The Myth of the Scientific Liberal

Those who tout science should accept its findings.

Those who deny that germs cause disease shouldn't call their opponents anti-science. But that's exactly what HBO comedian and germ-theory-denier Bill Maher routinely calls Republicans to hearty applause.

The core trait of a scientific mind is that when its commitments clash with evidence, evidence rules. On that count, what grade do liberals deserve? Fail, given their reaction to the latest evidence on universal health care, global warming, and universal preschool.

The policy world was rocked recently by a New England Journal of Medicine study showing that Medicaid doesn't improve the health care outcomes of uninsured individuals.

The study compared the health status of adults who were randomly enrolled in Oregon's Medicaid program with those who weren't. It found that two years after patients received Medicaid, "no significant improvements in measured physical health outcomes" such as hypertension, cholesterol and diabetes resulted. Coverage did, however, lower depression rates and reduced financial strain.

How should a scientifically-inclined liberal have reacted? By acknowledging that if the findings hold in subsequent years, Obamacare's plan to use Medicaid to achieve its universal coverage goal -- at half-a-trillion-dollar price tag over a decade -- would need to be reconsidered.

Some liberals such as Ray Fisman of Slate did just that -- but they were the exception. Most liberals either dissed the study's methodology after praising it previously (Kevin Drum, Mother Jones) or ignored its core findings and reported the good news (Jonathan Cohn, The New Republic) or attacked Obamacare's opponents as heartless fools (Paul Krugman of The New York Times).

For two decades, progressives have castigated those questioning global warming as "deniers."

But the Economist, once firmly in the alarmist camp, recently acknowledged that global temperatures have remained stagnant for 15 years even as greenhouse-gas emissions have soared.

This may be because existing models have overestimated the planet's sensitivity. Or because the heat generated is sinking to the ocean bottom. Or because of something else completely.

How should a scientifically inclined liberal react to this trend? By inhaling deeply and backing off on economy-busting mitigation measures till science offers clearer answers.

And how have liberals reacted? By sticking their fingers in their ears and chanting la-la-la.

The New York Times editorialized this week that the European Union should redouble its efforts to salvage its floundering carbon trading system. This scheme forces companies that exceed their greenhouse gas emission quota to either reduce production or spend gobs to buy spare quotas from others.

The Washington Post's Brad Plumer penned an essay noting that atmospheric carbon emissions are now approaching levels only seen in the Pliocene Era -- without bothering to note that they aren't producing the same warming this time. Most priceless, however, was Chris Mooney, author of The Republican War on Science.

He spilled serious ink in Mother Jones defending the highly questionable "hockey stick" graph -- the core evidence of global warmists -- which allegedly showed a sudden warming spike in the last century after a millennium of steady temperatures.

Liberals don't just want universal health insurance -- they also want universal preschool. But the evidence for government-funded preschool is even more dubious than for government-funded health care.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Sevo||

    Also failing on alt text.

  • mokdon06||

    Evan. I just agree... Patrick`s report is impressive... last tuesday I bought a great Volkswagen Golf GTI after I been earnin $8978 this-last/5 weeks an would you believe $10,000 last-munth. it's realy the easiest-job Ive ever done. I began this 3 months ago and immediately got me over $73 per-hr. I went to this website grand4.com
    (Go to site and open "Home" for details)

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    The only problem with this essay is that the "scientific mind" has, historically been just as prone to cling to well loved if factually challenged theories as any other human mind. Doesn't mean we shouldn't challenge Liberals (or Conservatives, or what-have-you) on matters of proof.

  • cavalier973||

    I took forever for scientists to abandon the Aristotelian model of the solar system.

  • pinostabaum||

    you are just never gonna let them live that down, are you?

  • Libertarius||

    They also abandoned the Aristotelian laws of identity and causality, hence the merger between theoretical physics and zen buddhism.

  • SQRLSY One||

    A “science” is simply something spouted by a person who… And, the more of these at the same time that you can do, the better, kinda like juggling… ‘A) wears a suit and a tie, or ‘B) speaks in a snazzy foreign, not-trashy-American, sophisticated accent, or ‘C) speaks using a TON of specialized jargon, or ‘D) espouses something ending in “…ology” like “Scientology” (see, it even has “Scient” in it , OK?!?!)… But please be advised, Scientology has now been superseded by… Drum roll, please… SCIENFOOLOGY!!!! To learn more about Scienfoology, see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/ .

  • hotsy totsy||

    Zen is a teaching of devils. Just so ya know.

  • ||

    Semi OT but related to liberals preferring the approved narrative to real science: Thomas Sowell recently came out with Intellectuals and Race, which pulls much of its content from the race-related chapters of Intellectuals and Society but also adds more, and I'm about halfway through it as of this morning. It's excellent so far.

  • ||

    Sowell is just another way of spelling excellent.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Total fail.

    The 2000-2009 decade was the warmest on record, easily surpassing the previous hottest decade — the 1990s — researchers said Tuesday in a report providing fresh evidence that the planet may be warming at a potentially disastrous rate.

    In 2009, global surface temperatures were 1.01 degree above average, which tied the year for the fifth warmest year on record, the National Climatic Data Center said.

    And that helped push the 2000-2009 decade to 0.96 degree above normal, which the agency said "shattered" the 1990s record value of 0.65 degree above normal.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3494.....ZJMk8q6qCI

    I understand why conservatives want to burnish the lousy science record of their dim colleagues but this is ridiculous. Creationism is undoubtedly the stupidest shit ever perpetuated on the science community.

  • Virginian||

    And normal is measured by....what?

    We have, for some areas of the Earth, one hundred years of temperature data, which is supposedly reliable. That's it. No more. That's nothing on a geologic time scale. We have no real data for anything before 1850 CE.

    AGW proponents are building skyscrapers on sand.

  • Tony||

    If you don't know what you're talking about, why are you talking?

  • KDN||

    If you don't know what you're talking about, why are you talking?

    Never stopped you.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 5.14.13 @ 10:51AM |#
    "If you don't know what you're talking about, why are you talking?"

    That damned mirror, shithead.

  • sarcasmic||

    You don't understand! He agrees with the experts! That makes him really smart! You question the experts and their consensus! That makes you really stupid! See?

  • Tony||

    Being smart entails knowing what you don't know. People claiming to know everything, especially people claiming they know better than the world's experts about their own field, are either the world's greatest geniuses or incredibly stupid. I'll let the peanut gallery decide about you.

  • sarcasmic||

    Being smart entails knowing what you don't know.

    Looks like we can count you out.

  • Tony||

    I know I don't know the mathematics behind quantum physics. That doesn't mean I assume I know that the universe is made of blackberry jam, or that my ignorance has anything whatsoever to do with the things scientists have figured out.

    But asking a libertarian to be humble in his approach to his own knowledge is like asking a dog not to lick his balls.

  • sarcasmic||

    I know I don't know the mathematics behind quantum physics.

    I've taken quantum in college. That puts me a step above you when it comes to judging what you call "science."

    The basic argument against these experts and their consensus is that science means something. It means experimentation with repeatable results.

    That does not exist is climate "science."

    There are no repeatable experiments, the models fail, and the predictions fail.

    So it's not science.

    A consensus of scientists is not science. It's politics.

    Only a liberal would be stupid enough to believe otherwise.

  • ||

    I taught quantum in college. That puts me a step above you when it comes to judging what you call "science."

    I've taken quantum in college. That puts me a step above you when it comes to judging what you call "science."

    The basic argument against these experts and their consensus is that science means something. It means experimentation with repeatable results.

    That does not exist is climate "science."

    There are no repeatable experiments, the models fail, and the predictions fail.

    By your criterion, paleontology and astronomy aren't science. Regardless of the truth or falsity of the consensus of climate scientists, you can't judge it by experimental science standards. It must be judged according to historical science standards, and let's face it, the data are horribly incomplete.

  • GregMax||

    "Science" is the Latin word for knowledge. "Science" is a method of analysis. It doesn't tell us anything; it doesn't care if you're discussing astronomy or rectal sores or whatever else you want to label as "science". The scientific method is a standard for rational analysis of questions.

    I've had people "teach" me stuff in college they were unqualified to teach. The point of science is that it is NOT concerned with argument by authority ("I took or taught quantum in college") and not concerned with argument by emotion. If anything someone says smells of reference to authority or appeals to emotion it's probably as much bullshit as the doctrine of any religion.

  • mojavewolf||

    I hope you understand that argument from authority has no scientific validity and are simply saying that rhetorically.

    Could you explain how sarcasmic's criterion would have any bearing on astronomy or paleontology? Both have falsifiability. Darwinian histories are testable in many ways. So are astrophysical concepts, as Max Planck and Arthur Eddington proved. Such is not the case with assertions regarding climate. There are proxies for historical global temperatures, but they are grossly imprecise on the scale Michael Mann would desire, do not produce evidence in support of AGW, and have a lousy history of predictive power (How many climate refugees are there in the world?). You are very correct that the data are horrible.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    mojavewolf, appeals to authority is rampant in the left camp. We need a 'weed b gone' spray.

  • Alec Leamas||

    Do paleontologists predict that different kinds of dinosaurs will arise/evolve?

  • mgd||

    I've told Tony this exact same point--AGW theory has absolutely nothing to do with science--every time shows up on a climate thread. He never responds.

    @ Tony|7.12.11 @ 5:52PM|#
    How can we possibly know if all of biology or physics isn't similarly infected by the evil liberal bias?

    My answer:
    Because in large part their results are based on the scientific method:
    Background studied, hypothesis formed, experiment designed, experiment
    executed, results analyzed, hypothesis either supported or refuted. The
    experiment can be replicated, others can do the same and see for themselves
    the results. The results are verifiable. The hypotheses have predictive value
    and are falsifiable.

    (con't)

  • mgd||

    This is not what is happening in the AGW debate. The hypotheses are not tested with replicatable experiments, but are reached by means of models. The validity of the models is an unknown although there is a "consensus" that they are valid. (N.B.: "Consensus" is not a part of the scientific method.) The hypotheses have no predictive validity. Global temperatures are well below what even the most conservative IPCC estimates speculated temperatures would be today. Ocean temperatures are well below where James Hansen's predictions place them. IPCC predictions that global warming would cause less rainfall across Africa have been proven wrong. Same for predictions on declining rainfall in India, on thinning and disappearance of Himalayan glaciers, on the slowing of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC), and on and on. The models don't even predict the present
    accurately--it exaggerates global warming from 1850 to 2005 by 67%.

    (con't)

  • mgd||

    Finally, nothing is falsifiable. Global warming leads to drought, but when
    drought doesn't materialize, the adherents say that is also a possible outcome of global warming. It leads to record rainfalls which don't materialize--which is also proof. It leads to higher temperatures, obviously, and that is used as a form of proof. But when record cold materializes, that is also proof--global warming causes record cold. It causes more hurricanes, but when we have seasons of fewer rather than more hurricanes that proves nothing. When we see an increase in the number of reported tornadoes, AGW adherents claim global warming predicts more and more severe tornadoes; when it turns out that the increase is due to our improved ability to detect smaller tornadoes, but that the frequency of stronger tornadoes has decreased, that's not proof that global warming is not occurring. When there is no actual warming for 12 years, that is also not proof--but just to set the record straight, the adherents change their tune from "global warming" to "climate change".

    Another field that does not rely on the scientific method, in which no claims are falsifiable? Religion.

  • Ben Kalafut||

    " When there is no actual warming for 12 years, that is also not proof--but just to set the record straight, the adherents change their tune from "global warming" to "climate change"."

    Ahh, yes, the great conspiracy theory surfaces again. People say "climate change" to hide that they're not predicting or talking about warming anymore, except they haven't stopped predicting, worrying about, or measuring (!) warming.

    Dave Nolan used to say that libertarians tend to be smarter than other people. I'm not yet convinced he was wrong but if he was right they more than make up for it in lousy character.

  • Ben Kalafut||

    "I've taken quantum in college. That puts me a step above you when it comes to judging what you call "science."

    Too bad you weren't in my class when I taught it. You could have learned something.

    Are you really claiming that observational science is not science? Neither astronomy, cosmology, geology, nor ecology are science? Do tell me more.

  • Sevo||

    Hey, shitstain, try answering the questions below.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    But asking a libertarian to be humble in his approach to his own knowledge is like asking a dog not to lick his balls.

    Apparently projection isn't just for movie theaters.

    I know I don't know the mathematics behind quantum physics

    As you've repeatedly demonstrated, even 5th-grade math is beyond you.

  • ||

    Quantum physics has predictive, repeatable, falsifiable factors. That's what makes it science. I know nothing about climatology specifically, other than the basic fact that not one workable model exists, and that it rises to none of the above requirements for something to be "empirical".

    We don't need to be scientists to recognize what is and is not science. Consensus, for example, is most certainly not science. It's a warm blanket for idiots.

  • ||

    Climatology is different than quantum theory. Like astronomy, cosmology, or paleontology, you can't run experiments. You CAN make predictions about what's going to be found and have your theories falsified or strengthened based on what you predicted. But, no, you can't do repeatable experiments- but that doesn't make it not-science. It's science.

    Having your models get falsified and then not abandoning them- that's not science.

  • ||

    "Climatology is different than quantum theory. Like astronomy, cosmology, or paleontology, you can't run experiments. You CAN make predictions about what's going to be found and have your theories falsified or strengthened based on what you predicted. But, no, you can't do repeatable experiments- but that doesn't make it not-science. It's science.

    Having your models get falsified and then not abandoning them- that's not science."

    I got a little loosey-goosey with the wording of my post (it was quite unscientific), so let me re-phrase that...the conclusions are non-scientific. If you can't account for how the clouds work in your model, and your model has no real repeatable, predictable conclusions, your conclusions based on that model are not empirical, and should not be treated as hard science, and certainly should not be treated as a basis for further conclusions.

    I probably dicked that up, too, but I'm going with "language is subjective".

  • ||

    This is pretty much Tony's MO: he wants to have a conversation in which he can alternately try to make some point, and then insult libertarians in general, and perhaps you in particular. When you reply, it's an opportunity for him to spew filth again. He engages in argumentum ad nauseam just for the opportunity to repetitively make the argumentative equivalent of a monkey throwing its own poop, and he claims his goal is to improve mankind by debunking/winning over libertarians to progressivism. I'm embarrassed for the times I took him as a serious person.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Actually Tony, if we go with your theory of 'not knowing is wisdom' than I should think liberalism is an epic fail on this front since it seems rooted in projections and presumptions to me. Libertarians are more into the notion of 'give me the power that which I cannot change.'

    In other words, liberals make a living of making policy about stuff they know shit about.

  • EdwinNJ||

    Tony, you presume to KNOW what's going to happen in the future, AND that your personal political agenda is going to SAVE THE WORLD from flooding, and you;re asking us to be humble?

  • ||

    Being smart entails knowing what you don't know.

    Um...I'm pretty sure I know that none of the predictions made by your "scientific" gods have come to fruition. You are saying I shouldn't question them when their predictions prove false?

  • Tony||

    Which are you talking about?

  • ||

    Where is the hockey stick dipshit? The warming was supposed to increase exponentially. There has been NO SIGNIFICANT increase in global temperature for 15+ years.

    The predictions aren't even close to reality.

    chart

  • Tony||

    Uh that chart shows an average warming of 0.4 degrees just since 1979 (an odd place to pick as a starting point). Do you think that's not significant?

    Despite all the bullshit propaganda you've read, Mann's work has largely been vindicated.

  • ||

    LAST 15 YEARS!

    Explain the departure from the models!

    Asshole!

  • Alec Leamas||

    The models are correct, it is the Globe's stubborn refusal to warm in conformity with the models which is wrong.

  • Libertarius||

    You think you're being sarcastic, but unfortunately you're not. The philosophy of science has gone full primacy of consciousness in its metaphysical orientation, which = the primacy of models over reality.

  • Ben Kalafut||

    No departure from the models, and it is an obvious lie to claim otherwise.

    Start at http://www.realclimate.org/ind.....more-14579

  • ||

    So the models predicted there would be no increased warming (significant) for 15+ years?

  • Sevo||

    Ben Kalafut| 5.14.13 @ 7:51PM |#
    "No departure from the models, and it is an obvious lie to claim otherwise."

    Right, Ben, as soon as we 'correct' for all the data we don't like, why the graph looks just fine!
    How much is cherry-picking paying these days?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Despite all the bullshit propaganda you've read, Mann's work has largely been vindicated

    Where's the hockey stick, moron?

  • Torontonian||

    1979 is a sensible starting point because that when the satellite record (UAH & RSS) begin.

    Prior to that the only data are surface measurements, which are prone to a number of errors and biases.

    But you already knew that, didn't you.

  • sarcasmic||

    But you already knew that, didn't you.

    I'm sure he did. Remember that he is a liar.

  • Brutus||

    Uh that chart shows an average warming of 0.4 degrees just since 1979 (an odd place to pick as a starting point). Do you think that's not significant?

    Significance is not a matter of point-and-gasp, but of statistical rigor. That 0.4 degrees average has a variation that tells us, statistically, it might well be zero. We just don't know.

  • ETremens||

    "Despite all the bullshit propaganda you've read, Mann's work has largely been vindicated."
    -- Tony

    "Despite all the bullshit propaganda you've read, Haldeman's work has been largely vindicated."
    -- Ehrlichman

  • Ben Kalafut||

    Win, again. But the trolls are out in full force. "La la la, I can't hear you...what? More scientific papers? Socialist! Socialist propaganda! Ow, my fweedoms!"

  • ||

    Scientific papers? You linked to a blog post. Here's a fun snippet:

    Short term (15 years or less) trends in global temperature are not usefully predictable as a function of current forcings. This means you can’t use such short periods to ‘prove’ that global warming has or hasn’t stopped, or that we are really cooling despite this being the warmest decade in centuries.

    Lol. So on a graph that covers a 30 year period, ignore the entire latter half, and only examine that value-corrected first half because, after value-correcting, the model works quite well for those years! The exception to this rule would be when stating that the current decade, despite taking place within the short-term 15-year window for which trends are not usefully predictable, was conclusively the warmest decade in centuries... based on all that high-quality satellite data we have from the 1700 and 1800's.

  • Contrarian P||

    What did you win? I haven't seen you logically refute anything.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Mann's work has largely been vindicated.

    Wishing doesn't make it so, Tony.

    -jcr

  • Bill||

    1979 was picked since two of the temperature records (UHH and RSS) are satellite records that only began in 1979. Why don't you educate yourself?

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Hockey sticks are for hockey players.

    Bobby Orr.

  • Alec Leamas||

    Guess who might be considered the world's experts on the existence of a God and morality?

    Do you accept the primacy of their authority, or do you question it?

  • DaveAnthony||

    I know enough to know when to be skeptical of "experts in their field" when their models can't predict shit. Like most macro-economists, for example.

  • sarcasmic||

    I know enough to know when to be skeptical of "experts in their field" when their models can't predict shit. Like most macro-economists, for example.

    Keynesian economics and AGW are just intellectual shills for total government control of the economy.

  • Alec Leamas||

    Government control of nearly everything is the solution, AGW is the last and best problem they were able to find. Before that it was the "population bomb." Same solution, the problem changes - if AGW loses more steam, expect them to find yet another problem in need of the same solution.

  • Ama-Gi Anarchist||

    Appeal to Authority fallacy. Try again, Tony.

  • Brandon||

    No, no, no. The experts agree with Tony.

  • John Galt||

    It's almost like magic how anytime "Global Warming" is mentioned Tony the herp derping retard appears.

  • Ben Kalafut||

    Win.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    What is a "proponent"?

    AGW is real. The alternative is to be a denialist.

    Now, in my view, there is nothing to be done about it but unleash the free market (natural gas, solar, and nuclear) and diminish the effect of AGW via technology.

    Is that realism or denialism?

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug| 5.14.13 @ 10:52AM |#
    "AGW is real."

    No, dipshit; that's conjecture. The climate is constantly changing, while you and other idiots swear that the current change is a result of mankind absent any evidence whatsoever.

  • Virginian||

    It's like he doesn't know what the A in AGW stands for.

    He's not that stupid, is he?

  • Brett L||

    GW is real, the "A" is the contentious part.

  • Seamus||

    Not for the past 15 years of so, it isn't.

  • Seamus||

    *or* so.

  • entropy||

    Not even, man.

    Didn't you get the memo? That's why they changed it to "climate change" not global warming. Warming is too specific, that would require warming. Now it's just "change".

    Global climate change is real. The A is BS and the W is BS 50% of the time. The G is legit though.

  • KPres||

    Even if the "A" is real as well, what matters is that there's a rather large political faction out there with a dubious history of exploiting genuine environmental concerns to further its unrelated agenda, and that faction is and will continue to exaggerate the effects of a warming planet to their own self-serving ends.

    That alone, regardless of the science, justifies any opposition, even the people that deny the "GW" part.

  • Zeb||

    Sometimes you are a total ass, but that is a reasonable position to take, I'd say. The biggest problem with the mainstream AGW people is that they think that scientific consensus means that their policy ideas are also necessarily the right ones or will do any good at all.

  • Virginian||

    It's not fucking reasonable to assert that human activity is the driver of climate fluctuations. It's an unproven assertion, and it might not be scientifically provable due to the fact that it's not possible to construct a second planet to act as a control.

    Fucking science, how does it work?

  • KDN||

    No, no, no. We can conduct a second planet. In a computer. Because we already know all there is to know about the climate, the planet, and the universe. But you should totally give us more tax money so we can continue to study all of these things that we already know everything about.

  • entropy||

    Because we already know all there is to know about the climate, the planet, and the universe.

    But not computer models. Or chaos theory.

  • Zeb||

    I don' think that the level of scientific certainty about AGW is nearly as good as they claim it to be. But it seems plausible. And as long as you don't promote massively disruptive policies to try to fix it, I'm not going to spend a lot of time arguing with you if you do believe it. A lot of people on the skeptical side of this argument are idiots as well and it would help the cause of liberty a lot more to focus on how much better free markets will deal with any problem that arises because of climate change than to argue about why it happens and whose fault it is.

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's not that I'm convinced that we couldn't possibly be contributing to the warming of the planet, though the evidence that it is likely to be catastrophic seems to be fading quickly, but what that means, how serious it is, whether we can extrapolate trends, etc., are huge, not-really-answered questions.

    And always check to see what someone means by "free market" when they use that phrase. It sometimes doesn't mean free market at all.

  • Brett L||

    It's not that I'm convinced that we couldn't possibly be contributing to the warming of the planet

    The laws of thermodynamics more or less guarantee that we are. Now whether it is a perceivable amount...

  • Virginian||

    Except the whole point of AGW theory is a Trojan horse for government control. It's a nonpartisan way to argue for new taxes, new regulations, new bureaucracies.

    TO SAVE THE PLANET!!!!111

    It's bullshit, it always has been bullshit, and it will continue to be bullshit.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I think the politics of it are complete bullshit, and I think a lot of the science is mostly bullshit. But not all of it.

    Of course, the problem is unraveling the bullshit from the truth.

  • Zeb||

    And nothing is scientifically provable.

  • sarcasmic||

    And nothing is scientifically provable.

    Then by definition it is not science.

  • Zeb||

    So science doesn't exist?

    You misunderstand me. Nothing is scientifically provable because science has nothing to do with proof. Only finding evidence for or against a theory.

    I know people use the word "proof" that way, but I think it is better not to. No scientific theory is proven in the sense that it is definitely true and final. The unfalsifiable nature of a scientific proposition means that it can never be proven, only better supported by evidence.

  • John Galt||

    Why must you be a denier of Scientific Method, Buttplug? Why do you so hate sound science?

  • Contrarian P||

    "AGW is real. The alternative is to be a denialist."

    Similar:

    "Hell is real." Seen those billboards? Case closed!

    "Ghosts are real." Can't measure them, but trust us, they exist.

    "God created the world in six days." Because my infallible book says so. How do I know it's infallible? It says so in the book.

    Evidence. We need evidence. Not models that don't agree with reality. In other words, it's not enough to say the planet is warming. There must be proof that humans are causing it at a greater than natural rate, and that means proof that is verifiable by observation, particularly if that means completely reworking the economy in response.

  • Tony||

    If it were demonstrated that the warming is being caused naturally, why would that change anything? People are more likely to survive a natural catastrophe than a manmade catastrophe with the exact same results? I don't get it.

    There's been rather extensive research on this topic, and if you don't think there's plenty of evidence of human contribution, then you just aren't doing your homework. There's only so much I can do if you refuse to just go read about where the fucking science is right now.

  • Juice||

    We have, for some areas of the Earth, one hundred years of temperature data, which is supposedly reliable. That's it. No more. That's nothing on a geologic time scale. We have no real data for anything before 1850 CE.

    There are a few thermometers that go back to the 1600s and a few more that started in the 1700s but it's only a handful.

  • GregMax||

    I have an oven clock and a microwave clock. Most times I look at them they say the same time. Sometimes they disagree by a minute (sorry about anthropomorphizing my clocks :( )
    In order to use "thermometers" as sources of data, they MUST be exactly calibrated to the degree of measurement of every single thermometer that supplied data to the researchers who use that data. That means, since "the consensus" believes it can generalize about the planets atmosphere to the TENTHS of degrees over a thousand years, each measurement device MUST be calibrated to the tenths of degrees in order for the conclusions to be valid. . . .

  • GregMax||

    . . . Very few thermometers (forget "ice cores" and medieval thermometers) before the 1980s were calibrated to each other (invalid data); necessarily measured to the tenths of degrees (invalid data); or can be shown to have been in reasonably similar environs (not up against a hot building versus out in a dirt field). So the vast majority of data the Consensus use are invalid as information that would lead one to claim that in the next hundred years the global atmospheric temperature (representing tens of billions of cubic miles within 5 miles of sea level)will or won't increase permanently by 2-4 degrees.
    It is bullshit. If you don't get this, you don't get the scientific method.

  • DarrenM||

    After learning a little about the universe with supernovas, black hole, how a solar system is created, etc., "global warming" seems pretty tame. If I remember right, the current theory is that about 65 million years ago and asteroid crashed into the Earth and destroyed 70% of life. I find that hat just a tad more interesting.

  • WTF||

    There's been no net global warming since 1998. Way to cherry pick data dipshit.

  • Tony||

    If only you were clever enough to appreciate the irony of that sentence.

  • Cytotoxic||

    If only you understood what irony is.

  • John Galt||

    There's been no net global warming since 1998.

    That's why the ignorant frauds no longer call it "global warming." They now refer to it simply as "climate change." Since the climate has never done anything other than change they won't be wrong this time!

  • GW||

    Science, how does it work?

    Does the fact that all of the models have been wrong indicate that maybe the "science" isn't exactly correct?

    The warming is real.

    The cause is undetermined.

  • ||

    God, you are an ignorant fuck.

    The 2000-2009 decade was the warmest on record, easily surpassing the previous hottest decade — the 1990s — researchers said
    global temperatures have remained stagnant for 15 years even as greenhouse-gas emissions have soared.

    You do realize that these two statements can BOTH BE TRUE, right?

  • robc||

    The first statement ISNT true, as records make it pretty clear there were warmer decades in the past.

    Roman Empire decades, maybe, but those are still "on record".

  • Rasilio||

    "The 2000-2009 decade was the warmest on record, easily surpassing the previous hottest decade — the 1990s — researchers said Tuesday in a report providing fresh evidence that the planet may be warming at a potentially disastrous rate."

    None of which refutes a word of this article. The article did not claim that AGW was a fraud or not occurring, nor did it refute any claims that warming has occurred. What it did do is highlight some data which calls into question the models which predict catastrophic levels of warming. Specifically it now appears that the climate sensitivity is significantly below what was previously thought to be the lower limit and we are really only looking at 2 - 3 degrees Fahrenheit in additional warming over the next century, well below the 5 degrees Celsius catastrophe previously predicted.

  • Cytotoxic||

    The 2000-2009 decade was the warmest on record, easily surpassing the previous hottest decade

    As would be expected for a FLAT PLATEAU. Everytime the warmists use this point is further proof they are all out of ammo.

    So no little dipshit, it is you that fails.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Palin's Buttwipe,

    In 2009, global surface temperatures were 1.01 degree above average, which tied the year for the fifth warmest year on record, the National Climatic Data Center said.


    Buttwipe, the numbers you indicate are deliberately skewed. There has been NO significant warming since 1998:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci.....ng-up.html

    Besides, the claim begs the question, as it assumes an ideal average from whence no one shall deviate. That's preposterous and unscientific.

  • ||

    "Creationism is undoubtedly the stupidest shit ever perpetuated on the science community."

    I am not in any way, shape form or fashion a creationist, but at least it has the whole "grandiosity/coherence of it all" thing in its camp, which has seemed like at least a reasonable argument to many of the greatest scientific minds of today and the past.

    What evidence is there for the benefit of centralized economies in smoothing recessions and creating equality? None. 0 for trillions. Ditto gun regulation to reduce crime. There ARE dumber things than creationism. At least creationism isn't outright defied by literally every piece of evidence in existence.

  • effinayright||

    "Creationism is undoubtedly the stupidest shit ever perpetuated on the science community."

    Ever hear of Lysenko, skippy?

    Or how about the inane idea that the "missing" heat has somehow disappeared into a gigantic thermos bottle deep in the world's oceans.

    Puh-leez! Anyone who's studied thermo or heat transfer knows that is an utter, complete and total impossibility---something so stupid that only a green weenie could believe it.

    Creationism has absolutely nothing to do with scientific challenges to AGW. The latter relies on data, gobs of it that falsify the models that the greens confuse with "experiments".

    Perhaps you haven't noticed, but all governments, everywhere except Australia, are walking away from it.

    Even the Japanese didn't renew the Kyoto accords.

    You guys have been pissing down our legs and telling us it's raining.

    But as recent weather has shown us, your "rain" is freezing.

    Geddoudaheah!

  • KPres||

    Do creationists claim that it's scientific, though? I thought they generally concede it's faith based?

  • Peakview||

    Nice. The article linked to is from 2010. We have better, more accurate information today based on observations. Science.

  • sam the man||

    Why did you bring up creationism when nothing in your comment involves the topic

  • plusafdotcom||

    and that reference is from a 2010 article.

  • tarran||

    Watching the Anthropogenic Global Warming Cult lose their shit as reality refuses to follow their apocalyptic predictions is entertaining.

    Unlike the Seventh Day Adventists, they can't even take comfort in their good works - since their works have done nothing but promote misery.

  • ||

    They've been losing their shit for a while. They show no signs yet of slowing down. It's really quite entertaining, but of course, cults usually are as long as you're not in them.

  • sarcasmic||

    If a consensus of really smart scientists says something is true, then who are you to point to evidence that contradicts them? I mean, they're like experts and stuff! And they have a consensus! They voted! Everyone knows that a consensus trumps contradictory evidence! Especially when you look at the source! I mean, they're like pawns of the corporations and stuff!

  • tarran||

    Unless you're Einstein and until you have come up with his General Theory of Relativity, you aren't allowed to deny the existence of Vulcan.

  • ||

    Yeah, but then you have to write nonsense about socialism.

  • Brett L||

    What's the old saw: "If an old physicist says a new idea is theoretically possible he is almost certainly correct. If he says a new idea is theoretically impossible he is almost certainly wrong."

  • Tony||

    But almost nothing libertarians believe has any empirical basis.

    And your continued insistence on making bed with climate change deniers will inevitably leave libertarianism a brittle husk on the ash heap of history where it belongs, assuming there's anyone left to dump it there. There is nothing quite so evil as the delusion that puts a utopian ideology about fucking tax rates in the way of responding to the worst environmental catastrophe humanity has ever known.

  • GW||

    Go after the strawmen! KILL THEM!

  • Tony||

    You are not qualified to judge what is or isn't a straw man when you are ignorant of the basic scientific facts of the matter at hand.

  • Drake||

    So we should defer to Top Men.

  • Tony||

    You should defer to experts on the subjects of their expertise. As you do for any other field in science or any other academic pursuit in which you personally are not an expert.

    Or do you just run around like a decapitated chicken completely unsure about everything from the existence of Abraham Lincoln to whether you'll spontaneously fall upward?

  • RG||

    The experts called for a lot more warming than has actually happened.

  • Tony||

    Cite?

  • WTF||

    Don't pretend that you are unaware that all the models predicted continuous warming, and failed to predict the actual lack of warming since 1998, you mendacious fuck.

  • Tony||

    Look here and have your talking point debunked. Feel free to browse the rest of the site to see a nice little list of others constantly trotted out here. I know you won't.

  • RG||

  • Tony||

    You have something not written by a political ideologue nonscientist who works at a prominent denier outfit? Did you even read the link I cited?

  • ||

    Here is the "about" page for the site you linked, MonoTony. Could you indicate which of the people there are climate scientists per your requirement, as opposed to scientifically-competent people who are nonspecialists (much like many people here), or people "interested in climate research"?

  • Bill||

    I've read it before. A lot of it is attacking strawmen. I'm not surprised that you like it. You know John Cook is a cartoonist, right?

  • WTF||

    Cherry-picked data that doesn't use actual consistent temperature measurements. That's your counter argument? Look here, dumbass. Pathetic.

  • Bill||

    Every single IPCC report? Fool.

  • Drake||

    Don't question the Top Men!

  • Tony||

    And was it nonexperts who figured that out?

  • Drake||

    Because thermometers are hard to read.

  • ||

    Tony, have you gone to see that doctor like I recommended a few weeks back? I mean, I've often disagreed with you, and that's fine. People often disagree on issues.

    BUT, in the past month or so, you've been completely unable to put forth a coherent thought.

    I'm truly concerned about your mental well being and I think you need to seek some help. Please, before you hurt someone or yourself.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    What "experts" would that be?

    There is no such thing as an "expert" in any subject on this earth where the veracity of the claims made by said alleged "expert" cannot be unequivocally quantified as absolutely 100% accurate by measurement in the physical world.

    Everything other than that is merely a matter of opinion.

  • Tony||

    That ladies and gentleman is what a real straw man looks like.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Prove it - with unequivocal and absolute definitiveness.

    Or you've proven absolutely nothing.

  • cavalier973||

    You should defer to experts on the subjects of their expertise.

    Because experts are never wrong, never fudge data to promote an agenda, never succumb to peer pressure, never lie, cheat, or steal.

    These amazing individuals have somehow risen above the baser impulses of their corrupt human nature because of SCIENCE!

  • Tony||

    So prove that they're wrong and win your Nobel Prize.

    Conspiracy theories destroy the mind dude.

  • cavalier973||

    I don't have to win a Nobel Prize to maintain a healthy skepticism, Parsons.

  • Homple||

    "You should defer to experts on the subjects of their expertise." Tony is right in this. A man with a degree in Theology (an expert, right?) told me I'd better get right with Jesus or I'd go to hell so I got right with Jesus and now I'm saved. Halleluja Glory Glory Amen.

  • WTF||

    ..."the worst environmental catastrophe humanity has ever known."

    Too fucking funny. You're not even trying anymore, are you?
    And by the way, I don't think too many of us here deny that the climate has changed many many times over earth's history, alternating between cold glacial periods and warmer interglacial periods. The point is that you and your ilk have failed to prove that the warming since the end of the Little Ice Age is anthropogenic, rather than a natural cycle; especially in light of the fact that all of the warming models have failed spectacularly over the last 15 years.

  • Tony||

    Your bullshit talking points are like 10 years old dude, at least.

    Yes, it's a proved fact that recent warming is caused by human activity. There's no reason to deny it except politics.

  • WTF||

    So you just assume that which is under debate, without proof, and dodge the salient facts that contradict your worldview, and you have the balls to claim others are anti-science?
    Projection much?

    Keep gobbling that thorny cock of authority, Toni.

  • Tony||

    It's not under debate among scientists. It's under debate among idiots.

  • WTF||

    Another lie. As expected.
    What a dishonest asshole.

  • Tony||

    There is no debate among scientists about whether global warming is being caused by human activity.

  • RG||

    Really? All warming is caused by human activity?

  • Tony||

    The recent large spike in warming is what we're talking about, of course, and all other possible causes have been ruled out.

  • WTF||

    all other possible causes have been ruled out.

    Lie. And an obvious one since we know that the earth has gone through warming cycles in the past and has been warmer than current conditions.

  • Tony||

    But natural warming cycles happen over much longer timescales than the century or so in which current warming has spiked. What's scary about that is that the faster an environmental change happens, the more species just drop dead rather than seeing their ancestors adapt.

  • KDN||

    But natural warming cycles happen over much longer timescales than the century or so in which current warming has spiked.

    /facepalm

  • trshmnstr||

    Ah yes, because the dinosaurs left us a daily record of surface temperature for the last 100 million years.

    Comparing 25 years of satellite data is definitely apples to apples with ice core analysis that has significant issues pinpointing dates within hundreds of years. Ice Core Sampling

    I'm just gonna leave this wikipedia article on aliasing here as a possibility for why we can't detect very short ups and downs in global temperature.

  • effinayright||

    Idiot. You are engaging in the fallacy of the "argument from ignorance" EVERY BIT AS MUCH AS Creationists, who "explain" the currently unexplainable as being caused by God!

    Game set match.

    The final score:

    Us: Infinity

    You: Dick

  • Bill||

    Look at the slope of the rise in temperatures from 1910 to 1940. Very similar to the steep rise in the 1980-2000 time frame. The argument that the more recent is due to man has NOT been proved beyond all doubt.

  • effinayright||

    Hey, Tony, why not tell us what percent of the atmosphere is CO2, w/o looking it up.

    Then tell us what percent of CO2 is from human activity.

    Then tell us what percent of the atmosphere is made up of water vapor, then tell us if water vapor is a greenhouse gas.

    THEN tell us why NO AGW computer models can account for the greenhouse effect of water vapor.

    And then tell us, with a straight face, why CO2 is much MORE a contributor to warming than water vapor.

    C'mon! You can do it!

  • Rasilio||

    No, Tony is at least partially correct here.

    It is pretty clear that the earth has warmed significantly more rapidly than can be explained through natural phenomena recently and that the only real explanation is Man Made causes with the production of greenhouse gasses being chief among them. Further there is little to no doubt that greenhouse gasses do influence the planets temperature and at some level would render the earth too hot to support life.

    However that only accounts for SOME of the warming, it also appears that some of it is from entirely natural causes.

    What remains to be solved is just how much of the warming is caused by greenhouse gasses and how much more of it can we expect and then what the impacts of that level of warming will be.

    There is no scientific consensus on any of these questions and when you talk to the real climate scientists they will admit as much.

    Right now the best evidence shows a climate sensitivity of less than 1 degree for each doubling of the CO2 level, well less than the 2.5 degrees that the alarmists considered to be the likely scenario which means that we are unlikely to see even 4 deg c of warming forget the 7 to 8 that some were predicting and with only 2 to 3 degrees likely over the next century mitigation makes a hell of a lot more sense than a crash course to oblivion trying to forestall it.

  • Tony||

    But we are barely addressing the issue at all in policy. Calling even market-based energy reforms (which will be necessary even if there were no warming since we're using finite resources as fuels) a "crash course to oblivion" doesn't help anything.

  • Kevin47||

    Market-based? As in, we're going to leave government out of it, and let the markets sort it out?

    Or do you have a more Orwellian definition of that particular term.

  • Cytotoxic||

    But we are barely addressing the issue at all in policy.

    Because the issue is not an issue. Measures to prevent global warming will cause far more misery than dealing with warming.

  • Tony||

    That is almost certainly false.

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    Tony, the only realistic way to keep our standard of living and significantly reduce CO2 is with nuclear power.

    Will you admit that or are you also a political hack for solar and wind (which is backed up 80% of the time by fossil fuel)?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    But we are barely addressing the issue at all in policy.

    And that's really what it boils down to for you isn't it? That fetish of the progtard managerialist that SOMEBODY DO SOMETHING DAMMIT.

  • Bill||

    You do know that the US is now under the emissions targets due to natural gas and the recession.

  • effinayright||

    Ah baloney. Please define "significantly more rapidly than can be explained through natural phenomena".

    Anyone who believes that needs to explain why temps went DOWN from the 1940's to the mid 1070's. Have you ever looked at a sine wave? Depending on where you start measuring, the trend can be up or down.

    You got nuthin'.

    More bullshit: "the only real explanation is Man Made causes with the production of greenhouse gasses being chief among them."

    Another "argument from ignorance": the only way that line of thinking can begin to work is if we already knew ALL the sources of the historical variations of the earth's temperatures over the last 4 billion years, or even the last 100,000 years.

    The short answer is: we don't know. Why because we're dealing with a multi-factorial, non-linear chaotic system.

    Only a fool would think we can narrow climate variations down to one factor.

  • WTF||

    Yes, it's a proved fact that recent warming is caused by human activity. There's no reason to deny it except politics.

    Or, you know, lack of actual proof. And the enormous failure of the models based on this premise.

  • sarcasmic||

    Or, you know, lack of actual proof. And the enormous failure of the models based on this premise.

    But there's a consensus! Experts voted!

    That means that no amount of evidence can prove them wrong because they're experts and they have a consensus!

  • WTF||

    Yeah, since I make my living as a fucking scientist, I can guarantee you that science is not done by consensus.

  • sarcasmic||

    Nuh uh! You're not a scientist! Real scientists believe in AGW! You questioned it! You can't be a real scientist!

  • ||

    Must be one of them scientists working for big carbon.

  • Contrarian P||

    Or big warming.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 5.14.13 @ 10:58AM |#
    "Your bullshit talking points are like 10 years old dude, at least."
    Shithead, that mirror is gonna get you.

    "Yes, it's a proved fact that recent warming is caused by human activity."
    There is zero proof, regardless of claims made by you, shithead, or anyone else.
    You are not anywhere near the intellectual acuity to understand the term, shithead.

  • cavalier973||

    There's no such thing as "proven science". There is only a collection of scientific theories that have not yet been falsified.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    ..."the worst environmental catastrophe humanity has ever known."

    Meh.

    /bites apricot.

  • RG||

    So libertarianism is simultaneously dying and strong enough to prevent action against AGW?

  • SugarFree||

    The paradox of griefers: Libertarians are simultaneously impotent and so dangerous they have to spend all day telling us how impotent and dangerous we are.

    See also: The Baloonjuice Conundrum and The Rockwell Vortex

  • ||

    They just can't not be obsessed over libertarians. I would say you guys should be flattered if they weren't so creepy and disgusting.

  • Tony||

    I said it will die, but it's clear that the denier industry has had a terrifyingly successful impact on policy.

    Just ask yourself, hypothetically, what if the science is right? What responsibility do you have for all the death and misery that will come?

  • RG||

    If its terribly successful, why will it die again?

    For someone asking others to be humble about their knowledge, your assurances that libertarianism will die ring a little hollow.

  • Tony||

    Assuming human civilization survives relatively intact, I predict libertarian and all the other dogmatisms that aligned themselves with the denier crowd for political reasons will be considered on par with the various other dead dogmatisms that contributed to massive human misery, some of them quite successfully in their time.

  • WTF||

    I predict libertarian and all the other dogmatisms that aligned themselves with the denier crowd for political reasons will be considered on par with the various other dead dogmatisms that contributed to massive human misery, some of them quite successfully in their time.

    You mean like socialism? Because socialists have an unmatched record of death and misery.

    Oh, I get it, you're projecting again.

  • sarcasmic||

    The dogmatism that has contributed the most to massive human misery is collectivism, and yet it continues to thrive.

  • ||

    This is a man, ladies and gentlemen, who thinks people who hoard guns and hard currencies because they think their government may either collapse or do something sinister are paranoid batshit crazy conspiracy theorists. The same man who just told you that the entire global human species is literally, with no exaggeration, in danger of annihilation due to global warming caused by human activity.

    Ayn Rand couldn't have written a more one-dimensional stereotypical progtard.

  • Kevin47||

    What if the man who says vaccines cause autism is right? DO YOU WANT TO KILLZ TEH CHILDREN!

    AGW proponents = Mommy Bloggers.

  • ||

    Precautionary principle! We must all commit mass suicide just in case our activity is leading to an environmental calamity that may kill us all.

  • cavalier973||

    There's no need to ask "if the science is right", since the science is so evidently wrong.

  • Homple||

    See, Blaise Pascal was right all along in making his wager. How do I know? Tony tells me so.

    Halleluja Amen.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Tony, I'm sufficiently humble enough and therefore not arrogant enough to know that Mother Nature is far more powerful than these puny hands and meek policies.

    That's what intrigues me in all this. Not if there's warming or not (and I really don't give a shit mostly because I don't think we're at the root of the problem. To think this is too be supremely arrogant and delusional - white man's burden for the environment if you will) but that we actually think changing fucking habits 'a little at a time' using fucking sophomoric phrases like 'we have to start somewhere' is gonna impact anything.

    Fuck you and human race if you think this way.

  • Contrarian P||

    "Just ask yourself, hypothetically, what if the science is right? What responsibility do you have for all the death and misery that will come?"

    Wonder why it is that you never ask yourself what happens if all the top down, utopian policies you want are put into place and the same result that happened in other top down utopias (famine, pogroms, mass killings, etc) happen? How do you feel being responsible for that?

  • Tony||

    Considering my politics is explicitly opposed to fascism, authoritarianism, and such, I don't feel responsible at all.

    How does it feel to have the world's scientific community against you and only the likes of Michelle Bachmann with you?

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 5.14.13 @ 10:50AM |#
    "But almost nothing libertarians believe has any empirical basis."

    Yeah, shithead, the difference between Hong Kong's prosperity and Red China's starvation was just chance, right, shithead?
    Oh, and then when the Red Chinese decided to liberalize the economy and things immediately got better, that was just chance, right, shithead?
    How stupid do you wish to appear, shithead? You're dumber than dirt now.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    All GREAT civilizations rose when taxes were levied reasonably and fell when taxes were excessively collected.

  • DaveAnthony||

    Those are words alright. They don't mean anything, but you have successfully constructed some sentences. So, congratulations.

  • Hawk Spitui||

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    There is the Church of Earth Sciences, whose dogma holds that Gaia doesn't like her black milk being burned for fuel. There is Our Lady of Life Sciences, which teaches us that unlikely death from pesticides is less natural and therefore less desirable than possible death from malaria. And we have the Brotherhood of Social Sciences, which really just enjoys blind faith on the economics of His Holiness, Baron Keynes.

    I am reminded of the South Park two-parter with Richard Dawkins and what a future of scientific sectarianism would look like.

  • Drake||

    The one of the key traits of a modern liberal is a complete rejection of logic, scientific method, and history. They are absolutely unshakably convinced of their theses - and don't care when they are disproved. Instead of molding their world-view to fit reality, they seek new (cooked) data to prove their unworkable ideas.

    That's why debating them is impossible - any fact that collides with their worldview is rejected.

    Luckily, their blindness makes them highly susceptible to satire and ridicule.

  • sarcasmic||

    Any "fact" that disagrees with the consensus is just a lie coming from some profit mongering corporation!

    I mean, the experts have voted! Who are you do question the experts? The democratic process has been followed, and the results are clear! AGW is real! The experts said so! They're so smart so they must be right!

    Consensus!

  • Tony||

    Science is not a democratic process. But the fact that almost all scientists in a particular field agree about something is not an irrelevant fact itself. It means any contrarian has a lot of work to do. And I'm not talking about reading denier websites and nodding your head.

  • sarcasmic||

    Science is not a democratic process.

    Yes it is! There's no need to follow the scientific method! Just put some experts in a room and take a vote! They're experts!

  • Kevin47||

    So science is a democratic process. You are trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

    Also, if consensus is so important, why are we moving forward with policies when there is no consensus as to whether they will be effective? Don't you have a lot of work to do on that front?

  • ||

    Also, if consensus is so important, why are we moving forward with policies when there is no consensus as to whether they will be effective?

    Because we MUST DO SOMETHING!

  • Kevin47||

    By the time we know what the right policy is, it will be too late! That one island nation that is pretty much one big phosphorous mine will go underwater! They will have to move either to a hellhole slightly to moderately more inhabitable than their present hellhole!

    CANARY IN THE COAL MINE! BAN COAL!

  • GregMax||

    If you flip a coin 10 times and it comes up heads, what is the probability that the next flip will be heads?

    That's the flaw in your argument. Consensus in the scientific fields more often than not follow an established orthodoxy because of information cascades. They don't all do the evaluation of the question. They assume the science is correct based on credibility. But, if you study scientific history you'll see many many examples of new research overturning conventional assumptions.

    Stick to the law, dude, you're way out of your league here. But it's funny to watch you wig-out.

  • Tony||

    This is nothing but a conspiracy theory without some evidence. You're making a positive claim too, you just don't have anything to back it up. "Facts are negotiable until I GregMax decide to trust them" is not science.

  • Bill||

    77 of 79 scientists who published more than x number of papers in the area of climate agreed that the earth is warmer and that man probably contributed to part of that warming.

    They did not agree that they are convinced there will be catastrophic effects.

    The next 10-15 years should be very telling.

  • Ben Kalafut||

    The way to break the consensus is simple. Come up with a good scientific argument, publish.

    So far, zero. Failure every time. And now you denialists are trying to claim that your failure is evidence in your favor. "We haven't convinced anyone who knows about this? There's a consenus! Consensus ain't science! What, are we going to trust experts who ain't doing science but just building consensus? Of course not! Failure is success! Our lies are now true!"

  • ||

  • ||

    In fact, a peer-reviewed study suggests skepticism may be the new consensus. Peer reviewed AND consensus? Looks like game, set, match, right? Because peer reviewed consenses don't lie. You said so yourself.

  • Tony||

    A survey of geoscientists and engineers? Engineers aren't even scientists. That's not even cherry picking, that's a bad joke.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    That is why only 6% of scientists identify as Republican, right?

    Really, quit lying.

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug| 5.14.13 @ 11:00AM |#
    "That is why only 6% of scientists identify as Republican, right?"

    Dipshit, did you bring the strawman with you or find it on the way?

  • Drake||

    I almost forgot. Changing the topic and attacking the messenger are two of their best tactics.

    Bonus points for calling me a liar on something I never mentioned.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    You said scientists reject the scientific method and logic.

    modern liberal is a complete rejection of logic, scientific method, and history.

    The science community IS liberal. Do you want the link to the survey?

  • sarcasmic||

    By "science community" do you mean parasites in academia, or actual scientists who do productive work for wealth generating corporations?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Is that really even a question?

  • Drake||

    I said liberals, not scientists. Being a liberal doesn't make you a scientist - sorry.

    The few scientists I've known were politically indifferent. The Engineers I work with tend to be Conservative / Libertarian.

  • sarcasmic||

    Being a liberal doesn't make you a scientist - sorry.

    However, if you agree with a consensus among liberal scientists, that makes you smart!

  • Cytotoxic||

    PB actually won't a difference. Because he is retard.

  • Bill||

    Libertarians are classical liberals, so what's your point? I'm a scientist and I would not call myself a conservative.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Palin's Buttwipe,

    That is why only 6% of scientists identify as Republican, right?


    Is that supposed to mean something, Buttwipe? It's like asking all the scientists in the former Soviet Union if they were members of the party.

    If I wanted to know the opinion of an expert on public policy or economics, the LAST person I would ask would be a scientist, precisely because being one does NOT make one also an expert on public policy or economics, just like a doctor in physics is not going to be an expert in medicine; or plumbing, for that matter.

  • Tony||

    It's so cute how rightwing dogmatists have appropriated the language of secularism and the left. Intelligent design proponents thought they were being awfully clever too when they talked about the alleged fact of irreducible complexity. Nobody with half a brain bought it, of course.

  • AuH20||

    Guys, be nice to Tony. He is having sadz over Obama. It's really tough to find out that your imaginary boyfriend is a cheating bastard.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: AuH2O,

    It's really tough to find out that your imaginary boyfriend is a cheating bastard.


    Hey, we were there for her... I mean, him. We tried so many times to warn Tony about the guy being a no-good bum, but she... I mean, he wouldn't listen.

  • tarran||

    KILL THE STRAWMAN TONY, IT'S STAGGERING. KEEP POUNDING IT!

  • Tony||

    So this room isn't crawling with moron science deniers?

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 5.14.13 @ 11:07AM |#
    "So this room isn't crawling with moron science deniers?"{

    Dunno, shithead, looks like you and shreek. Are you crawling?

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    "Science deniers" haha what a term.

    You're fucking pathetic.

  • Bill||

    I just published a paper on ways to improve the activity of antibiotics in topical treatments. But my collaborator is having a hard time getting grant money (despite 30 papers over the last 6 years) due to all of the money being poured down the ratholes of climate change research and green energy fiascos. So, no I don't "deny" science. I practice it. And I resent that people doing crappy, speculative science that have a poor record of projections get all the money and cause a lot more to be wasted while I am called a denier.

  • sam the man||

    God dammit Tony you are not putting enough effort into these strawmen. I'm starting to think you don't care about us anymore.

  • AuH20||

    Maher denies germ theory? We've fucking seen germ unde microscopes and such. It isn't even a theory anymore!

  • ||

    "What I've read about what they think I'm saying is not what I've said. I'm not a germ theory denier. I believe vaccinations can work. Polio is a good example. Do I think in certain situations that inoculating Third World children against malaria or diphtheria, or whatever, is right? Of course. In a situation like that, the benefits outweigh costs. But to me living in Los Angeles? To get a flu shot? No."

  • Zeb||

    But have we seen them causing disease? (I am in no way saying here that the anti-germ-theory people are not insane weirdos, just that that does not answer their odd theories about how things work)

  • Zeb||

    And it is a theory. SCience doesn't prove anything. The proposition that the sun will come up tomorrow is a theory, albeit a very well supported one.

  • sarcasmic||

    So what if none of the computer models have proven to be correct? There's a consensus!

    So what if the scientific method has not been followed? There's a consensus!

    So what if none of the predictions have come true? There's a consensus!

    Consensus is the new science!

  • The Late P Brooks||

    There is nothing quite so evil as the delusion that puts a utopian ideology about fucking tax rates in the way of responding to the worst environmental catastrophe humanity has ever known.

    Holy shit. That's impressively imbecilic, even for you.

  • Bill||

    It sure is. How can libertarianism be both heartless and utopian at the same time? No one says that everyone will have equal outcomes in a free market or that charity will not be necessary, just that it will be better than the alternative. It's just that proglodytes can't bear the uncertainty of not knowing how things will turn out.

    So they want to try to plan and regulate everything without realizing that it can't be planned and will have unintended consequences. They actually believe that they can legislate a utopia but then they call us utopians. Same way as they actually believe a conspiracy theory that big oil and Koch brothers are behind all libertarian and "denier" activities and then they call us conspiracy theorists. And they don't care about the Soros money, which makes them hypocrites as well.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    The key to understanding this phenomenon is to understand that proglodytes never exactly embraced science, the structured analysis of empirical evidence to arrive at testable hypotheses. The entire ideology rests on technocracy, the notion that all society should defer to the rule of a specialized (presumably progressive) elite who would order society in a more efficient way. They treat this as respect for science and talk about it as such. Of course, it isn't. But, it certainly SOUNDS scientific. If you don't believe me, consider the comments on this very thread from Choney and Shriek. They consistently either assert or appeal to the authority of the scientific community. But, that's technocracy, not science. Science would consist of marshaling evidence and demonstrating patterns in it.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Good summary. 'Scientism' comes to mind.

  • ||

    Tony is exactly the sort of slimy, disgusting piece of shit who would have been at the forefront of the eugenics movement if he'd been born a little sooner. Putting a veneer of "science" on the atrocities you wish to commit via public policy is the most comforting method of totalitarianism since the Catholic church lost its patronage in Europe.

  • robc||

    OT, but Im going to connect it up:

    Friend of mine finally received his NULL license plate today.

    The first time he requested it, it took 6 months and when it showed up it was blank.

    They tried again, it required multiple calls from the county clerk to the state explaining it, but it finally arrived correctly. The person with the state apparently couldnt figure out why the computers wouldnt take it properly.

    I think he is safe from traffic cameras too.

    And, of course, this has to be posted:

    http://xkcd.com/327/

    Whats the connection? Not sure I made one actually, other than a general government sucks.

  • Zeb||

    That's funny. Never would have happened if prisoners still made license plates.

  • sarcasmic||

    The db guy a couple cubes down has that xkcd on his wall.

  • Virginian||

    http://xkcd.com/806/

    That right there is funny because it's true.

    I spent a week without Internet until I finally got someone to restart the box in the basement for me.

  • mgd||

    I have it on my wall too. All DBAs do, I think. There is very little real database humor in the world.

  • Brett L||

    Awesome.

  • ||

    Genius.

  • ||

    Was there something wrong with the blank one? I'd have slapped the bitch on and gone trolling for assholes.

  • sarcasmic||

    I was thinking the same thing.

  • robc||

    The county clerk wouldnt give it to him.

  • ||

    robc:
    "Friend of mine finally received his NULL license plate today."

    That's fun. I always prefer the anonymity of a hard to read license plate. "Who's car is that? I don't know, but his plate is AJ3... oh, he's gone. Darn."

    I value that experience more than "It was a guy with a NULL license plate!"

  • The Late P Brooks||

    it took 6 months and when it showed up it was blank.

    Nice.

  • robc||

    Yeah, that was the best part.

  • ||

    I see a lot of you are unclear on why you shouldn't argue with obvious sockpuppets.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Because you/they lose? Tony is no sockpuppet. He is a common progressive.

    And me? I am a radical market and social liberal. More like Ayn Rand than anyone here (who also campaigned against conservatism).

  • Cytotoxic||

    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    ^This

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Palin's Buttwipe,

    I am a radical market and social liberal. More like Ayn Rand than anyone here


    I don't think so. You're instead a mountebank and a cheat, an economics-illiterate liberal disguised as a free-market advocate. At least Tony does not hide his credentials; he's crazy as fuck but he's much more honest than you.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    PB, I found when I hit the bottle at night it makes things easier for me.

  • ||

    I'm not sure which is more appropriate here:

    Never argue with an idiot, because they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

    Or

    Never wrestle with a pig, because you both get dirty and the pig enjoys it.

  • ||

    "It's not that conservatives don't have ideological fixations that are impervious to science. However, they don't pretend to don the mantle of science. Liberals do."

    It's certainly not limited to the two areas highlighted. I was brought up with the relatively liberal ideology that killing a man, while sometimes necessary, is never justice.

    Exactly. Despite the current climate, I would even go further as to say that if it's not their particular ideology, Republicans are more apartisan, pragmatic, and evidence-driven than their Liberal.

    It's sad that our society has become so fixated around science and that we are so quick to denigrate (and dehumanize) opinions that differ with the most recent and most narrow topic at hand.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    What the fuck is "evidence-driven" about Creationism?

    Seriously, we owe conservatives a slap in their stupid mugs to wake them up.

  • ||

    What the fuck does Creationism (why the capitalism, btw?) have to do with anything?

  • ||

    *capitalization, obviously

  • sarcasmic||

    It's sad that our society has become so fixated around science

    It wouldn't be so bad if what society has become fixated on was actually science.
    Science, as experimentation with predictable and repeatable results, has taken a back seat to politics, as in a consensus among people who call themselves scientists.

  • Drake||

    Seriously - do they even teach scientific method in High School these days? Seems most people don't understand the difference between a hypothesis and a generally accepted theory.

    Hypothesis like AGW have always taken years of study, debate, observation, and repeatable experiments before it graduates to the status of theory.

    Because they love the solutions to solve the imaginary problem of AGW (massive government intervention in the economy) - the process of analyzing the AGW hypothesis has been politicized.

  • Aloysious||

    Thanks for putting that picture front and center.

    *BARRRF*

  • GregMax||

    The problem isn't the Liberals touting their bullshit . . . it's the fools who accept what they say by authority or emotional appeal.

  • John Galt||

    There's only so many emotional fools, after that authority is their remaining option.

  • ||

    I expect appeals to authority from authoritarians. The authorities never go on record establishing or challenging their own authority. It makes thinking easier for all their followers.

  • creech||

    Supposed we stipulated that AGW was happening at a catastrophic rate, and the U.S.'s enlightened progs manage to push the U.S.'s emissions from a 20% reduction to a 50% reduction with only a little destruction to the economy. So, what do we (U.S. Europe) do about any refusal by the Chinese or Brazilians or Indians or various non-barbaric African countries to slow down or reverse their emissions?
    Would you (the AGW believers) advocate going to war over this in order to save the planet???

  • sarcasmic||

    Humanity cannot sustain current population levels without energy from fossil fuels.

    Systematic slaughter of billions of people is the only solution.

  • John Galt||

    Have you been visiting VHEMT's website again?

    Oh, that's right, VHEMT want's the slaughter to be "voluntary."

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    I had no idea VHEMT existed. I am horrified.

    As a libertarian, I don't believe in the use of force. But people who join organizations like VHEMT should be strongly encouraged to read about Julian Simon and Paul Erlich.

  • sarcasmic||

    Are you a libertarian or a pacifist?

    Libertarians believe that force is most certainly justified - in reaction to the initiation of force by another party.

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    I meant it in the sense that I don't believe in using force to make people read stuff I agree with.

    But I certainly agree with you that force is justified in reaction to the initiation of force by another party.

  • Zeb||

    I think that is the best argument to counter the real true believers. I don't know if I've changed any minds, but except for the real misanthropes who wouldn't mind killing half the world's population no one has much to say back. Even if the US and Europe and a few other rich places cut emissions significantly, there are still billions of people in the world who want to improve their standards of living and who will buy as much oil as they can get their hands on and develop as well as they can.

  • John Galt||

    And that's where the problem lies. "True Believers."

    Sound science is rooted in evidence, not beliefs. Beliefs belong in the realms of emotion and religion.

    AGW is nothing more, or less, than a pseudoscientific religious cult. It is not science.

  • sarcasmic||

    There has always been a segment of the population that felt the end is nigh.

    AGW is only the latest iteration of the Doomsday Cult.

  • Sevo||

    sarcasmic| 5.14.13 @ 1:28PM |#
    "There has always been a segment of the population that felt the end is nigh.
    AGW is only the latest iteration of the Doomsday Cult."

    It shares other religious coda also; the presumption of an edenic past time, the fear of knowledge and modern tech, a fascination with the primitive, etc.
    Rousseau would be proud.

  • Zeb||

    Yes, but you are not going to solve that problem by ignoring them or telling them they are a religious cult.

  • John Galt||

    Honestly, a catastrophic rate would be welcome here. Hopefully, this year won't be a repeat of the last several in which the morning frosts didn't end until early mid-June.

    Right now going to war to accelerate warming doesn't seem a bad idea.

  • Ben Kalafut||

    This comes up because war was necessary to put the Montreal Protocol into effect, to save the ozone layer, right? History repeats itself. Not another war to keep the planet in good shape! We can't afford another round of bloodshed!

  • ||

    It comes up because if you actually believe the moonbat bullshit you claim to, going to war to prevent the ostensibly inevitable apocalyptic environmental catastrophe could easily be justified, and you're probably insane enough to actually follow through with it.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Tony is no sockpuppet. He is a common progressive

    I find this completely believable.

  • John Galt||

    The whole world has abandoned the fraud of AGW. The whole world, with the exception of the of the United States. No big surprise, we've always had more crackpots, nuts and idiots than anywhere else. In the past they've given us things like epic books, Hollywood movies, insane inventions, and Jonestown. But, unless I'm mistaken this new trend of trying to destroy the entire nation is a new one. In the past they've just ended themselves.

  • Zeb||

    Huh?

  • John Galt||

    Young?

  • Zeb||

    Froid?

    Just a bit puzzled about this:

    The whole world has abandoned the fraud of AGW. The whole world, with the exception of the of the United States.

    The situation seems quite the opposite to me.

  • John Galt||

    Seems we've been getting our information from differing sources. Not a surprise, there are so many sources out there.

    No doubt about it the cult of AGW still has loyal believers around the world. However, from what I've been reading it's our government here in the USA who is one of the last still on board. Many of the others have jumped ship.

  • Ben Kalafut||

    The only "fraud" I see is the denialists. Lying about science and about scientists is the alpha and omega of their operation. I only wish the whole world abandoned it.

  • ||

    Woah dude! I wasn't convinced the first hundred times you said it, but now, in light of this persuasive argument and your unquestionable command of the facts, you've convinced me. I repent of my sins! I accept Michael Mann in my heart! Am I absolved now?

  • OldMexican||

    But the Economist, once firmly in the alarmist camp, recently acknowledged that global temperatures have remained stagnant for 15 years even as greenhouse-gas emissions have soared


    And when you lose the Economist, just like when Richard III lost William Stanley (and the battle with it), so have the liberals lost the AGW battle.

    Most priceless, however, was Chris Mooney, author of The Republican War on Science[...] He spilled serious ink in Mother Jones defending the highly questionable "hockey stick" graph


    "A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!"

  • John Galt||

    Are you planning on eating that horse?

  • Mizchief||

    I think the problem to solve is more of the myth that scientific research is some how shielded by political motivations; both in how the results are interpreted and how the study is conducted.

    The key is to establish the "rules" of the study and announce how it will be conducted and get buy in from the high-profile pundits on both sides that the results of that study will be considered accurate and policy may need to change based on those results.

    Same concept as a arbitration process. Both parties agree on the 3rd party process and agree to the outcome.

    The other benefit is that when the rules are published about how the sample will be selected, the methods and metrics to be used, etc. the study can be done in parallel and the results peer-reviewed by everyone to explain why a conservative financed study got different results from one ran by a liberal organization.

    When the university involved has it's own political motivations to keep the data in-house to receive the grants and glory that can also skew the results and cause room for dismissal by the party that doesn't want to face facts.

  • exchef100||

    "Numerous studies on Head Start, the federal pre-K program for poor kids, show that its reading and math gains virtually evaporate by fourth grade."

    Seems to me that Head Start type programs work, it's the years that come after that need fixin'. Or would we rather everyone start out dumb?

  • aperion||

    Exactly.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    They have a serious fail on gun-violence also.
    But then, Liberalism/Leftism/Progressivism is a religion, whose fundamentals may not be questioned.

  • aperion||

    If you want a bad example of a planet with runaway greenhouse gasses have a look at Venus. The surface temperature is 900 degrees fahrenheit which is not conducive human life.

  • ||

    Yes that IS a bad example as the Earth has 350 ppm (.035%) CO2 while the Atmosphere of Venus is 96.5% CO2.

  • Generic Stranger||

    It's also far closer to the sun than we are, which is going to raise average temperatures significantly, even without a greenhouse atmosphere.

  • ||

    You think the sun has something to do with temperature? You denying denialist denier fuck!

  • mgd||

    They have a global warming problem on Venus? Without free marketeers? How can that be?

  • DrVorticity||

    While I do agree that the "Affordable" Healthcare Act (aka Obamacare) will be any but and that universal preschool probably is not the best idea, particularly if it will have to follow the Dept. of Education's "No child left behind" model, the fact is that GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL. There is NO ARGUMENT amongst the scientific community that global warming is occurring. To use a study by the Economist as proof is a terribly weak argument. Amongst those of us who publish peer-reviewed scientific literature, there is no question that global warming is occurring and that it is due to anthropogenic (human) activities...I should know, I work at NASA (yes, really).

  • Sevo||

    ..."the fact is that GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL."

    Strawman ambulance, stat!

  • ||

    Are you a janitor or a climate scientist?

    Anyway, Mr NASA scientist, please explain the 15+ year pause compared to the model predictions.

  • Kevin47||

    It is valid to note that setting 1998 as an arbitrary starting point is a cherry pick. However, that retort diminishes in impact with every passing year. Further, global warming scientists are openly acknowledging global warming is tapering off, but are calling for a longer period of stagnation before we can draw conclusions.

    However, models simply have not accurately predicted what has happened in the last two decades. Small sample size? Sure. Sometimes the coin comes up tails 4 times in a row.

    The thing is, climate isn't a coin. We do not know that each side has equal weight, and so, as the sample size increases, the questions grow stronger. That is not unreasonable.

  • ||

    First, looking at the LAST X number of years is NEVER a cherry pick as it may indicate a change in the trend line.

    In this case, 15 years is the number of years climate scientists have used as the cutoff for when it statistically starts to invalidate their data.

    Finally, your models obviously didn't predict the level-off. You predicted a hockey stick. Your model is obviously flawed and you cannot explain it. Yet, you are positively certain that AGW is real based upon these models AND you claim we need to spend trillions of dollars, crippling the world's economy, to head off certain doom.

    Sorry pal. When your models actually sync up with the observable world, we'll talk. Hell, we'll talk when the global temps begin to rise again. Until then, your hysterics have shot your credibility in the foot.

  • ||

    Kevin, I misread "but are calling for" as ""but WE are calling for" and assumed you were calling yourself a climate scientist. Hence the personal confrontation. Apologies for any misinterpretation.

  • Kevin47||

    The Economist didn't conduct the study. They simply acknowledged what is manifestly true.

    Why do we still have NASA if we aren't doing anything with space? If I'm going to pay for NASA, they need to do a space, dammit. Space!

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    "Who's tweeting about Benghazi? Rich, middle-aged men and Chick-fil-A lover."

    That was from a WAPO twitter account.

    The arrogance rooted in willing ignorance is staggering. STAGGERING.

    You know what I find interesting? It's a few books I pick up where collected stories and essays from philosophers, scientists etc. discuss issues. In almost every case most of what the real, true experts think runs CONTRARY to contemporary liberal orthodoxy which at this point is one step removed from a cult. Other than questions on religion, conservative thought is hardly the anti-science demon the left claims.

    These aren't your classical liberals. These are people that would be on the wrong side of history. My hunch.

  • Flemur||

    The myth of the scientific Reason author:

    Dalmia: "(But what impresses me is that Harvard lets people write dissertations like these. Score one for free speech.)"

    Gillespie: "I haven't read Richwine's dissertation ... though ... I feel vaguely angry about it."

  • Sevo||

    Great technique, Flemur. Make up "quotes" and then make fun of them!
    Are you familiar with the term "strawman"?

  • Sevo||

    American| 5.14.13 @ 8:20PM |#
    "Why don't you look them up before you spew your bullshit?"

    Murcan, real happy to see your sleazy self again.
    Oh, and jam a hot poker up your ass.

  • Ben Kalafut||

    Ask Bailey about benthic bacteria. Maybe they explain the 15-year pause.

    Benthic bacteria. It was published in the Journal of Geoclimatic Studies. Bailey blogged it when it came out.

  • Sevo||

    Ben Kalafut| 5.14.13 @ 8:08PM |#
    "Ask Bailey about benthic bacteria. Maybe they explain the 15-year pause."

    Maybe YOU can explain that rather than tossing innuendos around.

  • Sevo||

    Still waiting...
    Tell us how benthic bacteria 'explain' anything.

  • Unindicted Co-conspirator||

    Look, there's a far simpler answer to liberals' pretensions of empiricism: guns.

    They know, quite literally, nothing about the subject. Zip. Zero. Nada. More than that, they're not interested in learning. They're just entirely confident that GUNZ R BAD KTHXBYE, and that's enough for them to fap their ban-boners.

    There are precisely two reasons leftards have a hardon for AGW:

    (1) It's a "scientific" excuse for the massive central planning they want to do anyway; and,
    (2) It's an opportunity to flatter their own hilariously-inflated self-regard by pretending to give a shit about TEH ENVIRONMENTZ.

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    You know who else "donned the mantle of science"? German Nazis and Soviet Communists ... oh yes, and sterilization promotin', lobotomy-approvin' progressives in the US. That's who.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Someone can correct me on this but I believe eugenics as well was part of the 'progressive' wave.

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    Eugenics provided the rationale for much of the aforementioned sterilization. We had to purify the stock, but killing imbeciles and the like was inhuman, so some influential progressives recommended mandatory sterilization.

    I very much think we should be guided by science, but I keep a good hold on my wallet and check to make sure I know where my arms and ammo are, whenever someone starts saying we should be RULED by science (or that our rulers should always defer to "the scientific consensus").

  • waltercollin||

    Aaron. if you, thought Clarence`s comment is flabbergasting... last saturday I bought Mazda MX-5 after bringing in 5948 this past 4 weeks and a little over 10 grand this past month. it's actualy the coolest job I've ever done. I started this eight months/ago and straight away started to bring home minimum 71, per-hour. I went to this site, ............http://www.Mojo55.com

  • jimspice||

    Temperatures have not remained stagnant for 15 years. If you control for El Nino/La Nina the trend over that time is positive and significant at the .05 level.

  • Homple||

    Control what for El Nino/La Nina? And by "what" I mean which temperature set, with uncertainty in its measurement specified. And show your work on the periodicity, phase, and amplitude of El Nino/La Nina. And which model does this match, and how far back in time was the model run that predicted the last 15 years. Throw in how well the model predicts El Nino/La Nina. If the model was run in the last 15 years, forget it.

  • Ben Kalafut||

    Dalmia wants total inaction on global warming because it isn't constant and isn't happening quite the same as predicted. As though all that stuff about radiative forcing, satellite measurements, the absorption spectra of gases should, can, or could possibly be thrown out because a curve made to conveniently sum up a complicated phenomenon has a pause in it like has happened before.

    Dalmia gets an F for pretending that non-controversial physics is made controversial by something that rather obviously doesn't call it into question. Scientific illiterates shouldn't be commenting about science.

  • Sevo||

    Ben Kalafut| 5.14.13 @ 7:23PM |#
    "Dalmia wants total inaction on global warming because it isn't constant and isn't happening quite the same as predicted."

    Ben Kalafut wants Soviet-style control over the economy.
    Gee, I see how that sort of 'argument' works! It's easy (and your an idiot).

  • Ben Kalafut||

    My an idiot? What about my an idiot? And your an idiot, too?

  • Sevo||

    Ohm and a grammar nazi besides?
    OK, you're an idiot.

  • Ben Kalafut||

    But seriously, the difference is that Dalmia actually called for inaction whereas Kalafut mentioned jack squat about economic planning. Inhale deeply and back off of mitigation until every little detail, relevant or not, is worked out.

    Scientists:
    "If we keep putting more greenhouse gases in the air, all other things being equal, the troposphere will heat up."
    Dalmia:"But but but you haven't fully explained why this curve summarizing weather is kind of flat over the last 15 years. (If we don't control for El Nino. Should I say that? No, it takes away from the narrative. Let's leave that out of the article.) So let's step back and take a deep breath and not do those mitigation things that I irrationally fear will "bust" the economy. Because your physics can't be trusted unless you can totally explain the weather.

    That's denialism. And it's stupid and that it makes the cut in the movement's major magazine makes libertarianism look stupid. Why stupid? It's like someone saying "well explain why my tumor is shaped like a potato. Ha! You doctors think you're so smart, telling me I have cancer!" It's an appeal to a nonsequitur. Willful nonsense or willful ignorance.

  • Sevo||

    Sorry, pal, you remain a knave or a fool.
    Nowhere outside of your lefty fantasies, does Dalmia call for "doing nothing", so the rest of what you suppose to be 'argument' is worthless.
    And putting words in her mouth and calling it a quote only demonstrates your stupidity or dishonesty; which is it?
    Now if you care to read what she wrote and discuss it, I'm sure you'll get an answer. But right now, you're pulling the standard lefty non-argument of beating on a strawman.

  • Ben Kalafut||

    Funny that a free-marketeer like myself would be having lefty fantasies. Maybe I need to take my meds? Asshat.

    Dalmia wants us to "inhale deeply and back off on...mitigation measures."

    That's inaction.

    And if you can't distinguish between "putting words in [someone's] mouth and calling it a quote" and offering a non-charitable, desultory paraphrase to illustrate someone else's fail...well, I'm seeing a problem with reading comprehension here. Asperger's? I kind of got used to aspies when I wasted time with the LP. It's a valid excuse, however annoying.

  • Sevo||

    Ben Kalafut| 5.14.13 @ 8:06PM |#
    "Funny that a free-marketeer like myself would be having lefty fantasies. Maybe I need to take my meds? Asshat."
    You use those words and it seems you have no idea what they mean, shitstain.

    "Dalmia wants us to "inhale deeply and back off on...mitigation measures."
    That's inaction."
    Kinda left something out of that quote, didn't you, shitstain. Qualifications which make it quite clear that you are a liar, shitstain.

    "And if you can't distinguish between "putting words in [someone's] mouth and calling it a quote" and offering a non-charitable, desultory paraphrase to illustrate someone else's fail...well, I'm seeing a problem with reading comprehension here. Asperger's? I kind of got used to aspies when I wasted time with the LP. It's a valid excuse, however annoying."
    Shitstain, when you use quotation marks ("), you are quoting.

  • ||

    The burden of proof should fall on the party advocating multi-trillion dollar economic disruptions in the name of "mitigation" to prove that there is a problem in need of mitigating. Since we are ostensibly supposed to discard the last 15 years of data that don't comport with the predictive models that preceded the time frame, and since we only have maybe 20 years worth of global temperature data of adequate quality to be useful for such analysis before that (call me a "denier", but ice core samples and tree ring data don't cut it in an analysis where tenths of degrees are major data points), at the very least, inaction is the only sensible course until a lot more data are collected and analyzed, and predictive models can be tested more rigorously. That's the useful application of actual science. Not "denialism" (which isn't actually a thing, or a real word). That you have to resort to trying to vaguely associate your detractors with Holocaust denial by inventing new words underscores the weakness of your argumentation. Scientists don't use semantics to brow beat opponents. Useful idiots do.

  • Contrarian P||

    There was argumentation? I must've missed it from him.

  • Tony||

    Inaction will cost more and be more economically disruptive than any mitigation plan. Does that not place the burden on you?

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 5.15.13 @ 10:48AM |#
    "Inaction will cost more and be more economically disruptive than any mitigation plan."

    This from a shithead who's stupid enough to think that the government should handle medical care!
    Stuff it, shithead. No one believes your lies.

  • Ars Skeptica||

    As a courtesy, I'm submitting my own rebuttal to the specious claims re: liberals on climate science in this article. For a piece in what might be now the misnamed "Reason," an article that calls the opposition's intellectual integrity into question, it borders on amusing that the author's own argument is rife with logical fallacies and outright errors.

    http://scholarsandrogues.com/2.....e-science/

  • Sevo||

    "Why? Well, good lucking finding that reference in The Economist. If you have better luck with the search, by all means please share a link."

    THAT is your rebuttal?
    You could have saved a bunch of band-width and typed "I disagree!" with equal effect.

  • Ars Skeptica||

    I guess you conveniently skipped the parts about cherry picking and single-study syndrome.

    So, no, that's not it. Thank you for your attempt to misrepresent.

    For that matter, if the author is going to engage in argument from authority, she might be well served to vet even reputable sources more thoroughly in the future. After all, it turns out The Economist misrepresents Hansen rather significantly. You might want to read my post again so you can enjoy the update.

  • Sevo||

    Ars Skeptica| 5.14.13 @ 9:25PM |#
    "So, no, that's not it. Thank you for your attempt to misrepresent."

    Thank you for your attempt at misdirection.
    IF you have a point (and I'm quite sure you don't), lay it out clearly and back it with evidence.
    So far, you're said nothing other than 'I can't find a link to what you claim'.

  • Ars Skeptica||

    You clearly haven't read my post then. Why do you think you should have an opinion on it?

    The updated version includes a link. The link is damning to her argument. Her logical fallacies are damning to her argument. And insofar as you keep attempting to defend it in your inimitable style, it seems even her supporters are damning to her argument.

    Congratulations. You may not keep not reading things before you opine.

  • ||

    The link, and the link to the full quote from Hansen, isn't damning to the argument, except to the extent that you didn't understand what the argument was, I guess. The fact that the observed temperature and the predicted temperature depart merits additional research as to the cause, with Hansen making what appear to be some speculative initial hypotheses as to the cause. That most self-described "liberals" deny that the discrepancy merits examination, like you have, is a pretty good indication that they are not so much interested in the science, since science is all about solving those discrepancies, as the policy "solutions", which seem to be forever the same.

    Congrats though - looks like you got 5 comments on your piece. I hope your servers don't crash from the unwashed masses flooding your page to marvel at your insight.

  • Sevo||

    PM, you are more patient than am I, but I looked anyhow:
    "In fact, the quote above which appeared in The Economist is actually incomplete. Hansen’s report actually says, “The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of net climate forcing.”"
    Ars is simply cherry-picking every damn excuse s/he can find to still claim the government should take over the economy.
    Ars is a watermellon

  • Tony||

    Sevo doesn't read; he bangs his forehead on keyboards.

  • ||

    Thats it? Ballzinger points out that maybe The Economist is not acknowledging that there has been no warming, or not.

    There has been no warming whether The Economist acknowledges it or not. The model's predictions are wrong, whether The Economist, or anyone else, acknowledges it or not. By not acknowledging they are worse than Shikha makes them out.

    Your courteous rebuttal simply isnt a rebuttal at all. Your rebuttal actually makes it seem even worse if they dont acknowledge it as it makes Shikha's case stronger.

    As a matter of fact Shikha, I am miffed that you didnt slam them harder. Stop going easy on these scum.

  • Ars Skeptica||

    I think you missed the [citation needed] part. You make an extraordinary claim in the face of much evidence to the contrary. Would you care to cite a source, or should we just accept your argument on the authority of your username?

    I'll see your absence of evidence and raise you a large amount of it:

    http://scholarsandrogues.com/t.....-everyone/

    Sign me, "Proud, intellectually honest scum"

  • Sevo||

    "Sign me, "Proud, intellectually honest scum""

    So far, your attempts at dishonesty suggests only your mom would go for that piece of bullshit.

  • Ars Skeptica||

    If you can't bother to read the post or refute a single claim in it with substance, by all means keep opining. I'm sure that looks really good for you :)

  • Sevo||

    Ars Skeptica| 5.14.13 @ 9:49PM |#
    "If you can't bother to read the post or refute a single claim in it with substance, by all means keep opining. I'm sure that looks really good for you :)"

    You stupid shit, I've actually wasted time reading your blog.
    Your blog is easy to paraphrase: 'I bleeve it and here's every excuse I can find to show why it isn't doing what I think it should be doing, and I still think the government should take over the world'.
    simply put, you're an ignorant lefty asshole with no evidence and access to the web.
    Go away.

  • ||

    There isnt any warming fucknugget.

    I can google 'no warming since 1998' just like you can. What I get in defense of AGW are ridiculous arguments claiming that cooling is part of warming. Yeah, just like cool water boils faster than hot water.

    I looked at your link. It is mostly nonsense.
    From the first page;

    First article - We dont know how much energy is stored in the ocean presently, much less have a historic record of it. The best we can do presently is guesstimate based on the magnitude of el ninos...which are the same as they always have been.

    Second article - heavy snows....just a couple of years ago we were told that snow in new england would be a thing of the past that only our grandparents would remember.

    Third article - So?

    Fourth article - This is my favorite. Claiming that air is sealed in ice bubbles for any length of time is preposterous. It aint sealed and its composition is not what it was when it was sealed in there...even supposing that the bubble is an atmosphere sample and not a bubble formed after the fact.

    I am bored with this. please dont link to that guy again if you want to have any credibility.

  • Generic Stranger||

    For a piece in what might be now the misnamed "Reason,"...

    DRINK!

  • Joe T.||

    Well written article. A few thoughts:

    "Coverage did, however, lower depression rates and reduced financial strain" -- How much is that worth? Slightly facetious follow up: How would the cost be formulated scientifically? And from who's perspective would the price tag be set, someone with health insurance, or someone without? Both? Representative sample?

    "Economy-busting mitigation measures" -- How so? Where's the data, the evidence, to support the claim?

    "Reading and math gains virtually evaporate by fourth grade" -- So, preschool works. What's the problem with preschool?

    "Oklahoma's high-school graduation rates have dropped since it embraced UPK and Georgia's remain stagnant. The average reading score of Oklahoma's fourth graders on the NAEP -- the national report card -- dropped four points between 1998 and 2011." -- Fine. Where's the control groups during those same times in those states? How do we know the rates would not have dropped further without UPK? Why would anyone argue "because science" when there is so clearly a lack of science to his or her argument?

  • Sevo||

    Joe T.| 5.14.13 @ 8:14PM |#
    "Coverage did, however, lower depression rates and reduced financial strain" -- How much is that worth?"
    First, those two criteria are obviously self-reported (since there is no objective way of measuring them), so salt is indicated. And then, yes, giving someone money most always lowers financial strain. The question here is 'prove it is worth the cost', not 'disprove...'

    ""Economy-busting mitigation measures" -- How so? Where's the data, the evidence, to support the claim?"
    Uh, lowering CO^2 output to Kyoto-mandated levels should answer your question, assuming you're sincere.

    ""Reading and math gains virtually evaporate by fourth grade" -- So, preschool works. What's the problem with preschool?"
    Promptly lost gains shows 'it works'? Did you mean to post that?

    ""Oklahoma's high-school graduation rates have dropped since it embraced UPK and Georgia's remain stagnant. The average reading score of Oklahoma's fourth graders on the NAEP -- the national report card -- dropped four points between 1998 and 2011." -- Fine. Where's the control groups during those same times in those states?"
    Nope. YOU provide the proof that it's worth something.
    I see what you're doing, and to be honest, it looks less than honest.

  • ||

    Sevo, just as it has been pointed out that you cant argue facts and logic with people whose beliefs arent based on facts or logic, you cant argue with a liberal about anything on their agenda. Their agenda isnt what they say it is. This is what leads them to argue absurdities.

    Preschool isnt about improving education for them. It is taxpayer funded daycare for their voters. The more you point out that it doesnt improve education, the harder they will push for it.

  • Sevo||

    True enough, but the reference to losing the gain by G-4 just seemed as if it would embarrass most anyone. Except for a proggy, I guess.

  • ||

    Embarrass? What is that?

    Read any post by Tony and tell me that embarrassment is even possible for them. Shameless fucking liars.

  • ||

    Joe, are you seriously arguing that ' things are worse, but it doesnt mean it didnt work, it just means it would be worse if we hadnt'?

    Holy shit.

  • Sevo||

    I think the argument is even worse:
    'Prove it doesn't work, or keep spending (your) money'.

  • Sevo||

    Murcan, go away.

  • Contrarian P||

    I think most people say "your theories are the worst kind of pseudo-intellectual drivel" and keep on trucking. There is no way to measure intelligence in a meaningful sense, because there's really no way to define what intelligence is. The data you refer to are collected from tests that presume to measure a concept defined by those from a certain socioeconomic (religious, cultural, etc) frame of reference. I'd imagine if you told a nomadic tribesman to design a test to measure smarts, you and I would perform abyssmally and be considered monumentally stupid by their standards. So, in summary, you're an idiot.

  • Sevo||

    Contrarian P| 5.14.13 @ 11:16PM |#
    "I think most people say "your theories are the worst kind of pseudo-intellectual drivel" and keep on trucking..."

    I'll disagree. 'Murcan is right that the average IQ of this race is more or less than the average IQ of that race.
    So what? I'm not dealing with an 'average'; I'm dealing with the mug right in front of my face. And 'Murcan is one of the most ignorant I've encountered.
    Is 'Murcan 'white'? I don't know and I don't care; 'Murcan is an ignoramus. That's all I need to know.

  • ||

    How varied are the AGW crowd’s predictions? I know there are “the earth is doomed” and “it’s already too late” believers out there but how common are they? Is there a “consensus” on the exact results of any supposed AGW? If everyone in the “consensus” is using the same “science” shouldn’t the results be real similar?

  • Sevo||

    Dakotian| 5.14.13 @ 8:34PM |#
    "How varied are the AGW crowd’s predictions? I know there are “the earth is doomed” and “it’s already too late” believers out there but how common are they?"

    Entirely too common:
    "Global warming activist, former NASA scientist James Hansen speaks out before World Affairs Council of Oregon appearance"
    http://www.oregonlive.com/envi.....nd_fo.html
    "Hockey stick controversy"
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.....ontroversy

  • Ars Skeptica||

    Oh, and Ms.Dalmia, if you're going to rely on the strength's of The Economist to make your argument from authority, you should probably check to be sure they aren't misrepresenting the very source of your proposition that the flattening is significant in ways which it isn't. Economist takes Hansen out of context. You, in turn, make hay of it, and poorly.

    Seriously, if Reason isn't to have its credibility brought into doubt, you'll have to do much, much better than this.

    Here, I've updated my post for you.

    http://scholarsandrogues.com/2.....e-science/

    Now, what was that about liberals and the intellectual dishonesty you impute to them?

  • Sevo||

    Updated rebuttal:
    'Well, something seems to be happening!'

    Sorry, all you've done is reenforce the fact that the predictions are incorrect and the predictors are casting about to explain why.
    It doesn't matter; what matters is that the predictions are incorrect and had we based policy on them, we would all be eating rocks seasoned with lichen when we found out the bullshitters were bullshitting. That argues strongly that following draconian measures based on un-proven predictions is a recipe for disaster.
    You seem to think this is a question of science; it is nothing of the sort. It is an attempted power grab supposedly backed by science; see Ben Kalafut above for an example of mendacity.
    Do you understand what I'm saying?

  • Ars Skeptica||

    All too well. If you were a shill for big energy, I'd know not to waste further time with you. Since I don't know that, I can only suppose you have an extreme aversion to countering a single fact either presented in my post or linked therefrom. I'll take science and the citations readily at my disposal (and yours should you wish to click through to Brian Angliss' excellent series, "Climate Science for Everyone") over your unsubstantiated contentions any day. Since you seem ill-inclined to respond with facts, I'll spare us both the trouble of any further response. Dismissed.

  • ||

    He knows what you are saying Sevo.

    Shill for big energy? Get another talking point Ars, that one is long played out. Sevo has been around these parts for years and he shills for Libertarian principles, as do I.

    I clicked through the 'climate science for simpletons', see my post above.

    We know what you are motherfucker. If you want someone to buy your bullshit hop on over to the huffpuff. You are in the wrong place here.

  • Sevo||

    Suthenboy| 5.14.13 @ 10:01PM |#
    "He knows what you are saying Sevo."

    I doubt it. Proggies like the current ignoramus really *DO NOT* entertain thoughts other than what is fed to them.
    Ars is simply one more example of someone capable of using a computer who is incapable of critical thought. Ars found some links that explain why it's not going that way it was promised to go, and that's enough.
    See, oh, King on "Peak Oil", Ehrlich on "Population Bomb", and for that matter Malthus.
    Ignoramuses like Ars continue to provide excuses for charlatans. Religion is hard to argue.

  • Sevo||

    Ars Skeptica| 5.14.13 @ 9:52PM |#
    "All too well. If you were a shill for big energy,..."

    Ah, yes. When lefty ignoramuses get busted on their bullshit, it's KOCKOPTUPUSSSS!
    The 'facts' you present are 'well, I can't see a link', and 'here's someone's excuse'.
    Yes, they're "facts" you idiot. So is 'well, the floor is dusty'.
    Now, you moron, show your collection of irrelevancies justify the take over of the economy by the government.
    No, don't bother. You're stupidity is such that I'm not going to waste time on that effort.

  • felicia755||

    Nolan. I just agree... Leslie`s bl0g is really cool, on monday I bought a great new Lotus Esprit after having earned $4034 this-last/4 weeks and in excess of $10k last month. this is definitely my favourite work Ive ever done. I started this 10-months ago and practically straight away startad bringin home over $81, per-hour. I work through this link, http://www.fox86.com

  • Homple||

    I wouldn't your link with a ten foot Pole or two five foot Hungarians in series.

    Go away.

  • Henry the Twooth||

    Please note that there is distinction between whetner HEAD START (a preschool program for low income) helps kids in the long run, and whether PRESCHOOL education helps kids in the long run.

    This article correctly notes that studies have shown that HEAD START does not have significant long term effects. However, Head Start is only a part of the greater preschool education market - and, one can argue, an inferior one, just as many people believe public education is inferior to private or home education.

    That study does not establish that preschool, as a general matter or other specific preschool programs, are not beneficial in the long term.

  • lukescott610||

    If you think Valerie`s story is really great..., 5 weaks-ago my friends sister actually earned $8566 workin eleven hours a week from there apartment and the're classmate's mother`s neighbour was doing this for 6 months and made more than $8566 part-time from their computer. use the advice from this address, http://www.sea12.com

  • crazyhorse479@live.com||

    First off I'm STUNNED bill maher has the audacity to speak his opinion regarding anything; remember he called our US Military "cowards"???!!!!! What an ass, hate him and never watched/listened since.....

    When I enrolled into college, full fledged cherokee, single with zero children, I had hell trying to receive any grants/loans etc!! But you could walk to the registrars office babies climbing all over and have any and every amenity including housing, financial aide, grants, housing etc etc etc. how f'ed up bass acwards is this concept???? I managed to get through all their federal hoops for help and from first hand experience and knowledge saw the baby makers handed any and everything on a silver platter. What a cluster indeed. Crazyhorse

  • ansible||

    there is so much fail in this thread (and some in the article) that's frankly surprising the internet hasn't imploded! i'm glad i saw it late, because replying to all this stupid would drive anyone up the wall.

    but, one thing i'd like to note:
    to all those that tout he all line that "global warming warnings are all from computer models, and you can't trust that cos it's the work of the devil!" (paraphrase)... well to you i say: no.

    no.
    not at all.
    wrong.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement