above right your source was saying temperatures were .6° above the recorded average so that would mean that the temperatures basically doubled in one year compared to what they’ve risen over the last 150? You could look at a couple different ways, but in any case saying the temperatures have risen .6° in one year when they’ve only risen .6° in 150 seems pretty silly.

    Also if you notice I said it was possible that the first three months could be lower and bring those averages down, if they didn’t then that’s fine it still doesn’t make Mann’s chart any more accurate. But I assume you got those facts from the same people who are saying the Earth’s temperatures rose as much in one year as the last 150.

  39. knarlyknight Says:

    I think the quotes were pretty clear in stating the 0.6 deg C difference was above the 20th century average, that’s not to say they’ve doubled in one year, it is to say that they are above average. I’m not sure what kind of game you are trying to play or what kind of knot you are trying to twist, it just is what it is, regardless of how you want to twist and spin it.

  40. shcb Says:

    All I am saying is when someone shows me a more or less evenly rising graph showing a 0.6 change over 100 years and then says the end of that graph is .6 above the middle of the graph I expect to see a huge spike, oh wait, Mann’s graph does show that, too bad it’s wrong. But we’re quibbling over a few tenths of a degree of an average of hundreds of different measurements and various methods of taking those measurements. This is still so what when we are discussing whether Mann’s chart is accurate. It is statements like the last 34 years have been above a 100 year average that are designed to titillate people that are thinking very well that just drive me nuts. You have a graph that is steadily rising over 9/10 of its duration and then levels off, that would probably mean that 34 of those samples would be above average, so what.

  41. knarlyknight Says:

    I thought we were talking about a graph that extends over 10 or 20 centuries

  42. shcb Says:

    we were until you limited us to the historical and last century data.

  43. knarlyknight Says:

    Okay, so do you still think that the temperature increases have “levelled off” since the end of Mann’s chart, http://www.lies.com/wp/2010/07/31/i-wish-global-warming-was-a-hoax-unfortunately-its-not/#comment-206437 , or do you recognize that the years up to 2010 show that temperatures have in fact continued to peak???

    The 2000-2009 decade is the warmest on record, with an average global surface temperature of 0.54°C (0.96°F) above the 20th century average. This shattered the 1990s value of 0.36°C (0.65°F).

    [For 2010,] The combined global average land and ocean surface temperature for January–June period was the warmest such period on record. This value is 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the 20th century average.

    I sure don’t see any levelling off, we’re off the chart and the rate of change to the present is entirely consistent with the slope of the line since 1980: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

  44. shcb Says:

    really? looks pretty flat to me over the last 10 years, your last graph is scrunched up so it’s a litle hard to tell but it it pretty darn flat.

  45. shcb Says:

    and this is the NASA data which is not quite right either, they add a factor to the temperature for some reason. look at the UAH data sometime, they actually post all the raw data, something Mann and Jones fought in court, wonder why?

  46. Smith Says:

    “they add a factor to the temperature for some reason”

    Experts in a field in which you have no knowledge or experience did something that you do not understand? I am shocked and appalled. It is obvious that this is a case of scientists doing something nefarious, and it certainly is not a reflection of your ignorance of the area of research in question.

  47. knarlyknight Says:

    good point Smith.

    shcb, if the world looks flat to you then you’re not looking close enough.

    Did you add in the 2009 data point at 0.56 (significantly above the average depicted by the red line) and the 6 month data for 2010 at 0.68? It seems that 2010 will be off-the-chart-hot unless the it gets cold fast, but it seems that July and August were/are consistent with the warming trend

  48. shcb Says:

    I was being facetious Mr. Smith, of course I know why they added a mysterious factor. Their models were following Mann’s for quite some time, when they started to diverge they didn’t exactly understand the cause so they just used a fudge number to bring their model back in line. This was really the only explanation, for a while they had a table on their website showing the fudge factor, I don’t believe it’s there anymore.

    Of course I’m not an expert in climatology, and neither are either of you. So in cases like this we have to dust off the old bullshit meter, you guys seem to use where the information comes from no matter how true the information is and who is paying for the study to calibrate your meter. Taking things through a filter or following the money are both legitimate, but there are other criteria that can be used as well. For instance the openness of the two parties, someone who willingly opens their books to the auditor probably isn’t embezzling. Mann and Jones didn’t want anybody to see their data or to examine their model, that tends to perk up the old spydy senses. Other researchers weren’t quite so secretive, they published their data on the Web, at some point the two sets of data started to diverge as the temperature started to level off. Now most of this data from the more forthcoming researchers was from satellites and the like so for a while people just thought there was just a difference in the measuring techniques but then the guys that had the most to lose clammed up. That’s when the bullshit meters were pegged, at least for some of us.

  49. ethan-p Says:

    Wow, nothing new in this discussion. I’ll add my $0.02 of bullshit (excuse the short message, lack of pretty links and shitty grammar – I’m typing this on a smartphone). Fox news sucks, and I don’t watch it. I also do not dispute climate change. I am, however skeptical of the science/anthropogenic cause.

    I believe that both sides have an agenda, and many involved are less interested in any scientific truth than being right in their convictions. Plain and simple, that is not science.

    Further, the citation of scientific consensus does not prove anything, whether or not a true consensus actually exists. One can cite consensus all they like, but in terms of rational debate or real science, it does little more than stroke smug egos of those who *really* want their political/scientific/moral/you-pick conclusions to be right. Can anyone point to scientific truth being found by consensus or vote? Regardless of how mwny people believe in it, truth is still truth and bullshit is still bullshit.

    I’ll also point to Crichton’s consensus criticism: a similar scientific consensus surrounded eugenics. Feel free to Wiki this one. It was supported by the scientific community and very much embraced by progressives. Eugenics was only abandoned after the end of WWII, when everything Hitler supported fell out of favor. My point is not to draw parallels to Nazism, but to say that there is nothing either wrong or ignorant about questioning a scientific consensus. I do take issue with clinging to ideals, and considering those who question said ideals as ignorant people.

    Anyway, nothing particularly new from me…but this is sort of an old discussion. Flame away, my progressive friends…I don’t anticipate any kind of open, honest discussion on this one. The issue is too emotional – it feels like a theological argument between religious fundamentals: nobody wants to learn anything, but everyone wants to be right.

  50. knarlyknight Says:

    Ethan, good post.

    start snark:

    If only we had put some kind of international science organization together at some point in the past decade or two to take the politics out of global warming studies so that we could get better quality information from which to learn the things we need to know so that government’s could make better decisions…

    end snark

  51. shcb Says:

    we did, they did, but the people feeding them information didn’t want to admit they were wrong after a point or lose the gravy train.

    That is as deep as I can get tonight, it’s 10:30, I’m in Birmingham, I’ve spent the last two days in a hot dirty shop in the Georgia humidity, I have a meeting in Mississippi tomorrow and I have no clean clothes, I have a shirt hanging on a lamp in front of the air conditioner hoping to blow the stink out of it. Been a long week.

  52. shcb Says:

    I hear people repeat the sentiment of Ethan and have probably said it myself, he says truth is truth and BS, BS but then tires of endless debate. But isn’t defending truth when it is truth a noble cause? Isn’t that what defines true convictions? We have different motivations and different agendas and different objectives so the debate will almost always be endless, much more so than there will be a consensus. It is tiring and tedious to debate endless issues, that is why there are only 6 people here debating them but there are dozens offering my Facebook friend LuAnn sympathy over the loss of her dog, there is consensus there, it is also meaningless babble.

    By definition science is never complete and neither are politics.

  53. ethan-p Says:


    That’s my point. Science has little or nothing to do with convictions. If we’re basing the discussion on convictions – then the science is hardly relevant. Some people believe that the world is only 6000 years old – but a discussion about that would have little to do with science and would be based entirely on convictions.

    A discussion of the politics surrounding the issue are a bit more relevant than the science. E.g. if there is a problem, what to do about it? How different solutions/changes will affect the world at large, will they make a difference, how fast to move, are we serious enough to consider environmental/climate engineering?

    The science of GCC has been so whored out, that debating “truth” is a bit pointless – and (IMO) there is no scientific merit (or nobility) in this end of the discussion.

  54. enkidu Says:

    Funny that you should bring up eugenics e-p

    Last week we were vacationing in the midwest, saying goodbye to my parents homestead, visiting with friends and family in Chicago and WI. One thing we did was visit the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago. What a great place! It is a lot like my father-in-law’s place of employ, the Ontario Science Centre. A hands on science extravaganza (we skipped the creation museum – all those models of adam and eve riding dinosaurs to church get boring after a short while).

    One of the most interesting exhibits was a wing on Genetics. Several areas had a small interactive where the viewer gets to select from a series of concerns about genetics. After you make your choice, you get to see what other people selected. What was surprising to me was the stats on what people were worried about with genetic manipulation. On the one hand, people were concerned about GM’d foods, but surprisingly positive about gene therapy to reverse congenital disease in humans. I’ll put it in simpler terms: people were worried about GM’d crops, but very positive about GM’d people. Sure much of it was the question’s framing. But I recall thinking that it is surprising that folks are fine with a sort of selective eugenics for people but not for what we eat…

    What makes this so surprising is that some huge percentage of commercial processed foods already have GM’d components whereas gene therapy for human beings is still in the experimental stage (at best). Sure science can be twisted by wwnjs/fascists and ill-informed partisan whackdoodles, but the science of improving life isn’t evil by its nature (sorry bible-thumpers).


    There is no amount of fact, science or reality that will convince wwnjs that the earth is experiencing (probably) anthropogenic induced climate change (some places will get much hotter, while some places, like england, may get much cooler if the atlantic current slows or stops).

    Hey, how are we doing on prosecuting the criminals who broke into the climate center’s servers to steal all those emails and data? Out of 22,000 emails wwnj was able to twist less than a dozen into some global conspiracy to… what? save the planet? Yes, save the planet. Sounds better than more insane profits for oil companies (the flip side of the coin).

  55. Smith Says:

    It’s funny. Conservatives did everything they could to politicize this issue, and now they turn around and complain that we should abandon this issue because it has become too politicized. I guess that’s the best you can do when there is no scientific evidence to actually support your opinions.

  56. shcb Says:

    I pretty much agree with you guys, I think you and I are pretty close on our views of AGW Ethan. I especially like your statement “I do take issue with clinging to ideals, and considering those who question said ideals as ignorant people.” That is one of my biggest issues with people like JBC, I’m getting my information and basing my opinions on people who have devoted their lives to climate studies just as he is. Where we differ is the assessment of how much of an effect man has on global warming and what we should do about. Mann and Jones have clearly skewed their research in the direction of their preconceived notions. And yet people like JBC continue to cling to their weighted theories. He consistently compares people who question the legitimacy of this research as equivalent to those he considers ignorant, people who hold religious faiths. I have based my opinion after watching Brother Bob’s Bible hour, thousands of legitimate climatologists have questioned the validity of the hockey stick theory, most of them are included in the number of scientists that believe in AGW. That is where holding onto my convictions comes into play, I believe these guys lie to us and we are basing our response to those lies.

    The problem then, simply becomes a misallocation of resources, I’ve seen this many times in my manufacturing experience. An engineer or manager will tell less than the whole truth to get his or her pet theory implemented over the better solutions of others. Now they aren’t being malicious they simply have the truth of their convictions that they are right, they usually aren’t 180° out of time their idea is just skewed a little bit to one side or the other of the proper path. Now of course no one knows what will eventually be known as the proper path at this juncture because we can’t see into the future, and life has a way of tossing plenty of kinks in the road all on its own, but we should all have the correct data so we can make the best decision we can. Is putting a bunch of windmills willy-nilly across the countryside going to help if this problem is as bad as JBC thinks it is, of course not, the most is going to do is drop our carbon output a few percentage points maybe barely into the double digits, that’s not enough. So should we instead be investing our time and money into building hundreds if not thousands of nuclear reactors to actually fix the problem, only to find out 50 years from now the temperatures had naturally piqued and were in a prolonged cooling period all on their own, and now we have a gigantic nuclear waste problem. These are my concerns, and people like Mann and his disciples not only do nothing to help the problem they probably make it worse. Those are my convictions.

  57. Smith Says:

    Ah, “opinions” wasn’t cutting it, so we’ve upgraded to “convictions”. Well now I’m convinced, you betcha.

  58. shcb Says:

    you’re an asshole

  59. Smith Says:

    Is that an opinion or a conviction? I need to know what I am up against.

  60. shcb Says:

    that was an opinion with conviction.

  61. enkidu Says:

    I think you forgot the Super Sarah wink at the end there Mr Smith?

    wwnj – typical, when you have nothing, just start swearing and blathering (I bet we were *this close* to some of those funny joke death threats, you betcha!;)

    I guess that’s the best you can do when there is no scientific evidence to actually support your opinions.

  62. ethan-p Says:

    *backs away* — Hey Smith, I’m no conservative (nor do I subscribe to the typical liberal doctrine). I didn’t steal research emails, and I’m not trying to politicize them. Side note: both the emails and the knee-jerk conclusions drawn by conservatives were no surprise to me. Of course models needed to be tweaked to fit their hypothesis – climate is incredibly complex, and the models will always be in development…that’s part of the issue. That doesn’t necessarily make the science sinister, just not that great.

    I’m not saying back off of the discussion entirely…just get over the tired argument about whether or not it’s happening and why it’s caused, and start discussing what, if anything, we’re going to do about it.

    If humans have “engineered” the climate, can we engineer our way out of this problem, or have those who believe that humans are inherently evil and harmful to whatever we touch solely holding the reins on this one?

  63. Smith Says:

    If you aren’t conservative, and you aren’t trying to politicize the debate, then perhaps my comment was not directed at you, but rather at the self-identified conservative who tends to shit up the comments with complete nonsense. That you mistakenly assumed my comment was intended for you does, however, seem to suggest something about how you view yourself.


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.