Annals of global warming: Deja vu all over again (Tom Toles cartoon from 2004)


Events of the past two weeks, in the community of scientists and cargo scientists who fail to recognize global warming, sadly, were portrayed in this cartoon by Tom Toles. Whiplash realization moment: Toles’s cartoon is from 2004. (Yes, this is an encore post.)

Tom Toles cartoon on global warming inaction, from 2004

A Tom Toles cartoon from 2004

Insert a definition of “filibuster” here.

Then pray for action.

Then call your congressman, and him/her to act, now.

_____________

Note on Tom Toles from the Department of Earth Sciences, G-107 Environmental Geology, Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis (IUPUI): “A political cartoon from the Washington Post on climate change. Tom Toles, a political cartoonist, often pens cartoons on environmental issues. His cartoons are often reprinted in other newspapers (Washington Post/Universal Press Syndicate).”

About these ads

98 Responses to Annals of global warming: Deja vu all over again (Tom Toles cartoon from 2004)

  1. […] anyone have the date on that cartoon?  Is it, like this one from Tom Toles, so old it indicates denialists do nothing new under the […]

    Like

  2. Pangolin says:

    Like the arguments in the cartoon this conversation will go nowhere because one side will simply refuse to admit any point leads to the conclusion that there is anthropogenic climate change.

    If such a point is proven they simply deny it, deny that it leads to that conclusion, deny that the science is valid, that the data is good, that the peer review process is valid, that the scientists, reviewers and journals are trustworthy. Deny physics itself if they have to.

    The old familiar Gish Galloping rears it’s ugly head. (insert denial of the existence of Duane Gish)

    “Climate Change Deniers” is simply not enough of a description for them. They are reality deniers. It’s like trying to persuade a person that a granite boulder does not float; a person who will look at said boulder at the bottom of the stream and INSIST that it is floating.

    That pig won’t sing.

    Like

  3. Black Flag® says:

    As predicted, hence repeated to Ed

    Don’t be damn trivial – it ends up showing you are merely trivial.

    Like

  4. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    Similarly, carbon dioxide frustrates convection of heat from the Earth to outer space, but not by blocking the mixing of the air.

    Totally and utterly false.

    CO2 does not impact – in any, way, shape or imagination (other than Ed’s) convection.

    Instead, it captures the heat and reradiates it back to Earth, preventing the heat’s escape to space.

    Utterly false.
    It prevents NOTHING.

    It radiates in ALL directions, Ed.

    But of course, you deny that happens at all. Regardless that life on Earth would be impossible without the greenhouse effect, you deny it.

    The difference between us, Ed, is that I understand the underlying physics of what is happening, and you do not.

    The problem with that – you don’t know that, attach yourself to any bizarre hypothesis that supports your politics even if it contradicts science, and push it as if you know what you are talking about.

    Ed, I don’t have any issue with anyone promoting a better human condition.

    I have serious problems with ignorant people – believing lies painted with words called “Science”- and pushing irrational policies.

    Like

  5. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    Since, when it appears in your benefit, you play games with sentence “tighteness”.

    I can play your game

    The fundamental mechanism IS CONVECTION

    The concept of convection is one of flow.

    “Flow “is either negative, positive or static.

    Greenhouse prevents “flow” (negative and positive) convection, leaving static.

    I hope, now, you are 1000% smarter than a minute ago.

    Like

  6. Ed Darrell says:

    I said, direct quote:
    The primary heating mechanism of a greenhouse is convection – that is, preventing rising hot air from leaving the confines of the structure.

    Yeah, it’s a small goof, but a fundamental one. The primary heating mechanism of a greenhouse is the prevention of convection, not convection. It works by frustrating convection of heat from the air inside to the air outside.

    Similarly, carbon dioxide frustrates convection of heat from the Earth to outer space, but not by blocking the mixing of the air. Instead, it captures the heat and reradiates it back to Earth, preventing the heat’s escape to space.

    But of course, you deny that happens at all. Regardless that life on Earth would be impossible without the greenhouse effect, you deny it.

    “Red is gray and yellow white. But we decide which is an illusion,” the poet said. You decide the poet’s a nut, and say neither red nor gray exist.

    Like

  7. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    It’s interesting to me that you state the function of greenhouses exactly the opposite of how they work — not by convection, but but preventing convection.

    Ed, learn to read.

    I said, direct quote:
    The primary heating mechanism of a greenhouse is convection – that is, preventing rising hot air from leaving the confines of the structure.

    Don’t be damn trivial – it ends up showing you are merely trivial.

    The greenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all directions.

    ….which is NOTHING LIKE A GREENHOUSE.

    The analogy is WRONG, Ed, which is why I point it out.

    It is an analogy of the ignorant.

    Glass would substitute nicely for the CO2

    FALSE.

    It does not! Not even in the smallest, fundamental way!

    This is why it is so frustrating dialoguing with people ignorant in science, who totally refuse becoming informed.

    You make up stories, pretending to know what you do not know, and then -worse of all- believe you have some authority to preach your garbage to others.

    Like

  8. Ed Darrell says:

    It’s interesting to me that you, BF, state the function of greenhouses exactly the opposite of how they work — not by convection, but but preventing convection.

    Since I know you won’t bother to go to another site to get information, I’ll just put the stuff here:

    The greenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all directions. Since part of this re-radiation is back towards the surface, energy is transferred to the surface and the lower atmosphere. As a result, the temperature there is higher than it would be if direct heating by solar radiation were the only warming mechanism.[1][2]

    Solar radiation at the high frequencies of visible light passes through the atmosphere to warm the planetary surface, which then emits this energy at the lower frequencies of infrared thermal radiation. Infrared radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases, which in turn re-radiate much of the energy to the surface and lower atmosphere. The mechanism is named after the effect of solar radiation passing through glass and warming a greenhouse, but the way it retains heat is fundamentally different as a greenhouse works by reducing airflow, isolating the warm air inside the structure so that heat is not lost by convection.[2][3][4]

    The greenhouse effect was discovered by French mathematician Joseph Fourier in 1824, first reliably experimented on by Irish physicist John Tyndall in 1858, and first reported quantitatively by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in 1896.[5]

    If an ideal thermally conductive blackbody was the same distance from the Sun as the Earth is, it would have a temperature of about 5.3 °C. However, since the Earth reflects about 30%[6] (or 28%[7]) of the incoming sunlight, the planet’s effective temperature (the temperature of a blackbody that would emit the same amount of radiation) is about −18 or −19 °C,[8][9] about 33°C below the actual surface temperature of about 14 °C or 15 °C.[10] The mechanism that produces this difference between the actual surface temperature and the effective temperature is due to the atmosphere and is known as the greenhouse effect.[11]

    Earth’s natural greenhouse effect makes life as we know it possible. However, human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels and clearing of forests, have greatly intensified the natural greenhouse effect, causing global warming.[12]

    Glass would substitute nicely for the CO2, but CO2 is more flexible, and holds its form in a dynamic fluid system.

    I didn’t think you understood the effect, or why it’s compared to a greenhouse, and with your describing it exactly bass ackwards, I see my thoughts were justified.

    You’re the Pope to Galileo, B.F. “Still she moves,” despite what you say. Worse, you’re Pope Pius 12 to Galileo — there’s enough information that you really know better.

    Like

  9. Scrooge says:

    Are you saying milankovick cycle is an observation
    Are you saying I don’t know how a cloud forms
    Are you back to saying the sun is secretly adding heat.
    I think you are trying to get back to we don’t know enough rather than let someone else do it.
    It can’t be the one thing the evidence points to so you just make this stuff up.

    Like

  10. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    I’m unfamiliar with any example.

    Of course not, as you have never looked.

    Ed, Bjorn Lomberg wrote a whole book on it – go read it, you might learn something.

    Like

  11. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    Slow down, there, pilgrim. You’re the one claiming to have the right to impose global warming on me and my grandchildren, and all others on the planet. By what right do you do that?

    I could no more “impose” global warming on you then “impose” global cooling.

    To demand me to explain a use of a power I do not have is irrational, unless of course you think me a God.

    If you do think I am God, I have a few commandments for you…..

    Like

  12. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    The primary heating mechanism of a greenhouse is convection – that is, preventing rising hot air from leaving the confines of the structure.

    Now, please explain how the atmosphere gas prevents convection.

    Like

  13. Ed Darrell says:
    Is there a single example of that actually working?

    Nearly every advanced western nation.
    In nearly every possible measure, the reduction in human pollution was substantially reduced well long before “laws” were enacted.

    I’m unfamiliar with any example. Name the nation, describe how businesses and other polluters decided to stop polluting because they got wealthy enough to do it, as you claimed they did.

    Name the place. Name the time. Tell us the circumstances.

    Be specific.

    Like

  14. Ed Darrell says:

    What right do you have to impose yourself upon me and call it a “law”?

    Slow down, there, pilgrim. You’re the one claiming to have the right to impose global warming on me and my grandchildren, and all others on the planet. By what right do you do that?

    Like

  15. Ed Darrell says:

    Explain the “greenhouse gas” without using greenhouse metaphor.

    Please explain for us, scientifically, how a greenhouse functions differently from greenhouse gases.

    Like

  16. Black Flag® says:

    Scrooge,

    If we don’t know about milankovich cycles how were you able to find anything.

    There is a difference that you often do not understand between observation and understanding the observation

    Cosmic rays. What part of not large enough to seed a cloud don’t you understand.

    What part that you do not know -at all- the process do you not understand?

    We monitor the sun every second 24 hrs a day. We know if its quiet or active. We measure the atmospheres input and output. Why do you think this a big secret.

    You do not know the difference between observation and understanding

    If you need to know the difference between a greenhouse and GHG you should be able to get that by finding the meaning of each.

    It is you who is confused about this.

    There is no such thing as a “greenhouse” gas, for your information

    Like

  17. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    1. Laws being requirements doesn’t make them automatically counterproductive. I don’t like to retreat to philosophy, but laws are necessary if there are more than one person on the Earth, you know?

    It is not a matter of “law”

    It is matter of “what law”.

    What right do you have to impose yourself upon me and call it a “law”?

    Like

  18. Scrooge says:

    If we don’t know about milankovich cycles how were you able to find anything.
    Cosmic rays. What part of not large enough to seed a cloud don’t you understand.
    We monitor the sun every second 24 hrs a day. We know if its quiet or active. We measure the atmospheres input and output. Why do you think this a big secret.
    If you need to know the difference between a greenhouse and GHG you should be able to get that by finding the meaning of each.

    Like

  19. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    Is there a single example of that actually working?

    Nearly every advanced western nation.
    In nearly every possible measure, the reduction in human pollution was substantially reduced well long before “laws” were enacted.

    I can think of a few thousands of contrary examples, but not a single one to support your claims.

    You do not find what you never look for, Ed.

    And you appear one of the most willfully blind people I’ve blogged with….

    Of course, even with your “laws”, pollution still exists, Ed – so you can’t claim “your solution” works, by your own definition.

    Like

  20. Black Flag® says:

    Scrooge,

    Earth tilt I think is understood. We understand summer and winter.

    My point exactly. We do not understand everything

    Milankovich cycles….

    Cosmic rays well I guess I don’t.

    http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-08/cern-experiment-finds-fragile-link-between-cosmic-rays-and-cloud-formation-climate-change

    We know about solar cycles.

    No, we don’t. We have Maunder Minimum Dalton Minimum and Spörer Minimums, as well as maximums.

    . El nino la nina we know about those I admit would like to know more. Thermohaline. We know about that. We even know the difference between a greenhouse and GHG.

    Explain the “greenhouse gas” without using greenhouse metaphor.

    Like

  21. Ed Darrell says:

    I wondered: “What do you have against humans and letting them live?”

    Morgan said:

    A law is a requirement, right?

    1. Laws being requirements doesn’t make them automatically counterproductive. I don’t like to retreat to philosophy, but laws are necessary if there are more than one person on the Earth, you know?

    2. What law are you talking about? We can’t get the Republicans to discuss saving lives in any instant, let alone global warming mitigation. Your criticism of law that doesn’t exist is quite premature.

    Like

  22. Ed Darrell says:

    The route to economic prosperity tends from low productive, high waste to high productivity, low waste.

    When an economy transitions from bare subsistence to the low productive – more pollution is created as there is not enough economic capacity to mitigate it.

    As people become richer, they demand better – and can afford to pay money to reduce their self-pollution.

    Is there a single example of that actually working? I can think of a few thousands of contrary examples, but not a single one to support your claims.

    Contrary examples range from Babylon through Mohango-Daro and Carthage and Rome, to London and Donora, Pennsylvania in the last century, to the Aral Sea and Beijing today.

    Is there any fact of history, law or science you won’t deny, B.F.?

    Never mind — just give us an example.

    Like

  23. Scrooge says:

    Earth tilt I think is understood. We understand summer and winter. Cosmic rays well I guess I don’t. I even decided not to work a couple of days last week after hearing about the auroras. I didn’t know if it was going to be to hot or cloudy and rainy because I haven’t figured it out. We know about solar cycles. There might be a new paper out soon about its effect on regional weather, but even without that some forecasters have been using it for years in outlooks. El nino la nina we know about those I admit would like to know more. Thermohaline. We know about that. We even know the difference between a greenhouse and GHG. So is this going to we can’t change it or let other people deal with it.

    Like

  24. Black Flag® says:

    Scrooge,

    And that isn’t even a fraction of the variables – add to all of that earth-title cycles, cosmic rays, solar variations, El Nino and Nina,
    Thermohaline circulation …..

    And add to all of that, the Earth is not a greenhouse.

    Like

  25. What do you have against humans and letting them live?

    A law is a requirement, right?

    If a law is a good law, you’d feel yourself enabled and empowered to discuss the virtues of the requirement itself rather than its goals.

    What’s the best that can be said of a law that can only be defended with regard to its ultimate goals? It’s a rare law that doesn’t have beneficial ultimate goals. Perhaps we can safely generalize: Show me a hundred laws, I’ll show you a hundred statements of the wonderful things those laws will do, envisioned, if by nobody else, at least by the people who are pushing the law. But of course, that doesn’t mean I can show you a hundred laws that will actually work.

    So if your defense of this law is only that “Whoever opposes this law must want dirtier air” and you can’t do any better than that, it is almost certainly a bad law. It passes only those tests that could be passed by all candidates, to wit: Everybody who likes it, likes it.

    Thanks, once again, for proving the truth of what I had just said.

    Like

  26. Black Flag® says:

    Oh yeah,
    Re: your mother,

    The other failure of your anecdotal example is you automatically assume the company couldn’t have made the same millions with someone else doing the work – that is, she is the only one in the nearly 7 billion people who could have done that….

    …which, of course, would be ridiculous.

    I do not agree at all with poisoning human beings – physically and,. most importantly, mentally – which is why the Greenie Environmentalist movement must be resisted – it is an anti-human philosophy polluting the minds of men.

    Like

  27. Scrooge says:

    Sorry Ed I have to work once in awhile. Not taking into account the spinning of the earth which we can say is constant, oceans, and geography. The next step to understanding weather is the hadley cells. They start with rising air at the equator which moves towards the poles and come down in the mid latitudes. These cells are what steer our weather systems. The ridge you hear about in TX, the bermuda high, and the walker ridge are all part of one of the cells. The cells are temp sensitive. Increase temp and the cell expands weakening the temp and pressure gradients which changes wind patterns. It also accounts for the steady increase of deserts. This is the reason for the droughts and associated famine in africa. And the expansion is what will be affecting the SW U.S. and europe. What has happened so far is the result of only half a degree change. I maybe should have mentioned pressure too but overall earths pressure is determined by the mass of the planet and doesn’t change. I may have made some mistakes but I hope you get the gist of it. We don’t even have to teach AGW in school. Since its happening we just have to teach weather. Hope this helps and I grew up in the St Paul area.

    Like

  28. Black Flag® says:

    James,

    The other question, Ed, that MOrgan should answer is this: Why is he so against the people of the United States being healthier and more economically productive?

    He isn’t, which is why resisting the zealots is so important.

    The zealots will destroy the economic viability of the nation by strangling its energy production and consumption.

    Productive people use more energy then non-productive people.

    Because that is what environmental protection laws, such as the Clean Air act, accomplish.

    No it does not

    You are economically ignorant.

    All “law” degrade economic choice, which degrades economic growth.

    Further “environmental protections” does NOT reduce pollution – it enforces it

    It is the government allowing companies to pollute you by establishing a level.

    Stopping the pollution of humans is a political choice and not a economic one. Argue the merits of not poisoning people on the merits of not poisoning people – that is, human rights.

    It is outright stupid to argue political choices by trying to invoke economic measures – it is like trying to measure the length of a field by what color the dirt looks.

    But why political zealots as yourself will not do otherwise, is because to argue against pollution based on human rights invokes the principles of human rights – which your ilk must work against as you hate the choices made by free men as they tend to avoid your terrible ideas and philosophies.

    So you can’t dare argue FOR human rights in your cause, since you argue AGAINST freedom in your cause.

    So you try to use some other completely muddled mixture and utterly confuse yourself.

    Glad your mother is feeling better.

    If her asthma had been worse because of said more pollution then she wouldn’t have been able to work for US Bank and wouldn’t have been able to, and no I’m not making this up, made them several hundred million dollars profit.

    So, let’s see.
    To make a million you spend a billion – to you that makes economic sense.

    Anecdotal comments are argument fallacy if attempted to be used for PROOF.

    That being no environmental protections/controls and just letting industry pollute as much as it wanted…..

    Because you have your cause and effect backwards.

    The route to economic prosperity tends from low productive, high waste to high productivity, low waste.

    When an economy transitions from bare subsistence to the low productive – more pollution is created as there is not enough economic capacity to mitigate it.

    As people become richer, they demand better – and can afford to pay money to reduce their self-pollution.

    You want to go the other way around – thus make people poorer, who then cannot afford to mitigate their own pollution.

    Oh and by the way, Morgan, you can’t be pro-life and anti-environmental protection.

    Yes you can.

    “Environmental” movement today has nothing to do with humans – it is wholly anti-human.

    Like

  29. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    If offered a link beyond the cryptic “Dr. Beck proved” claim you made, I missed it. Out of respect for you, I didn’t link to the Chicago sewer system in response.

    So you haven’t read it so the best you can do is subject Dr. Beck to ad homenien attack!

    You do not comprehend that he provided a study of all the chemical analysis work of multiple Nobel prize chemists who dispute Keeling.

    But you have no skill, let alone will, to realize any of this.

    You are a zealot, Ed, and until the day you die, covered in ice, you will still faithful to your Greenie religious dogma.

    Here’s a clue: Saying that CO2 in cities is higher, when measured in Paris, is probably a measure of how often a champagne cork is popped more than a measure of CO2 globally — Beck’s half-dozen compromised measuring sites cannot refute the thousands of sites, Mauna Loa, and ocean concentration measurements taken over the previous 50 years.

    I just love with the zealotry faithful argue against their own points!

    So you do agree that Co2 is NOT well mixed!

    So you do agree that CO2 in a city will be different then on an active volcano spewing Co2!

    So you confound your own argument – and to your muddled mind, think you are confirming it!

    hahahahhahaha

    (For your edification, here’s Beck in a previous existence as a farmer versus a real estate developer:

    hahahahhahahahhaha

    You are a master of fallacy!

    And that’s one lone voice in the wilderness who cannot replicate his work. Give us some real science, will you?

    Oh, Ed, I know it is pointless to do so.

    If 1,000 measurements of Co2 is not enough for you, 200,000 won’t be enough for you.

    You are a zealot, scientifically ignorant, and worse of all, dishonest to reason.r comments here?

    Like

  30. The other question, Ed, that MOrgan should answer is this: Why is he so against the people of the United States being healthier and more economically productive?

    Because that is what environmental protection laws, such as the Clean Air act, accomplish. Case in my point: My mother. My mom had bad asthma which only would have been worsened if air pollution was bad here in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area of Minnesota. If her asthma had been worse because of said more pollution then she wouldn’t have been able to work for US Bank and wouldn’t have been able to, and no I’m not making this up, made them several hundred million dollars profit. Because my mom was good enough at her job that more then a few of her clients did business with US bank merely because of my mom.

    Well there is another question he should ask himself: If he has such a visceral hatred of communists then why is he advocating positions that the Soviet Union subscribed to? That being no environmental protections/controls and just letting industry pollute as much as it wanted…..

    Oh and by the way, Morgan, you can’t be pro-life and anti-environmental protection.

    But there Morgan and other dimbulbs sit…pretending that environmental protections are costing this country jobs when 1: environmental protections have not been strengthened since Obama became president and 2: there were plenty of jobs with the same environmental protections in place before Bush came into office.

    But please, Morgan, if you have such a problem with environmental protections then go live in the coal mining regions of West Virgina and see how far you get. I hope you like your air and water blood red.

    Like

  31. Ed Darrell says:

    So I will just give you this and actually is the most important thing to understand the future weather as the hadley cells expand.
    http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL048856.pdf

    As if anyone in this forum knows what a Hadley cell is and how it works . . .

    Good reference. Thanks for calling it to my attention.

    Like

  32. Ed Darrell says:

    If good science, on one issue or another, just so happened to declare that we had to cease & desist our present activities & resume them again only while we obey a centralized authority, in order to ensure our continuing survival — it occurs to me that “good science” would only be deciding that occasionally. Half the time at the very most.

    Yet here in The Bathtub, that’s what “good science” does constantly, on each issue that comes along.

    Morgan, I expect more from you. Really.

    At no point have I ever argued for a massive centralized authority to do anything — certainly nothing more than national standards to clean up crap dumped into the air.

    Moreover, the Clean Air Act’s manifold benefits, from cleaner air, healthier people to more jobs, are well measured and documented. Why should we not continue to make our environment cleaner and healthier and stop dumping garbage in it, since our past efforts have paid off so grandly?

    Every time we suggest saving human lives, you go all bizarre. What do you have against humans and letting them live?

    One need not even familiarize oneself with the minutiae of scientific literature to figure out this is a political movement & not a scientific one (although once one does that, there are all kinds of other problems for the narrative). One need only recognize the difference between scientific efforts and political ones, to recognize this is a political one.

    Denial of the facts of global warming, and opposition to to the study of the problems, and opposition to doing anything about the problems are all political, yes. That’s clear. Heck, even Anthony Watts’s results turn out to support the conclusion that the Earth warms and that human causation is a major factor, but he turned on his own colleagues to denounce the conclusions from the data and studies he provided. (No, misspellings are not science errors, usually.)

    That’s not science, it’s pure politics.

    Like

  33. Ed Darrell says:

    There is nothing I can say here that Dr. Beck has not said . . .

    Really? You keep saying a lot for someone who has nothing to say.

    Like

  34. Ed Darrell says:

    I linked you to Dr. Beck’s work.

    If offered a link beyond the cryptic “Dr. Beck proved” claim you made, I missed it. Out of respect for you, I didn’t link to the Chicago sewer system in response.

    E. G. Beck (assuming that’s the Beck you refer to) is a charlatan, a hoaxster, a master of pseudo-science, a skilled practitioner of cargo cult wonkery — his work is unpublished in reputable journals, uncited by scientists except as warnings away from pseudo-science and recreational use of drugs and alcohol, and unworthy of your consideration, or the consideration of anyone else.

    Here’s a clue: Saying that CO2 in cities is higher, when measured in Paris, is probably a measure of how often a champagne cork is popped more than a measure of CO2 globally — Beck’s half-dozen compromised measuring sites cannot refute the thousands of sites, Mauna Loa, and ocean concentration measurements taken over the previous 50 years.

    (For your edification, here’s Beck in a previous existence as a farmer versus a real estate developer:

    Beck wasn’t good on picking his demonstrations even before computers. He makes up in brass what he lacks in science ability.)

    Beck’s claims about carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are screwy, worthy of the Katzenjammer kids, or Pa Kettle, but not science, not accurate, and not good grist for polite, intelligent and interested-in-solving-problems company.

    You keep lecturing us on the meaning of the “scientific method” as if you understood science at all. You need some lessons in rhetoric and credence. What you offer for evidence isn’t worthy of the compost heap.

    And that’s one lone voice in the wilderness who cannot replicate his work. Give us some real science, will you?

    Paris is for eating, viewing art, arguing the raisons d’etre in sidewalk cafes, and long strolls on the Champs Elysee holding hands with your sweetie after dinner — but not a good place to measure worldwide levels of CO2. Had you read anything about the project at Mauna Loa, you could figure out why.

    I’m beginning to wonder, BF, if your citing of so much charlatan work isn’t because you are, yourself, a charlatan. As you know, the scientific method works by disproof. How could I possibly disprove a claim that you are a charlatan, based on the crappy stuff you ask us to believe in your comments here?

    Like

  35. Scrooge says:

    Boy this is interesting. LOL all I did was respond to a question and I thought I was polite. So I will just give you this and actually is the most important thing to understand the future weather as the hadley cells expand.

    http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL048856.pdf

    Like

  36. If good science, on one issue or another, just so happened to declare that we had to cease & desist our present activities & resume them again only while we obey a centralized authority, in order to ensure our continuing survival — it occurs to me that “good science” would only be deciding that occasionally. Half the time at the very most.

    Yet here in The Bathtub, that’s what “good science” does constantly, on each issue that comes along.

    Also, those who support the good-science would say something to the effect of “We are really sure of such-and-such…but, since we are intellectually vigorous and constantly questioning things, we can understand how other persons might be competent and still disagree with us.”

    That, obviously, is not happening here.

    One need not even familiarize oneself with the minutiae of scientific literature to figure out this is a political movement & not a scientific one (although once one does that, there are all kinds of other problems for the narrative). One need only recognize the difference between scientific efforts and political ones, to recognize this is a political one.

    And Ed, sorry old boy, but that’s in spite of your best efforts. You’ve been just too consistent about all this, and made something of a problem for yourself. Everyone who disagrees with you even in the slightest, is an incompetent reader? I know that rule has to remain in effect for you to be you, but it’s a mistake for you to continue highlighting it.

    Like

  37. Alan Scott says:

    Ed Darrell,

    “” Scrooge pointed out: “56,000 more people than normal died in russia last year a lot because of their heat wave. That heat wave was 80% likely to have been caused by AGW. ” ”

    Earth to Ed, you can’t ‘ prove ‘ AGW cause the heat wave. Most likely you do not know what you are talking about . Where do you get an 80% figure? Based on what ? Are there alternative universes and 80% say you are right?

    ” Never before in human history has there been such a spike in greenhouse gases from a source — human burning of fossil fuels — that did not have limited life, and therefore limited effect. ”

    Earth to Ed, I do not care about the % of greenhouse gases. If you would read with any comprehension ,,,,at all,,, you would know I spoke about heat waves, droughts, floods, and all other weather events that you and yours cite as evidence of Climate Change.

    ” But never before has warming been driven so much by greenhouse gases, ”

    You do not know that . You cannot prove anything. We have warming and we have high-er levels of CO2, therefore Ed concludes that elevated levels of CO2 caused the warming. But I pointed out that all of these weather events, have all occurred in the past when CO2 levels were lower. So tell me, Ed , if today’s global warming is caused by higher CO2, what caused the same events previously ?

    You know there is nothing that Global Warming cannot do, right ? Where I live in Eastern Pennsylvania we are getting a rare October snow storm. Most of the leaves on the trees are still green . Logically , I would imagine that if my climate in Pa. were warming, the first snowstorms would be occurring later and later. I would be wrong, right ? This is very early for a snow storm.

    If you and Mr. Scrooge can make the outrageous statement that Global Warming killed 56,000 people, then I say a freak early season snow storm was caused by Global Cooling.

    According to you and Mr.Scrooge, the only proof that there is no Man Made Global Warming is to have perfect weather. But the weather on Planet Earth has never been perfect for any long period . If you cannot give me real criteria for disproving your climate change theory, then it is invalid .

    Like

  38. Black Flag® says:

    Scrooge,
    CO2 is measured at over 100 stations across the world and they all give the same trend. They use mauna loa because its the oldest.

    Please provide a link to their sampling, data and methodology.

    Dr. Beck provided such to you….

    Like

  39. Scrooge says:

    CO2 is measured at over 100 stations across the world and they all give the same trend. They use mauna loa because its the oldest.

    Like

  40. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    Showing me the same error over and over will not improve the error.

    If you do want to show something important, please post Keeling’s methodology of removing the Co2 out gassing component that is polluting his measures at the volcano.

    From your NON-Scientific site, another of lie.

    …The reason why it’s acceptable to use Mauna Loa as a proxy for global CO2 levels is because CO2 mixes well throughout the atmosphere…..

    This claim is false.
    Chemical analysis has shown that CO2 concentrations vary massively over different locations, altitudes and time.

    And then, just like the bizarre Climate science constantly does, goes right about proving their own claim wrong – he provides a video showing the massive variations of concentrations over the Globe

    All of this =again= demonstrates the depravity of Climate science today.

    Like

  41. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    I linked you to Dr. Beck’s work.
    There is nothing I can say here that Dr. Beck has not said – he substantially refuted Keeling and Callender work as incomplete.

    But, I know you will not read it. You are too married to your zealotry and anything that risks it will be ignored.

    Like

  42. Ed Darrell says:

    Can we rely on measurements from Mauna Loa? NASA says “yes.”

    Here, compare the measurements at Mauna Loa to the measurements at the South Pole — notice how they corroborate the global warming caused by human activities hypothesis:

    Like

  43. Black Flag® says:

    Mauna Loa was chosen because it is far from major sources or sinks of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide concentrations measured at Mauna Loa are a good proxy for the average of the whole Earth

    The depth of the stupidity knows no bounds.

    One chooses a place where the CO2 out gasses in massive concentrations … it is a active VOLCANO …. yet claim you choose this place because …quote….”away FROM a major source of CO2…”

    In the text, this moron states ..”The measurements were made at the Mauna Loa Astronomical Observatory which is at the summit of an inactive volcano in Hawaii.”

    But that is a lie!

    It is the largest volcano in the world by area and is ACTIVE!

    “Mauna Loa’s most recent eruption occurred from March 24, 1984, through April 15, 1984. No recent eruptions of the volcano have caused fatalities, but eruptions in 1926 and 1950 destroyed villages, and the city of Hilo is partly built on lava flows from the late 19th century.”

    The out-and-out lying, upside-down, black is white, world of Climatology is the only place such stupidity would be acceptable.

    Like

  44. Scrooge says:

    Boy keeling must be getting old

    Like

  45. Black Flag® says:

    …SURROUNDED by CO2 out gassing….

    Like

  46. Black Flag® says:

    Scrooge

    You are in err, again.

    They are using only one measure – Charles Keeling

    1st thing you better know, this comes from a station on top of a volcano surrender by massive CO2 outgassing.

    So, here is where you, no doubt would want to measure global CO2.

    2nd thing you better know, no one knows what methodology Keeling is using to measure “out” this extra outgassing – it is patented and a secret.

    So know no one knows if he is right or not.

    Chemical analysis of the atmosphere show nothing like Keeling’s measurements.

    So, either you have to accept Keeling, including is “secert” fixes OR you accept chemical analysis – something you can do in your home to confirm or deny these measures.

    Copying the same error 5 times does not make the error go away.

    Like

  47. Scrooge says:

    LOL so the 5 or 6 scientific research teams that did the measurements that went into that NOAA graph are not scientific. But Flag did an experiment. Amazing.

    Like

  48. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,
    You merely provide another non-scientific source to back up your non-scientific knowledge.

    And you expect me to agree.

    I provide scientific experiment to prove you wrong, but because you are non-scientific, you ignore it.

    This makes you ignorant.

    Like

  49. Ed Darrell says:

    The site Scrooge cited said:

    At 400 PPM, the amount of carbon dioxide currently in the atmosphere is unprecedented, at least in the past 415,000 years. The last time it reached even 300 PPM was 325,000 years ago.

    I had said, “Never before in human history has there been so much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.”

    To which BF responded:

    This is false, and continuing to preach it as if it was truth makes it a lie.

    Is BF a completely incompetent reader, or does he tell whoppers for fun?

    Let me rephrase: “Never before in human history, plus the previous 410,000 years, has CO2 been so high.”

    It wasn’t a lie, BF — I made an understatement.

    You, on the other hand? Is there any excuse?

    Like

  50. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    Never before in human history has there been so much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

    This is false, and continuing to preach it as if it was truth makes it a lie

    Never before in human history has warming been driven by such an excess of greenhouse gases.

    This is hypothesis has wholly been falsified, and continuing to preach it as if it was trust makes it a lie.

    Never before in human history has there been such a spike in greenhouse gases from a source — human burning of fossil fuels — that did not have limited life, and therefore limited effect.

    This is false, and continuing to preach it as if it was truth makes it a lie.

    If you think this has happened before, you’ve got goofy sources. Warming has occurred before.

    No, it means you are purposely ignorant.
    Dr. Beck demonstrated, conclusively, the falsehoods you promote.

    CO2 levels have been so high before (at least a billion years before humans, and before large mammals could exist).

    This is false, and continuing to preach it as if it was truth makes it a lie

    But never before has warming been driven so much by greenhouse gases,

    This is false, and continuing to preach it as if it was truth makes it a lie

    and never before have those gases been of human origin that will continue unabated into the near future, and far future unless we act.

    This may be true, however, all action has consequence.

    You can most certainly resort to economic destruction for your own irrational reasons, however, such destruction will collapse society, resulting in the destruction of the high division of labor that your daily life completely depends.

    With the collapse of the division of labor, you will die. Millions will die. It will collapse society into a new, deadly, Dark Age.

    The yeasts in the champagne bottle reproduce like mad — after all, fermentation has occurred before, what could be the harm of reproducing like made in a corked bottle, for yeasts?

    Human beings are not yeast, do not act like yeast, and think – unlike yeast….well, perhaps most of us – though, if YOU think you are like yeast, I will not argue that point.

    The Greenies are a grave threat to mankind.

    The lies and falsehoods, should they become established, threatens the continuation of progress and of society.

    Their threat of action threatens the end of the Age of Enlightenment, and herald a new Darker age – The Age of Endarkenment

    Those of us who do not wish the calamity upon our children must resist these people with everything we’ve got.

    Like

  51. Coming to a different conclusion than Ed == missing the point. You know what Mr. Darrell, seems to me I’ve had a few things to say about that in previous comments, as well.

    I can’t help but wonder how a student, competent in his command of the academic material, would do in your class if he happens to lean conservative. I expect your answer would be something along the lines of “don’t be silly, if he knew what he was doing he wouldn’t lean conservative.”

    Like

  52. Ed Darrell says:

    Morgan offers an object demonstration of what missing all the science looks like:

    So to sum it up: When the weather is unusually and unexpectedly warm, climate and climate are synonymous — especially when the warm-weather incident has been lethal. When the weather is unusually and unexpectedly cool, it becomes very, very important to articulate the meaningful difference between weather and climate. Hey, if the pet theory can’t co-exist with logical honesty & consistency, who needs honesty & consistency?

    If you check back, what I said is that warming causes extremes in weather to be greater and more frequent. That means warmer warms and colder colds. Both extremes occur more often, too.

    So, yeah, if you offer an extreme in weather, there’s a lot of data to suggest global warming played a part in that.

    What you’d need to do to suggest less global warming is show a cooling of the planet’s average temperature — say, below the 20th century average — for a year or so, and show the decreases in violent weather, violence and frequency.

    Yes, if you keep offering weather extremes, I’ll keep pointing out that’s what we get from global warming. You may continue to miss the point — in fact, I predict that even if you ever understand why it is that warming causes increases in the extremes, you’ll deny it. Then you’ll start denying the extremes (“Oh, there was a nasty hurricane once in 1900, and another in 1938, so the fact that we got five of that kind back to back in six weeks isn’t really evidence of greater frequency, or something, somebody please stop me before I blather myself to death . . .”)

    And so we get a twelve-month news cycle in which we are counseled to keep the difference in mind between weather & climate, every Halloween and soon afterward…and, around Father’s Day, reliable as clockwork, we get this “alternate Halloween” full of spooky stories about heat waves caused by global warming, killing people dead. Weather & climate become the same again.

    Or, you might watch what the news reports actually say. Most of the time the global warming scientists are cautionary, saying we can’t say for certain whether this or that killer weather phenomenon is the direct result of warming, but that warming almost certainly contributes to the extreme.

    It’s in the mainstream news, usually accurately, Morgan. I gather you watch Fox a lot.

    Whatever it takes to make dumb ideas look like good ones.

    You’ll deny science, truth, accuracy, and both black and white, if it allows you to deny reality and claim we don’t need to do anything but watch poor people die.

    Like

  53. So to sum it up: When the weather is unusually and unexpectedly warm, climate and climate are synonymous — especially when the warm-weather incident has been lethal. When the weather is unusually and unexpectedly cool, it becomes very, very important to articulate the meaningful difference between weather and climate. Hey, if the pet theory can’t co-exist with logical honesty & consistency, who needs honesty & consistency?

    And so we get a twelve-month news cycle in which we are counseled to keep the difference in mind between weather & climate, every Halloween and soon afterward…and, around Father’s Day, reliable as clockwork, we get this “alternate Halloween” full of spooky stories about heat waves caused by global warming, killing people dead. Weather & climate become the same again.

    Whatever it takes to make dumb ideas look like good ones.

    Like

  54. Ed Darrell says:

    My point is that if you had any ability to research history you would find that nothing that has happened during our current period of Global Warming, is new . It has all happened before.

    Never before in human history has there been so much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Never before in human history has warming been driven by such an excess of greenhouse gases. Never before in human history has there been such a spike in greenhouse gases from a source — human burning of fossil fuels — that did not have limited life, and therefore limited effect.

    If you think this has happened before, you’ve got goofy sources. Warming has occurred before. CO2 levels have been so high before (at least a billion years before humans, and before large mammals could exist). But never before has warming been driven so much by greenhouse gases, and never before have those gases been of human origin that will continue unabated into the near future, and far future unless we act.

    The yeasts in the champagne bottle reproduce like mad — after all, fermentation has occurred before, what could be the harm of reproducing like made in a corked bottle, for yeasts?

    Like

  55. Ed Darrell says:

    Scrooge pointed out: “56,000 more people than normal died in russia last year a lot because of their heat wave. That heat wave was 80% likely to have been caused by AGW. ”

    Alan dodged the issue:

    You Global Warming nuts are just wonderful to argue with . It is too easy to catch you and yours in conflicts and inconsistencies . Every singe time me or someone like me brings up something like a blizzard in the middle east or a colder snowier winter than normal in the Eastern United States, and we cite that as evidence that the climate is not warming, you guys say that weather is not climate . Now of course the drought in Russia, which is a weather event is evidence of Global freaking Warming.

    Scrooge talked about the deaths from global warming. You don’t deal with that, but instead try to misdirect the discussion, claiming that weather provides evidence contrary to global warming.

    But of course, that’s 100% false.

    56,000 people died — human beings, live last week, dead from the extreme weather caused by climate change — and you’re busy looking for a blizzard somewhere, hoping to contradict the firm theory of global warming.

    If you find a blizzard, it won’t resurrect any of the dead, nor stop anyone else from dying.

    Why not deal with reality, Alan?

    Like

  56. Alan Scott says:

    Scrooge ,

    ” 56000 more people than normal died in russia last year a lot because of their heat wave. That heat wave was 80% likely to have been caused by AGW. ”

    You Global Warming nuts are just wonderful to argue with . It is too easy to catch you and yours in conflicts and inconsistencies . Every singe time me or someone like me brings up something like a blizzard in the middle east or a colder snowier winter than normal in the Eastern United States, and we cite that as evidence that the climate is not warming, you guys say that weather is not climate . Now of course the drought in Russia, which is a weather event is evidence of Global freaking Warming.

    You know you are right, until Al idiot Gore coined the phrase Global Warming, there were no droughts. The great droughts that wiped out the Pre Inca civilizations in South America, never happened .

    My point is that if you had any ability to research history you would find that nothing that has happened during our current period of Global Warming, is new . It has all happened before.

    ” I’m not saying give up your car, I’m saying stop trying to prevent others that want to do something about it. ”

    I will fight you people every chance I get, because you will destroy our country . You deny, deny, deny the economic damage you have done . All of your science has been corrupted . Your pretty green toys do not work . You can say they do all you want, they are a total joke .

    If your solutions worked, evil corporate America would be pursuing them without green welfare from Uncle Obama. Nearly all wind and solar would not have been built without Government handouts . Like Ethanol, it’s all pure BS .

    Like

  57. Black Flag® says:

    A VERY chilling Halloween: New England swept by early winter wonderland as the East Coast braces itself for snowstorm which could hit 60 MILLION people

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2054719/North-east-braces-October-snow-inches-predicted-areas.html#ixzz1c8yBnuE3

    Like

  58. Black Flag® says:

    So, the best source is one sentence from a newspaper, -not the source itself- but a paper, who’s byline is “greenie” – who combined a bunch of “disasters” into one number.

    You take this as one number on one event.

    You are ignorant of statistics and press exaggeration.

    Like

  59. Black Flag® says:

    Nothing in science you will not deny.

    Science is clear – you are not.

    You’re a denialist, BF. Very contrary.

    I deny irrational argument.

    A claim that I must entertain equally 2+2=4 and 2+2=5 will never get a hearing from me.

    Your response: “I am not.”

    I am not irrational.

    Like

  60. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    No. Saving humanity has always been the “greenie” cause.

    I wish!

    With proclamations from being a “virus” and a “plague”, no sir – Greenie is completely anti-human

    Like

  61. Ed Darrell says:

    Kinda disappointed, but not pissed off. Great Cardinal team, no? Great series. As our older son noted last night, the Rangers didn’t deserve to win that ill-played game — but neither did the Cardinals. Tonight?

    Cardinals played better, I thought. Rangers were out of steam.

    It’s easier that I’ve never been a big Rangers fan, but we were rooting for them this year — and last year. I got to see two World Series in Baltimore, one losing in ’79, one winning in ’83. Winning is better, and I think the Rangers “deserve” to win.

    But they didn’t.

    Wait till next year.

    Like

  62. Scrooge says:

    I’m watching the world series so kinda wondering if Ed is gonna come back really pissed off.

    Like

  63. Ed Darrell says:

    I wrote: “We should act against global warming to save our own burros, not the rear -ends of other animals and plants.”

    Missing the point entirely, BF gloated:

    OK! We are getting progress here!

    Ed has left the “Greenie” cause, and joined humanity! Applause!

    No. Saving humanity has always been the “greenie” cause. Santayana was right, and here we are fighting against a know-nothing about how to save the environment necessary for us to live — again.

    Those more interested in shouting down others — like calling concerned citizens “greenies” — don’t do us any favors when they finally see the light. Too often, it’s too late.

    Like

  64. Ed Darrell says:

    ….and I hope you did not infer the Moon came from the Earth….?

    Nothing in science you will not deny.

    You’re a denialist, BF. Very contrary.

    Your response: “I am not.”

    Like

  65. Scrooge says:

    Hello Alan
    56000 more people than normal died in russia last year a lot because of their heat wave. That heat wave was 80% likely to have been caused by AGW. The droughts and associated famine in Africa are caused by the AGW expansion of hadley cells. I’m not saying give up your car, I’m saying stop trying to prevent others that want to do something about it. It will be done eventually but the longer it takes the more it will cost, and more will die.

    Like

  66. Black Flag® says:

    Scrooge,

    yayayayayayay

    So, what do you believe (or not) about Lomberg?

    Can you actually think for yourself?

    I am rarely interested in arguing against some text book or someone else’s blog that you copy from.

    I want to see YOUR GENIUS.

    Bring it!

    Like

  67. Alan Scott says:

    Scrooge,

    ” Thanks for telling me its ok that people are dying and suffering now because of what we have done. ”

    What do you mean we, kemo sabe ? I have done nothing to cause dying and suffering. I don’t know what you have been up to .

    Like

  68. Scrooge says:

    Oh good grief now Lomborg. Already shown to be wrong and tried to mislead people on purpose. I know he used to have a job. You guys got a club and secret handshake or something.

    Like

  69. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,
    ….and I hope you did not infer the Moon came from the Earth….?

    Like

  70. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    Well, yeah, unless you were the guy on that chunk of rock that got expelled when the asteroid hit, and now you lie a thousand feet deep in the Moon. Or, unless you were those guys at the water hole when the ash cloud hit.

    So, let me get this straight – just so I continue to understand that massive confusion you call “Ed’s brain”….

    You believe if you can point to the death of a few people in a disaster, that will equal the earth being destroyed in such a disaster.

    . We should act against global warming to save our own burros, not the rear -ends of other animals and plants.

    OK! We are getting progress here!

    Ed has left the “Greenie” cause, and joined humanity! Applause!

    Now since your hypothesis is wholly discredited, let’s just leave that aside ….
    … and join Bjorn Lomborg!

    He is a AGW-ist – however, he is closer to you … that is let us look at what we can do to improve the human condition

    And he did all the math – that spending money trying to stop what cannot be stopped OR
    spending that money in helping people deal with the unstoppable change.

    The math was totally clear – the latter is the best investment.

    So, why don’t you argue his points???

    Like

  71. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    Or understand that an anomaly in a dynamic system is something other than normal dynamics.

    How do you know?

    BF, you are rapidly making a case to me that you are one of the most stubbornly stupid denialists on the face of the planet.

    I am not a denialist, you zealot!

    Figuring anomalies in dynamic systems isn’t always easy, but it’s not difficult to understand the concepts.

    The concept, called “Chaos” can be essentially explained in a paragraph.

    This does not mean at all that you can solve your dynamic system whatsoever.

    If we can’t figure anomalies in dynamic systems, we can’t ever make a better stereo entertainment system.

    Do not compare a limited set of variables that you can control with climate’s massive complex, poorly understood variables that you cannot control.

    Harvey Fletcher made your argument look silly more than 60 years ago.

    Harvey was not as smart as you think he was.

    Like

  72. Ed Darrell says:

    To assume such anomaly is a “problem” must mean you think the system must be static.

    Or understand that an anomaly in a dynamic system is something other than normal dynamics.

    BF, you are rapidly making a case to me that you are one of the most stubbornly stupid denialists on the face of the planet. Figuring anomalies in dynamic systems isn’t always easy, but it’s not difficult to understand the concepts. If we can’t figure anomalies in dynamic systems, we can’t ever make a better stereo entertainment system.

    Harvey Fletcher made your argument look silly more than 60 years ago. Without irony, it was his son who directed NASA to get into the business of studying climate problems, later. Either one of them snored better science than you’re writing here, now.

    Like

  73. Ed Darrell says:

    We’ve been hit by asteroids, blown up by super-volcanoes – and the Earth is “just fine”.

    Well, yeah, unless you were the guy on that chunk of rock that got expelled when the asteroid hit, and now you lie a thousand feet deep in the Moon. Or, unless you were those guys at the water hole when the ash cloud hit.

    I truly doubt lil’ol’mankind is even as big as a pimple on Mother Nature’s rear end.

    Yeah, but that cuts against your argument, not in favor of it. We should act against global warming to save our own burros, not the rear-ends of other animals and plants.

    Like

  74. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    The time scale doesn’t matter to denialists, who do not understand what “anomaly” means, or why it should matter at all.

    Ed, you do not know what “anomaly” means in the sense of observations – which is merely “a difference from an average”.

    To assume such anomaly is a “problem” must mean you think the system must be static

    Time scale is very important – and please provide your reasons why your choice of timescale is more valid than someone else

    Nor to the denialists who fail to understand that, while effects have causes, that also means every “cause” has an effect, and just because we don’t know the deleterious effects of a given action doesn’t mean that there are none.

    But Ed, in your confusion, you don’t know the positive effects either.

    You assume all consequences of human action is bad – which is why you are wrong.

    They’ll lecture us on “scientific method,” as if they thought the phrase had meaning and they understand that meaning.

    It has meaning to science – but you have no understanding or want of understanding there.

    Like

  75. Ed Darrell says:

    Yea we should be slowly going into an ice age, I thought that was around 10k years out though.

    The time scale doesn’t matter to denialists, who do not understand what “anomaly” means, or why it should matter at all.

    Nor to the denialists who fail to understand that, while effects have causes, that also means every “cause” has an effect, and just because we don’t know the deleterious effects of a given action doesn’t mean that there are none.

    They’ll lecture us on “scientific method,” as if they thought the phrase had meaning and they understand that meaning.

    Like

  76. Black Flag® says:

    Scrooge,

    Yes, some people don’t understand complex problems.

    But also there are some people who believe they do, and they really don’t.

    Some problems are not just complex, but they are unsolvable – in this arena, the problems are chaotic – that is, the solution merely presents another problem.

    The problem: is the problem truly chaotic, or merely “just really really difficult” – how long do you work on a problem before you know you can’t solve it?

    Godel himself went insane trying to prove his theory regarding unprovable truths – it may have been his theory, though true, was one of the unprovable ones.

    A great BBC series – and deals with Godel’s problem (later in the series)

    Dangerous Knowledge

    Like

  77. Scrooge says:

    One thing about people that cant understand complex problems. They either say there is no problem, or someone else will figure it out.

    Like

  78. Black Flag® says:

    Hi Morgan

    Well let’s see, you non-friendly guy you

    I am friendly…just sometimes I happen to shoot my friends too!

    …”global warming is happening.” It’s in how you define it.

    It’s no mystery.

    We see it warm every year, and we see it cool every year too. Its a real regular cycle that is not about to change anytime soon.

    However, we are pretty confident that it is warmer -all year ’round- in New York then 20,000 years ago on that same piece of land.

    Specifically, the apelike creatures residing in one particular country?

    Exactly.

    We’ve been hit by asteroids, blown up by super-volcanoes – and the Earth is “just fine”.

    I truly doubt lil’ol’mankind is even as big as a pimple on Mother Nature’s rear end.

    Like

  79. Black Flag® says:

    Thanks flag for telling me supply and demand have nothing to do with the price of oil and food.

    I did not tell you this.

    I told you why, today, you are seeing prices rising.

    And when the price of oil goes up it usually means inflation.

    Oil prices are directly linked to the US$.
    As the US$ falls in relation to other currencies, the price charged for oil goes up, in terms of the US$

    I know this really complex stuff for you, but I have high hopes it may penetrate into your understanding.

    Boy there’s a revelation.

    Relief of ignorance is always a good thing.

    Thanks for telling me its ok that people are dying and suffering now because of what we have done.

    People die and People will suffer.

    And absolutely nothing you want, demand or do will change this.

    But most of all thank you for telling me what I should do for MY grandchildren.

    Yep, leave them alone.
    If you have done your proper job, they will be make their own decisions about their own world in their own time.

    Like

  80. Scrooge says:

    Thanks flag for telling me supply and demand have nothing to do with the price of oil and food. And when the price of oil goes up it usually means inflation. Boy there’s a revelation. Thanks for telling me its ok that people are dying and suffering now because of what we have done. Simply because there are always some people suffering. But most of all thank you for telling me what I should do for MY grandchildren. What are you sixteen? The best I can come on your world going by your ramblings is some nation state where medical care is provided by a shaman in return for a chicken. But can’t do anything about that because humans suffer. And if you didn’t like my questions about the price of human suffering, then don’t ask stupid question.

    Like

  81. Black Flag® says:

    Scrooge,

    One thing among others I would need to know the value of a human life.

    Value is completely subjective, so really is a nonsense to try to attribute a “universal” value on something wholly subjective.

    What you might be trying to say is:
    “Is there a price on human life?”, and the answer is “yes”.

    Would you spend a billion dollars to save one life? The question is important because you cannot spend the same dollar more then once, so committing money to something does not allow you to spend it on something else.

    And what’s the net worth of the suffering some countries are experiencing now.

    Know this as a Universal Truth

    you cannot solve human suffering – it is not in the power of humanity.

    What’s the net worth of providing a hellish future for my grandchildren.

    By believing you can predict the future, and then irrationally believe their future will be horrific – completely contradicting the last 1,000 years of human history – is irrational.

    Further, you have no right to their future by pretending you can act in a manner today to improve or degrade it.

    It is their future, and the best thing you do for them is to give them the freedom to exercise their own decisions regarding it

    Bankrupting them by forcing ignorant political policies to solve non-existent problems is NOT helping your kids.

    Like

  82. Black Flag® says:

    Food prices again are at record highs.

    “Again”, huh?

    Food is the “canary in the coal mine” for upcoming inflation pressure due to the aggravated increase in the money supply by Central banks.

    Because food tends to rot, it has a very high invetory turnover, unlike -say- refrigerators.

    So the current inventory of other goods may still hold the price and costs prior to inflation pressures, however, high turnover goods like oil and food will reflect such inflation pressures “early”.

    Like

  83. Black Flag® says:

    The Earth has been in an interglacial period known as the Holocene for more than 11,000 years. It was conventional wisdom that “the typical interglacial period lasts about 12,000 years,” but this has been called into question recently. For example, an article in Nature[34] argues that the current interglacial might be most analogous to a previous interglacial that lasted 28,000 years. Predicted changes in orbital forcing suggest that the next glacial period would begin at least 50,000 years from now, even in absence of human-made global warming (see Milankovitch cycles).

    Like

  84. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    Historically, we should be in a cooling period about now. We’re overdue for an ice age, or mini-ice age.

    Hmmm, probably not.
    It is about 40,000 years between, and we are only 20,000 years since – so we are about half way.

    Should we be concerned that we’re not?

    This is like saying “Should we be concerned the plane we are flying has not crashed to the ground and just keeps on flying instead?”

    The longer the Ice Age is abated, the better for humanity.

    I would urge you not to wish for its coming.

    Climatologists and botanists and zoologists, and agronomists, say we’re in big trouble if the warming continues beyond historic norms.

    Why?
    It is a specious argument to claim warming is bad and cold is good, when one merely needs to live in the northern hemisphere and take observation that the exact opposite is true

    The evidence is that warming promoted by excess greenhouse gases push warming today.

    There is no such evidence – there is hypothesis

    PS: YOU do know the Earth is NOT a greenhouse, right?

    Should we be worried? Not if you’re not worried about someone pissing in your soup. It’s all natural, it’s all liquid, right? What’s to worry about?

    Natural does not mean good.
    Man-made does not mean bad.

    The claim that human causation of warming has been falsified, has itself been falsified a dozen times at least. Why do you keep repeating false stuff?

    Of course it hasn’t!

    You have failed -repeatedly- to provide any experiment proof of your hypothesis.

    Experiments and observation have dis-proven your hypothesis.

    The question is yours Why do you insist on holding to such falsified hypothesis???

    It is a sign of a religious zealot to ignore science and to maintain a fantasy.

    Like

  85. I wait with bated breath!

    Well let’s see, you non-friendly guy you…”global warming is happening.” It’s in how you define it. Should I prove that the earth is getting warmer year by year…nah, that’s too tricky. I’ll just go with an averaging of surface temps at one time, and an averaging of the same temps at a later time. I’m pretty sure I can find those. Al Gore is certain to have a file cabinet full of ‘em. Of course we get into a long, drawn-out debate about what a surface temp really means. But the data are there for the cherry-picking. “It’s not a good thing.” Well, deciding this on balance would be tricky — as you yourself point out, it’s easier to grow food in a warmer climate so the answer is bound to be a mixed bag. I need not concern myself, I can argue like a progressive and just pick the parts that would support my argument. Aw, whatever…mating season of some creature or another getting disrupted, there, that might be bad. That’s proven. On to the next. “Has been confirmed,” well we have that recent study Eugene Robinson was trumpeting. Should I waste typing effort & time going over the other five?

    Really, the point I’m making is self-evident anyway to anyone who’s familiar with our host’s forum here. Weak logic is weak because it is capable of proving anything & everything. Just cherry-pick the right set of data, declare unfriendly opinions to be incompetent for one reason or another — if all else fails, take the Darrell approach and declare authoritative opinions unsuitable just because you don’t like them. I think you’re starting to see the point: Evaluate the entire statement, as a monolith…which is fair, because that’s what you have to do to support these “actions”…it’s like a beached whale, it comes to a premature demise because it’s incapable of supporting its own weight. Earth is to be deprived of its millions-of-years-old ability to sustain life, because of the behavior of the apelike creatures roaming its surface? Specifically, the apelike creatures residing in one particular country?

    But we have oil companies that have made something like 100 billion this year and up to 90% go to politicians that pretend the problem doesn’t exist.

    If the virtue of the arguments & lack thereof is to be decided by who is promoting them and how much profit each side is making, which cannot be not the case Scrooge…wouldn’t it be dishonest to imply only one side is making the loot? Wouldn’t it be a more sincere effort to factor in both sides? That’s assuming the money made is even relevant.

    Like

  86. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    That’s the junk science, hoax contest from Steven Milloy.

    It’s pretty straight forward, Ed, and quite simple to achieve – if, indeed, you are as right as you believe you are.

    Second, the contest closed in 2008.

    Well, maybe you might not get his money – but you’d certainly obtain a windfall regardless as the man who “proved” AGW.

    PS: don’t hold your breath for the windfall.

    Third, there is no generally acceptable standard for judging the evidence

    NONSENSE

    It is called the Scientific Method – and it has worked successfuly for quite a long time.

    The problem you have is that the standard of Science show your hypothesis is wrong and that disturbs you, so you want some other irrational process in its place so you can believe you are right.

    In the meantime, the Earth still warms.

    … and cools.

    It’s not you nor I who needs to be dissuaded from warming.

    or cooling.

    It’s the glaciers, the birds, the fish, the migratory animals, and all the plants.

    They are just fine and will be just fine as they have been just fine in the past.

    Like

  87. Black Flag® says:

    Hi Morgan,

    Some friendly-fire, eh BF?

    Old Army saying:
    “Friendly fire …. ain’t friendly!” :)

    Break it up into little items like the Toles cartoon does, and I can “prove” all of it.

    I wait with bated breath!

    But, no you can’t, because as you did say -admittedly- that the sum of the parts just don’t add up.

    And each of those tidbits – while some may be true, some of it is half-true and some not even half…..

    Like

  88. Scrooge says:

    Sorry 90% of political contributions

    Like

  89. Scrooge says:

    Well it looks like some progress has been made. Before AGW theory was a house of cards. Now it seems there are to many lines of evidence so it can’t be right.
    The biggest problem is it takes a political fix. The wedges are there to put us on the right path, that could even include nuclear at its high cost. But we have oil companies that have made something like 100 billion this year and up to 90% go to politicians that pretend the problem doesn’t exist. One of the first thing that should be done is to cut out incentives to big oil.
    Yea we should be slowly going into an ice age, I thought that was around 10k years out though. But that is the reason when you take natural variability into account we can say humans are causing 80 to 120 percent of the current warming trend.
    Food prices again are at record highs. About the only thing we could do about that is to do away with ethanol which is not a bad idea. In the long run that may not make a big difference. And both parties are afraid to step on farmers toes.
    To blame developing countries is a stretch. In the U.S. we emit around 17 tons of CO2 per person a year. Now china is the one to be concerned about and they emit around 7 tons per person per year. Disprove two subjective ideas. One thing among others I would need to know the value of a human life. And what’s the net worth of the suffering some countries are experiencing now. What’s the net worth of providing a hellish future for my grandchildren. That may be the reason sometimes its easy to pretend a problem doesn’t exist.

    Like

  90. Ed Darrell says:

    That’s the junk science, hoax contest from Steven Milloy. First, it’s in the vein of the Holocaust-denying IHR group of Willis Carto (check this blog for the story of Mel Mermelstein). Second, the contest closed in 2008. Third, there is no generally acceptable standard for judging the evidence — I gather a lesson Milloy learned from Carto’s disaster, when Mermelstein produced the proof and Carto’s group had to pay.

    In the meantime, the Earth still warms. It’s not you nor I who needs to be dissuaded from warming. It’s the glaciers, the birds, the fish, the migratory animals, and all the plants.

    Good luck. No solid rules to that contest, other than you must be right.

    The plants, the ducks, the other birds, the fish, and the glaciers, all laugh at Steven Milloy — and you, if you were suckered by that offer of a reward to think it was a genuine prize for genuine proof.

    Like

  91. Some friendly-fire, eh BF? Break it up into little items like the Toles cartoon does, and I can “prove” all of it. Humans and human activity emit carbon; carbon possesses insulatory properties that slow cooling; there are some sets of available data that can be cherry-picked to verifiably show that surface temps have been going up. Things get trickier with the “global-ness” of it, but if we’re willing to define “proof” downward for my benefit, I can “prove” that too…

    But I can’t meet this any better than Ed can:

    CHALLENGE
    $500,000 will be awarded to the first person to prove, in a scientific manner, that humans are causing harmful global warming. The winning entry will specifically reject both of the following two hypotheses:

    UGWC Hypothesis 1
    Manmade emissions of greenhouse gases do not discernibly, significantly and predictably cause increases in global surface and tropospheric temperatures along with associated stratospheric cooling.

    UGWC Hypothesis 2
    The benefits equal or exceed the costs of any increases in global temperature caused by manmade greenhouse gas emissions between the present time and the year 2100, when all global social, economic and environmental effects are considered.

    Which is exactly my point. Sorry, with what part of it did you take issue?

    It’s fascinating to me that, on issue after issue here at The Bathtub, all the smarty-pants line up on one side and all the dense dimbulbs line up on the other. And the position championed by the smarty-pants set constantly has something to do with surrendering liberties, or rather “coagulating” them into some centralized star chamber full of wise sages manipulating Archimedean levers of power telling the rest of us what to do. Every single issue that comes along. It all seems to go toward plans that impact everybody, whether people want the plans or not, and only a few may participate in a discussion of the details of what the plans are.

    Like

  92. Ed Darrell says:

    Global warming has been happening for about 20,000 years – so what?

    Historically, we should be in a cooling period about now. We’re overdue for an ice age, or mini-ice age.

    Should we be concerned that we’re not? Climatologists and botanists and zoologists, and agronomists, say we’re in big trouble if the warming continues beyond historic norms. The evidence is that the warming we experience, past the cyclical cooling we might expect, is promoted by excess greenhouse gases which push warming today.

    Should we be worried? Not if you’re not worried about someone pissing in your soup. It’s all natural, it’s all liquid, right? What’s to worry about?

    The claim that human causation of warming has been falsified, has itself been falsified a dozen times at least. Why do you keep repeating false stuff?

    If your Congressman is a so deep into woo that he (or she) denies global warming is taking place, ask if he or she will consent to drug testing for this current round of elections — because that much detachment from reality is either drug-induced, or symptomatic of other, much deeper problems that should disqualify that person from representing you in Congress. You wouldn’t vote for James Earl Ray because of his claim he did a great thing for race relations, and you shouldn’t vote for someone who tells similarly whopping tales about climate.

    It they fall for that old hoax, what won’t they fall for? Gullibility is not a good quality in a representative in a democratic republic.

    Like

  93. Black Flag® says:

    PS;
    If you have proof, you will win this prize of $500,000

    http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/

    Like

  94. Black Flag® says:

    Morgan

    All these little tidbits of information are not only reasonable, but provable.

    I would love to see your proof.

    Like

  95. That does sum it up nicely. All these little tidbits of information are not only reasonable, but provable. You tie them all together, though — and that would be necessary to justify any of these “things we can do,” many of which drift outside of this perimeter of “aren’t too expensive” — and you get this jumbled-up mess which nobody with a name or reputation worth defending will say out loud or sign in ink:

    “Global warming is caused by humans, it is certain to make the earth uninhabitable if allowed to continue, but we can alter this course of future events if we get a carbon exchange going, create some sin taxes along with a system of indulgences, along with all the little things like unplugging our cell phones and coffee pots — we can actually change the ecosystem of Earth in the future decades, and anyone who says otherwise is a moron.”

    The “science is settled” on little nuggets of information that make up that huge mess, but not on the huge mess itself, nor can it be since it’s sheer nonsense. Unplugging appliances does not affect the planet’s ability to support life. Sin taxes don’t make the planet more livable.

    If you actually read the assessment reports from the United Nations, you see the process is built first & foremost around separating developed nations from developing nations, and then applying standards more stringently to developed nations. Obviously, this would be ruled out as the proper way to pursue the matter if the survivability of the planet was an issue; who gives a rat’s rear end if a nation is developing at a decent clip, if the planet upon which the nation sits is becoming uninhabitable. So for the progressives toiling away at this project, frustrated at their lack of ability to get it sold to the skeptics/deniers, I’d suggest that might be one place to look at reforms — as opposed to re-hashing the message a few more times or silencing critics. People who believe in anthropogenic global warming, don’t conduct themselves as if they really believe in it. They conduct themselves as if they are participating in a giant money grab, whether or not they’re all truly part of it.

    Like

  96. Black Flag® says:

    Ed,

    Global warming has been happening for about 20,000 years – so what?

    Warm earth is a very good thing – trying growing food with 1 mile of ice on your farmland. If you think for 10 seconds, summer is a lot more productive then winter.

    The hypothesis of human causation has been falsified so, claiming otherwise is utter insanity.

    Calling your congressman is your right.

    Do not be surprised if he hangs up on you.

    Like

Play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,370 other followers

%d bloggers like this: