Lisa Benson for February 17, 2010

Lunatic Lisa, earth science minor, fails again.

Lisa Benson, willful anti-science ignoramus.

Gone from my GoComics collection.

Today is a day for RIGHTEOUS fury!

Lisa Benson, you are SHAMED for denigrating the work of people far more intelligent then yourself!

ALSO, wind power is AWESOME, almost as much as nuclear power! SHAME on you for insulting it!

FURY

I believe in climate change Scotty…..It’s the warmers that claim the sky is falling and taking advantage for personal gain. Climate change is well document geologically by study of the earth itself. Our puny contribution to the change would make no difference. I am not an imbecile.

I have often wondered about the disconnect amongst progressives about money. To this day they wail about Cheney and Haliburton but for some strange reason ignore other facts. Those who were the loudest proclaimers of AGW somehow strangely are the largest recipients of the tens of millions of dollars spent to reverse the effect. Do you not see the enlightened self interest omnipresent?

Secondly as the facts emerge they play ostrich. Alert-alert the science behind the claims is changing and intelligent self described science-smart observers would do well to change with them.

I understand most of you defenders of the faith look down upon “deniers” as ignorant, unscientific troglodytes. But I respectfully ask you try and keep your minds open. New data is at last being allowed to breathe fresh air and it does indeed call into question many of the solid tenets of the faith.

“Meanwhile, one of the scientists at the center of the climategate fiasco has called into question other issues that the climate lobby has claimed are indisputable.

This raises doubts about how much our current warming is man-made as opposed to merely another of the natural climate shifts that have taken place over the centuries.

From the WSJ “Meanwhile, the BBC carries an extraordinary interview with Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and the central Climategate figure. In the interview, Jones admits that the periods 1860-80 and 1910-40 saw global warming on a similar scale to the 1975-98 period, that there has been no significant warming since 1995, and that the so-called Medieval Warm Period calls into question whether the currently observed warming is unprecedented.”

Think of that- the world may have been warmer during medieval times than now. There goes the entire AGW concept. We are just beginning to do the necessary “scientific” research to answer the questions. Free from bias!

So it appears the blind followers may be the ones who lack the necessary science understanding.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703630404575053781465774008.html

What is this, a freekin’ library? If you can’t say something stupid in 100 words, try saying something intelligent in 100 words. Nobody is going to boil down all that blather to find out if you know what you’re talking about, much less go on to read your links.

Yeah, don’t confuse us with the facts.

tj–have you seen R Crumb’s recent art? I viewed some India ink studies he drew while wandering the streets of various towns/cities in France. Beautiful stuff, in my opinion!

Climate change is like a box of chocolates…

Human beings have no effect on their environment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodo

@DQ The reason the money is going overseas is because the solar panels are built in overseas. Were it not for the WTO we could’ve created several thousand more jobs to make them.

so much BS….drill for oil…..starve the middle east producers and chavez

“Jada, here is the cold hard truth”

I have on many occasions stated that I find Gore’s alarm-ism too “alarmist.” But I say the same about the crazies on the Right, too. A moderate response is practical, *no* response is not. I believe humans have a profound effect on the environment… heck… did you know that human poop is the only poop that can’t be used as fertilizer [correct me if I’m wrong]? It’s toxic to the environment, hence why we have to treat it through some convoluted process. But I’m not saying “don’t poop,” I’m saying that we do damage, and that we should respect the environment in which we live in. Use your technology, but be open to advancements that provide the best of both worlds. But will there be an ice storm blanketing the northern hemisphere with ice and snow and freezing people in place while southern Americans flee to Mexico … the day after tomorrow? No. Could there be in the future? Yes. Why agitate it? So yes, we agree in that being too “alarmist” does make people do the exact opposite, which is why a more moderate presentation is necessary.

“Fighting the demon CO2 leads to bad planning like the tax cap and trade the plunder. ”

But Cap & Trade is a product of Conservative ideals. I was under the impression that “Conservatives” were always Right?

Hey Eddie, I think your people are more worried about starving to death than cooking! (Pun intended)

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_08/b4167050028125.htm

“But Cap & Trade is a product of Conservative ideals. I was under the impression that “Conservatives” were always Right?”

Like all those conservatives who were in Copenhagen trying to get it passed?

It was a product of the international banking cartel and they masquerade as both camps.

Warning: The following is a long post – be advised.

As for climate change, I don’t yet consider myself in either camp, because I don’t yet feel that I have enough grasp of the science. So if it turns out that Phil Jones is the evil genius who has been orchestrating a vast conspiracy of nefarious climatologists, it’s no skin off my rear end. There are some who contribute to the discussion on this list who seem to have a lot of scientific knowledge – fennec and DrC in particular. They are both in the camp that strongly believes in human caused climate change. I have found their contributions very informative. On the other side, Churchill has made some interesting contributions, though I haven’t so far been persuaded, and some of the data he has pointed to I think do not support his argument. Otherwise, it’s mostly been name calling, of no use to a serious person.

Here’s what I understand, with some questions for both sides. Those who believe in HCCC have both data and a theory, and both are essential to their position. The data shows a large increase in temperatures over a short period of time. The theory says (a) that this increase in this period cannot be explained without some significant human contribution, and (b) certain human actions would indeed be a mechanism for the change.

Of the possible objections, a few can be eliminated fairly quickly. It snowed in Washington, DC. Not a problem for the theory, and no serious person would waste time on it. The climate is too big and human action is too small. Well, we’ve had a big impact on big systems, such as ocean biology and general extinctions, so I would have to be persuaded that this argument deserves much time. But there are some other possible objections that I would like to see discussed.

On the one hand, the data, if it holds up, is pretty compelling. If, for example, you look at the tables at http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ the pattern is quite shocking. Now without the theory one could say, sure, but these things have happened before, and there is no reason to think this trend will necessarily continue. With the theory, however, there is a reason for this trend and unless that changes the trend will continue.

This point relates to the question of the Medieval Warm Period. I am curious about this, because of the claim that the current warming is only something like the earlier warming. The speed and magnitude of the increase are relevant, but even more so the theory, which notes not only that it’s warm now, but predicts that the warming will continue. I need to know more about this.

Another question is about the reliability of the data. I note the claim, for instance, that the weather stations are not well placed, but my hunch is that there is a wide gathering of different kinds of data, so this will come out in the wash.

And another question is about the history of climate change claims. I am old enough to remember that there were claims in the 1970s that the climate was getting colder. As I recall – I didn’t pay a whole lot of attention – the claims didn’t last all that long and weren’t the subject of such widespread concern; I also remember that there were people at the time who did not agree and said that the climate was warming. But I would like to know what made many people think that the climate was cooling, and what changed to replace that claim so quickly with the opposite claim.

What have I missed? Where have I gone wrong? I am looking for real contributions to the discussion without name calling.

The physical evidence we see in glacier retreat is real, and “touchable”. The data, and variable models that look at it from different perspectives may vary in the “details”, but the end conclusion is the same in all cases- things are broken, and “WE” did it.

The real problem is trying to explain to folks that because the real damage from that end result MAY come after they are dead, it is impossible to convince them that it IS a problem.

The total selfishness of the Ayn Rand school of thought is that NOBODY ELSE MATTERS, and that includes children, or grandchildren. “What has posterity done for me?” IS the sole conviction of these folks.

We’ve documented well the impacts on vegetation, wildlife species, and the oceans, from our HUMAN activities, that is physically evident TODAY- yet because truly disastrous world-wide impacts to human life may occur in the “future” , those who obsess about what happens next Tuesday, and not beyond- are beyond convincing.

Isn’t it even a “hint” that oil companies that two years ago claimed climate change was a fraud, are TODAY putting out ads that it is REAL, that they’re “helping us out” and are the “good guys”?

“Like all those conservatives who were in Copenhagen trying to get it passed?”

Republicans have turned against every policy adopted by the Obama Administration they claimed to be for because that would indicate they are working with the administration when their current plan is to score political points at the cost of the country. See exhibit A: John McCain on Cap & Trade.

Title of Article: McCain Pushes ‘Cap-And-Trade’ Plan to Fight Global Warming http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080319133739.aspx

Consensus is NOT valid science.

dave – so what is science? And what do you have to contribute to the discussion?

DrC – sorry that I misrepresented you. My primary point was to say that you talk science, rather than just blathering. (have you seen Steve Fuler’s little book, “Kuhn vs Popper”? Any comments? I met Kuhn at Princeton back in the summer of 1965.)

fennec – these are great links. The clarification about the Phil Jones affair is worthwhile – even though it should have been clear even from reading the original journalism that this was a tempest in a teapot. But I bet there are those who (a) will not bother to read the original articles with any intelligence, (b) will not bother to try to find out what was really going on, and (c) will continue to trumpet this as if means something.

dtrout, fennec,cannuck, if you feel so guilty, help out. Hold your breath until Sunday. Think of all the CO2 that won’t be produced to help grow vegetation on good old mother Earth.

Eddie, making money is all Al Gore had in mind from the beginning. Like when he invented the internet. He struck gold with both.

Degrees, and 32 years of job “experience” in the biological sciences, and related, including impacts of climate change on biological systems, but, hey, Ronald Ray-gun proved to me being Republican=idiot.

More than 50 years of data and studies have proven a distinct pattern. It’s easily observable, like in glaciers, and changes in “human caused emissions”- but hey, Sarah changed her mind, now it appears the oil companies today reversed direction, again, based solely on politics, not facts.

Sink with deniers or swim with intelligent life.

fennec – what’s your take on nuclear power?

dr, again, what is there in Libertarian’s post that exhibits a lack of intelligent life. Show me one thing. We can find quotes from people even calling for clear effects by 2010, or even earlier….it’s not cyclical? And what humans do, is it not minimal?

Habanero – Okay, I’ve read the WSJ article – have you checked out fennec’s links? Fair is fair.

I’m a little confused. A number of people who do not believe in AGW say that it’s been cooler in the last few years, but as I look at the data, I don’t see that. For instance, check the following graph (and there are others I could cite):

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globtemp.html

Church, thanks for the link – there are lots of items, but unfortunately they are of quite varied quality – most are obviously propaganda pieces with no authority. I don’t have time to look through the whole list – are there some that you can recommend that have real science in them?

dtroutmama, so you admit that YOU are the problem here.