The most disturbing quality, I think, among the many disturbing qualities of the current U.S. administration -- indeed, perhaps our entire society -- is its inherent lack of curiosity...
This is, perhaps, to be expected from a faith-based perspective toward governance. But it is also a clear path into a willful collision with catastrophe...
Will we survive? Perhaps. But there is a difference between our extinction -- should such occur -- as a result of being unlucky and our extinction as a result of some cocky stupidity that says: "nope, couldn't happen to us..."
I just read the IPCC policymakers' summary a bit earlier this evening and came away from that bit of study with "yep, could happen..."
Posted by leakyboat at November 17, 2007 11:04 PMThe cocky smirks on some of the dino's fossilized faces should have been a red flag.
So "photo-op" Bush opens up the military air space to help the airline passengers receive better service for the Holidays.(all the experts said this will have no effect)
I dropped a nurse off at Sky Harbor Terminal #3 at 4PM today, and Midwest Air "promptly" told her the flight to Milwaukee would be "3 or 4 HOURS" late taking off. No explanation.
Then, in a separate incident, the 10 PM NBC local news announced a bag was not screened at Terminal #4, so 33 US Air flights would be delayed as ALL the baggage would have to be screened again.
Note to Bush: The military air space ain't the problem.
It's the air space in your skull case.
They still think the Rapture is going to save them and only we unrepentants and unbelievers will be left behind with global warming's disasters. So why fix anything?
Posted by Meteor Blades at November 18, 2007 02:39 AMSeems a group of victims of 9/11 what America to know the truth about Rudy, and are unhappy with him using 9/11 for political gain.
A group of 9/11 firefighters and victims' family members with eyes on derailing Republican Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign is close to a decision on forming an entity, a 527 committee or something similar, that would run issue ads in key early nominating states.
"TV made him a hero, and we'll use TV to take him down," New York Fire Chief Jim Riches told ABC News.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3881195&page=1
Posted by Judith at November 18, 2007 04:51 AMDid you know that the Gulf of Mexico once extended as far as North-Western New Mexico. Some of the residents of that part of the state jokingly refer to that area as New Mexico's beachfront.
Interestingly, this was well before the advent of SUVs.
Posted by Bagley at November 18, 2007 06:44 AMWould it be possible for GarbageBagger to more ill informed or moronic? Serious question. How are you coming on your little essay on Orwell, you twit?
Speaking of Orwell, you have to love the Orwellian names of these Right wing "conservative" front groups---The "Council of Environmental Quality" counselling more study, delay and "consideration" in the face of the world's scientists urging immediate action. SOP.
The chief characteristic of BushAmerica is pigheaded denial of facts and blunt warnings from experts. We dug our own graves, basically.
Posted by euzoius at November 18, 2007 07:12 AMSo of course Good Morning America Sunday had a bit about this report up toward the top of the program. And, of course, rather than having a, you know, SCIENTIST discuss the report, they had some goober from Kentucky (a Dem) who went on and on about how global warming is a myth thought up by the UN to keep America down. Jeebus Chreesus, and then they wonder why no one watches MSM. The teevee was off in about 30 seconds.
Posted by lauram at November 18, 2007 07:41 AMeuzoius,
"At the beginning of the Lower Cretaceous in North America, the Mexican Sea of the late Jurassic period spread over Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and parts of Arizona, Kansas, and Colorado."
You can read about it here: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-Cretaceo.html.
But, then again, you might be one who considers actual science to be "...ill informed or moronic..."
"How are you coming on your little essay on Orwell..." Huh? You lost me on this one.
Posted by Bagley at November 18, 2007 07:49 AMThanks for the disheartening report, lauram. While it is true that a great many intelligent people can no longer stand 30 seconds of the MSM, the problem is that most folks watch it constantly. And exclusively.
So the goal of this particular MSM national TV network was to make sure that the final, unanimous UN climate report was not taken as a serious warning by their army of uninformed idiot viewers. Mission accomplished, I'd say.
Posted by euzoius at November 18, 2007 07:55 AMI don't doubt the authenticity of your meaningless factoid, you foolish dolt.
I want you to explain how do you think the geology of the lower Cretaceous (i.e at least 100 million years ago) has the slightest relevance to the climate of today or what is happening to the climate of today.
euzoius,
Well, the geologic record indicates that large parts of the South-West were once under water. This would indicate that the ice-sheets were not as thick as they are now. Hence, sometime between then and now the earth went through a cooling period.
If the ice-sheets have been melting during the last couple of hundred years, isn't it conceivable that the climate is changing not due to man's employment of fossil fuels but simply as part of a larger cycle of climate change?
i live on the Colorado Plateau which covers most of the southwest and this was once all under water / salt and minerals are mined from ancient sea beds (Real Salt) and most of us are well aware that water and land mass has changed over millions of years / the real issue is not how we are going to reverse or stop the change bc we do not have the capability to do such / the real issues will be how we meet the catastrophes to come / we do not have a sterling record of meeting disasters with effectiveness
disclaimer : i have used Real Salt for many years but do not have investment interest in the company / btw it is a most lovely salt flecked with pink and red crystals characteristic of the plateau
Katherine
Posted by Katherine Hunter at November 18, 2007 09:34 AM
Bagely, really, seriously.... get informed on the issue of climate change.
No one is denying your useless factoids (as pointed out above). They are correct. However, they do not bolster your position... all they do is expose your total and complete ignorance on the issue. Its so blatant, in fact, that I can't help but think you are intentionally trolling
What is entertaining to me is that you seem to lack the capability to understand why they are useless in the current context. I'll give you a hint: "rate of change"
(aside: sorry for feeding)
Posted by Simp at November 18, 2007 09:48 AMIf the ice-sheets have been melting during the last couple of hundred years, isn't it conceivable that the climate is changing not due to man's employment of fossil fuels but simply as part of a larger cycle of climate change? (Posted by Bagley at November 18, 2007 08:21 AM)
Well, actually, Bagley, yes, that is entirely possible and probable...
And isn't it also entirely possible and probable that human activity including pollution and systematic destruction of the natural environment might place catastrophic strains on all species -- not least our own?
I'm thinking that we are really going to have to be a bit more creative than it's either this or that...
Our survival calls for thinking outside the current two party system...
Posted by leakyboat at November 18, 2007 10:01 AMRate of change, Simp?
Well, please educate me: what has been the rate of change and over what time frame?
Also...
"However, they do not bolster your position..."
How can it be that the geologic record over hundreds of millions of years does not contribute to my position, but that observations over the past few hundred proves your position?
Posted by bagley at November 18, 2007 10:03 AM*sigh*
I'm at a loss for words.
I actually did think that you were simply trolling, but now I'm nearly convinced you really are that ignorant on the issue. Which would also imply you have no desire to become educated on it.
Posted by Simp at November 18, 2007 11:25 AMSimp, you have no answer, do you?
That is "OK." After all, catastrophic global warming is more of an article of faith for you than a matter of science.
Posted by Bagley at November 18, 2007 11:33 AMBagley, if it is an empirical perspective you seek, why not just spend some time with the IPCC technical doc?
There is some degree of guesswork associated with these conclusions -- largely because our species tends not to be omnipotent except when composing gospels and signing statements and such -- but the IPCC technical document is hardly a story based on faith...
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-ts.pdf
Posted by leakyboat at November 18, 2007 12:22 PMwow, who knew that in his spare time that bagless bagley was a climate scientist
euzoius: "The chief characteristic of BushAmerica is pigheaded denial of facts and blunt warnings from experts. We dug our own graves, basically."
well, they do create their own "reality", unfortunately for the rest of us we have to live in the real world
Posted by gay veteran at November 18, 2007 12:30 PMNo bagley, it's not remotely conceivable that the warming that's going on today is "part of a larger cycle of climate change" because we know there was a warm period 100 million years ago.
You act like we have only the sketchiest understanding of the earth's paleo-climate, when actually it's been extensively mapped out. Of course the climate has changed (naturally) many times over the course of the 4.5 billion years of the earth existence, and we know quite a bit about that history.
The (100 million years ago) Cretaceous was not a glacial or interglacial period. Nor were the continents even in the same position as today. The fact that previous non-glacial periods exist in the earth's remote past is not an adequate reason, in an age of our extraordinary scientific expertise, to think that another non-glacial warm period is magically approaching as a result of (mysterious) natural processes.
You don't know the reason for the climate of the Cretaceous, you don't know when, how, or why it came about or what its characteristics were. You haven't the slightist idea if the reasons the climate that prevailed in the Cretaceous have anything to do with the 11,000 year old climate of our interglacial age.
All you know is that the seas were higher 100 million years ago, and you think one can conceivably conclude from that they could "naturally" be rising again today. And we modern scientific humans wouldn't have the slightest idea WHY they were "naturally" rising or the earth warming. Of course you don't identify the mysterious "natural" cause you think is responsible for the warming---it's just magic.
This is the Grand Retardation of the Right on display. No scientist thinks that because the seas were high during the non-glacial Cretaceous that that is an adequate explanation or reason for glaciers starting to rapidly melt in our own cooler interglacial period. Grocerybagger reads this shit factoid at some fake non-science site and thinks he (or some crank) has identified an "argument" against the manmade nature of the ongoing warming, which of course the world's climate scientists weren't aware of in formulating their dire reports of the past decade.
Think the earth's climate scientists are unaware that there have been much warmer periods of climate in the earth's remote past, GroceryBagger? Think if they though this relevant in the slightest way to the current warming that some of them might not bring it up? Think that if there was a non-manmade (i.e natural) cause for the rapid rise in temperature and melting of glaciers on earth over the past 100 years that they wouldn't be able to hypothesize why and subsequently identify it?
You sit there and asininely asert that because there were natural causes for why the Cretaceous was a warm period 100 million years ago that we could be somehow (quite rapidly) entering such a period without being able to figure out what is (naturally) causing the warming. What appalling cretinous arrogance and stupidity. Who exactly do you think you are?
You're entitled to your (uninformed) opinion. And I'm entitled to tell you it's cretinous.
Posted by euzoius at November 18, 2007 12:33 PMWhy, euzoius, you sound like someone defending their faith. Not surprising: global warming for you (like Simp) is a matter of faith, not science.
The science associated with global warming is not settled.
Read again: the science associated with global warming is not settled.
Yes I am entitled to my opinion and you may disagree, but the arrogance of your argument -- that all is settled and done -- proves the fragility of the scholarship and "science" behind current belief in global warming.
Posted by Bagley at November 18, 2007 01:18 PMyou have no answer, do you?
Euzolus says:
Think the earth's climate scientists are unaware that there have been much warmer periods of climate in the earth's remote past...
That about sums it up.
Its just that because your unwillingness to understand why your facts don't support your argument, I suspect that it would be far too much work and quite likely a wasted effort to really explain it in detail
If you are so willing to believe in the geologic record over hundreds of millions of years then you are already staring the answer in the face, yet you are unwilling to open your eyes and see it.
Sorry, but really I just have to laugh at people still trying to sell these simplistic, debunked arguments to try and discredit what observed science has proven.
For a simple answer go read this.
Better yet spend some time at Real Climate.
If you are still unclear and have some reasonable questions, feel free to email me. I'd be happy to help ya out.
As an aside, Gore recently visited the National Snow and Ice Data Center to check in on the latest research and a researcher we know there was kinda laughing: "He's so up to date on things there was hardly anything new we had to brief him on. Just a few things from the last few months. He is incredibly well versed on the subject."
Posted by Simp at November 18, 2007 01:49 PMThere are already somewhere between twice too many and a hundred times too many human beings on this Earth for us all to live a first world lifestyle within any realistic resource budget.
All of our environmental problems and many of our social and economic problems are side-effects of our out-of-balance population.
No one wants to mention this.
Posted by joel hanes at November 18, 2007 02:08 PMI suppose that it is merely a coincidence that global warming is happening since the formation of the Republican party.
The massive numbers of greedy and uncaring GOP members burning in Hell has caused the temperature there to go out of control and radiate thru the Earth's crust.
Posted by TIKI AL at November 18, 2007 02:29 PMSimp,
Please keep your religion to yourself.
Regards,
Bagley
Posted by Bagley at November 18, 2007 02:35 PMSimp, one of the Right-wing's tactics is to confuse issues, thus rendering no definitive answer to many subjects (at least in their minds). Instead of accepting facts, they try to confuse the facts (not an easy feat).
Posted by Judith at November 18, 2007 02:48 PM"Please keep your religion to yourself."
Bagley, who are you to tell Simp to do anything?
Posted by Judith at November 18, 2007 02:50 PMThe first person to have the reins of "Meet The Press" was Martha Rountree. (1947-1953)
No women since. Did the good ol' boys take over when they saw the show was a success, or did Martha have a shrill voice?
I also thought the clip of Eleanor Roosevelt being asked 50 years ago if we would ever have a woman President, and answering "Yes, of course" was interesting.
...Timmeh sucked as usual.
Posted by TIKI AL at November 18, 2007 03:00 PM"Bagley, who are you to tell Simp to do anything?"
Who are you to ask this question?
Posted by bagley at November 18, 2007 03:14 PMYes Judith, I'm aware of the silly tactic and really I'm trying to leave this alone.
The science associated with global warming is not settled
I'm trying hard to educate and not insult, but this statement is ignorant beyond belief.
What you read, somewhere was something about climate change was unsettled and you extrapolated to fit your pre-concieved notions. Yes, there certainly are a lot of issues in climate change that are unsettled. However most of them are minor points from your grand perspective.
Please keep your religion to yourself.
lmao.. hmm look upthread it was you that asked you nitwit.
Anthropogenic warming is a major component and most likely the plurality contributor to our current rate warming. This is a scientific fact. Period. Had you taken the time to speak with any scientist actually doing related research will tell you (and yes, most of them are happy to answer questions if you simple email them intelligent questions).
It always astonishes me, even knowing whom I'm speaking with the insistence that observed and proved scientific theories are not real, but simply a "belief"
But again, the door is open, Bagely. Email me if you are really interested in pushing your ideas.
Posted by Simp at November 18, 2007 03:35 PMI have the right to ask the questions. You on the other hand have no right to tell Simp to keep any opinion, belief or fact to himself, regardless of the subject. It's a free Country until the day you "conservatives" put the last nail in the coffin.
Simp,
You do profess your faith.
Regards,
Bagley
P.S. Do you know that people like you once believed the world was flat?
Posted by Bagley at November 18, 2007 03:50 PMOn the BBC Sunday there was the IPPC warning and an article about a chap whose life had been 'saved' by a poster saying, "Got chest pains, call 999 NOW" (999 is UK for 911 in the US). He got chest pains and was going to ignore it. Then he remembered the poster, dialed the phone and the chaps in the ambulance were able to re-start his stopped heart. He lived. Had he not dialed 999 he would not have lived. 'Billboard poster saved my life'
Being human, my mind will take any old coincidences, imagine a relationship and try to make a model (or a political party or religion were I to be power hungry and manipulative).
I thought the poster to be an individual version of the IPPC warning for us all. That's not terribly useful 'cause if one dials 999 (or 911) to report a planetary emergency, no matter how true, one will likely wind up as a ward of the state (c.f. Briefing for a Descent into Hell, D. Lessing, 1971).
Wandering down this path a bit I wound up wondering whether likely mass reactions would parallel Elisabeth Kubler-Ross' emotional stages of dying, for surely 'we' are mostly in the first stage, denial. What will happen as more of humanity is forced from denial and starts to realize that their children will not likely have surviving grandchildren under business as usual models?
Grief models (Wikipedia) have stages similar to the original Kubler-Ross stages:
Since it takes a pretty dense person to not realize that something is happening to the climate, and that the something is similar to what was forecast by environmentalists for twenty years and more (a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sheep_Look_Up target=_blank>The Sheep Look Up, Brunner, 1972), denial is getting harder to maintain and so we see some transitioning between stages 1 and 2 saying things like, "It's not happening. It is all the fault of people who say it is."
We see posts like this here and in other places.
Should the model be relevant we may expect widespread unfocused anger to spread followed by bargaining.
What bargaining? How do you bargain with physics?
Marvin Harris in Cannibals and Kings argues, loosely interpreted and extrapolated, that demagogues will arise promising familial salvation and a bigger piece of the diminishing pie which will result in eroding humankind's and the planet's ability to cope with anthropogenic effusions.
Translation: Creepy politicians and dictators will make it worse even if they do not nuke or bio-bomb anything.
That's assuming the methane clathrates don't let loose in which case the conditions for this qualitative model are likely exceeded.
Translation: Game over. Dinosaurs: 0. Humans: 0. Next please.
Me? I've spent two score years working as best I could against the destruction of our tiny habitat,
vox clamantis in deserto. Not too many years left. I'm in stage 5. That does not mean I have to be silent.
Happy Thanksgiving.
JayNicks
Posted by horosho at November 18, 2007 08:44 PMGarbageBagger, simp and I provided actual arguments why your cretinous Cretaceous "argument" is an illogical red herring. You can say nothing in return, simply because you just don't understand anything about this topic whatever. Yet you have an unshakeable "opinion".
Instead, you repeat (multiple times) the bare, unsupported statement that "the science associated with global warming is not settled" and then declare that WE are the ones simply mouthing a "religious" principle. Ironic much?
That's why Grocerybagger has no interest in asking about the facts of the science or the state of scientific consensus, simp---he's the one who's the "faith-based" thinker here, as any onjective reader of the thread would conclude.
None are so blind who will not see. Bags is a dead loss as a citizen.
He is now one of a small, marginalized group of indoctrinated pinheaded deniers---the latest surveys indicate that around 85% of the public thinks that global warming is a serious problem.
But then, as Bags constantly notes, he is a "true" conservative. I guess this means he is congenitally unable to think. The fatal virus of "conservatism" long ago attacked his brain (his unfortunate parents were likely unaware it was happening) and reduced it to a viscous pudding. TLC can now see the sad results.
Posted by euzoius at November 19, 2007 06:56 AMBut then, as Bags constantly notes, he is a "true" conservative... (Posted by euzoius at November 19, 2007 06:56 AM)
I'm thinking, euzoius, that, much in the same way that Bagley seems oblivious to the vast and growing body of emperical evidence related to climate change, Bagley is also somewhat challenged by what "true conservatism" is all about...
"True conservatism" does have its intellectual and practical virtues. There are times when I quite enjoy an open conversation with a "true conservative". Such a meeting of the minds -- even in the conflict of ideas -- tends to make more rigorous the disciplines of thinking like a liberal...
But "true" conservatives, like "true" liberals, are exceedingly rare. These "true conservative" virtues do not include blind obedience to PNAC doctrine and dogma, or uncritical advocacy of and devotion to right-wing notions regarding war, wealth and avarice, economics, social values, and so on. To me the interesting thing about "true conservative" notions is that they tend to be non-political. And name calling is regarded as a childish practice...
The "true conservative" view tends to emphasize the pragmatic whereas the liberal perspective tends to center on the ideal. And this should be the true and constructive essence of our conflict...
"True conservatives" and "true liberals" tend not to attack the other. But Bagley does not understand this, I think. His recreation is apparently to go online and see what he can do to provoke an angry response. My guess is that he can be occasionally successful...
My suspicion, though, -- based on what I read in this thread -- is that what Bagley really understands about "true conservatism" would fit very neatly on the back of a postage stamp with adequate room remaining for all that Bagley knows about climate change...
Posted by leakyboat at November 19, 2007 12:33 PMThe most ironic thing is the left, which in general is the most against religion and its use of Pascal's Wager as a reason to believe in a God, is the same group that eagerly invokes Pascal's Wager to scare us into believing the world is coming to an end because cows continue to fart.
The hockey stick has been disproven. Get over it. We can't truly be sure what temps were like before 1870. And since 1870 you don't have good enough data to rule out a spurious regression.
Last time I checked the Western part of the United States doesn't make up 33% of the surface of the Earth. Yet Mann's belief in such a truth persists.
Econometrics example: From 1980 to 2000 electrical equipment manufacturing IP and residential housing permits had an adjusted R^2 value of nearly .9. Of course if you predicted that the two variables would track each other since 2000 you'd be dead wrong.
In case you are not educated in what Pascal's Wager is...
It draws from the fact that everything that is indeterminate has a probability > 0. If one can rationalize that making a choice brings an infinite benefit, then p times infinity is greater than any measurable short term costs.
Of course this is a gross oversimplification and ignores the case where you make the decision (spend lots of money and accept lower growth rates) to reduce carbon emissions, but you are wrong about the cause, remember Mann and the hockey team have exogenized very few variables in their 'models'. You end up 20 years later finding out the true cause, but have no resources remaining to save yourselves and end up with the benefit of negative infinity that you originally claimed could only occur if you took no action.
Also might I add, someone on this blog once said...
"Of course a great many of the buyers were financially unsophisticated people, most people in America are somewhat unsophisticated in financial matters and they (surprise) trust "experts" who are "helping" them, like realtors, bankers and mortgage brokers."
How many people in here even have a B.S. in Statistics? Any of you remember anything from high school statistics (if you had to take it).
If Mary has 2 kids and one of them is a girl, what is the probability the other one is a boy(assume 50/50 chance of boy or girl at fertilization and no babies were dumped in a river cuz they were a girl)?
Anyone got a proof to answer that elementary statistics problem.
I'm always rather puzzled that global warming has become a politically polarizing issue. Same for anti-smoking. Either anthropogenic global warming is happening, or it isn't. Either secondhand smoke kills, or it doesn't.
Personally I think they're both stupid scares.
Posted by idlex at November 19, 2007 07:31 PMI do so enjoy people like Jay who cherry pick data to bolster their argument.
The hockey stick has been disproven.a
Gawd.. are you seriously trotting that out?
We can't truly be sure what temps were like before 1870. And since 1870 you don't have good enough data to rule out a spurious regression.
Being a fan of statistical analysis, I'm surprised that are trying this sale. Its utter B.S. We sure do have quite a reasonable idea of temps before 1870 within a reasonable degree of probability and for all intentional purposes we know very well what temps were like.
You've also proven that no matter how many times science trumps your claims, you still repeat them ad naseum hoping for new converts.
How many people in here even have a B.S. in Statistics?
How many monkeys does it take to build a pancake doghouse?
Better yet, when was the last time you actually spoke to someone actually doing climate related research?
Thanks for the laughs though :)
Posted by Simp at November 19, 2007 10:12 PM