Two strings of correspondents in my e-mail date back more than a decade. We met on the old AOL discussion boards, on evolution, and on religious freedom. Occasionally someone in one of those groups will lament the passing of the innocence of those days, and the heated discussions with trolls and reality deniers, and the grand, irreplaceable characters who made last stands denying science to the end, or claiming that Dwight Eisenhower really was Satan in disguise and that America was ruined when he failed to insist Congress open every meeting with prayers, or some other silly folderol.
Amazon.com has opened discussion boards. Excuse me, but I believe all of those nuts from the past have rolled out from their various closets, couches and corners, to join or frustrate discussion. It makes one nostalgic, and it makes one reach for the “delete” key.
Black holes sucking in intelligence and time on evolution, global warming, and other silly questions that bring out the hard-core denialists and contrary marys.
Were I you, I wouldn’t go there. Surely those “discussions” are part of Amazon’s plan to take over the world.
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 
Ed,
…as is Global Cooling and Global Climate change.
But your irrational understanding of science seems to make you believe that humans cause this…
…just because we have a solid theory on one thing does not mean -whatsoever- you have a solid hypothesis on a different thing.
LikeLike
Morgan
Believing “Average” temperature is even more irrational – so if we take the temperature in Alaska, and average it with Florida … that is supposed to be the temperature in Alaska and Florida, or somewhere in between …. Like Winnipeg Canada??? or what?
Temperature is a field measurement, not a static measurement, nor meaningful in another part of that field.
Assuming that thus there must be an “average” we are shooting for is ridiculous.
LikeLike
Ed,
You are as statistically ignornat as Mann
That is not my claim, Ed – as usual you attempt to deflect the truth with another lie
Mann used statistical crackpottery to magnify the measurement of one tree over the all the others
LikeLike
The saying about the horse and water comes to mind. You are now saying you don’t have time to go through snowjobs, so you don’t know what “a through f” is, even though I’ve linked, and then gone beyond that, copying-and-pasting.
I said earlier this is looking less like research and more like a comfort zone. Thanks again for supporting my point.
It’s a curious brand of “science” we have sloshing around in the bathtub. Seems to consistently have not quite so much to do with taking in information, but much more to do with filtering it out.
LikeLike
It’s called “accuracy.” It’s a useful, legal necessity in reporting. It prevents all sorts of trouble and occasionally wins elections in electoral politics, where things count. It’s a professional duty in court. It’s a courtesy here. I work hard to be sure what I say is accurate and correct.
It troubles me that you appear unfamiliar with the concept.
I make sure what I say is accurate. You’re on your own. I don’t have time to track down most of the posts of other people here, nor do I have time even to read them all, especially when we get snowjobs like Black Flag. My apologies. You’re on your own with the accuracy of others, too, sadly.
I’ve never said anything close to that. I work to use credible and accurate sources, not just anything that comes through Google. Consequently, yes, my sources do tend to be sage and full of worldly wisdom — on that topic on which I cite them.
Who is Peggy Joseph? I don’t believe I have ever cited her. Willams and Sowell aren’t dunces, which makes their cases truly sad. Misdirected minds, biased beyond all belief. Neither of them would know Einstein if he lit their hair on fire, or gave them a personal concerto on his violin. Nor would they know Rachel Carson, nor Dick Feynman, nor much of anyone else with any scientific knowledge. They may not even be aware of their ignorance. Truly, truly sad.
Global warming is a solid theory, already “proven” in scientific terms. I don’t know what your “a through f” is. If you think you’ve disproven the theory, you’re in the Sowell and Williams camp so far as self delusion. Let me see what “a through f” is — I’ve not commented on it before.
LikeLike
Here, I’ll go ahead and put it up. Might as well. All the arguing is supposed to be about this anyway:
a) The “global climate” is in motion
b) in recent years it’s been skyrocketing
c) humans are the primary cause of the warming trend
d) this is “American climate change” and not “global climate change”
e) there is real danger if it goes uncorrected
f) the danger can be averted with your “political fix”
Myself, I’d even call into question sub-a): That there’s something called a “global average temperature” worth measuring. This planet is a ball, 8,000 miles in diameter with a molten hot core. It spins through the vacuum of space, receives cosmic rays here & there. Its “mean temperature” is taken from surface readings.
What, scientifically, has “surface” got to do with a darn thing?
LikeLike
In this thread. Me, Nov. 2 at 8:10pm.
It’s rather interesting that you’ve got all this energy for following links and reading up and finding chestnuts when the time comes to support your own point-of-view on things, and suddenly when the time comes to review the opposing argument, you just haven’t got it goin’ on anymore.
Also, that each and every single thinking person who disagrees with you is as wrong as wrong can be…and everyone who agrees with you is a sage, full of worldly wisdom. It tends to produce a rather bizarre fustercluck, in which Peggy “Obama gonna pay my gas & mortgage” Joseph knows what she’s talking about, and Walter Williams and and Thomas Sowell are just a couple of dunces throwing out nonsense.
Are you stating, for the record, that c) through f) do not have to be proven? Is this just the standard Darrell technique of saying all who doubt should be summarily ejected from the discussion, or is there some logic to this?
LikeLike
Mann used the data from many trees at many different sites, from several different research projects on several different continents, B.F. Get off the “one tree” false claim.
LikeLike
I assumed that was a rhetorical device. Do you actually have some series of claims, “‘a.’ through ‘f.'” that you’re talking about? Where is that list, if there is one?
LikeLike
Ed,
It didn’t – and that is the point.
He magnified the data smoothing of this 1 tree over 300 times – weighting it vastly out of proportion to the other samples.
It is plainly obvious you have either understood, nor read, nor researched the abundant documentation on Mann’s statistical idiocy.
LikeLike
Ed,
Utterly false.
Proxy data has been shown to be incredibly suspect, due to the existence of other factors.
Tree rings, for example, vary depending on rain fall, insects, mold, and disease.
Ice core data has been shown to be suspect depending on the technique of coring the ice sample, and sampling of the trapped gas bubbles
These are facts, Ed
LikeLike
Ed,
LOL!
So you are telling me you can look at a tree ring, and give me the temperature on July 13, 2012 BCE to within 1/10 of a degree????
ahhahahahahahahahahahahhahaha
LikeLike
I’m curious; how do you call this good “science” while confining it to a and b, and saying “get real” when I call for the need to address c through f? Go back and read my list, I think you’d have to concede that if any among those four were to be falsified, it would reduce the entire effort to an absurdity. They, therefore, are part of the debate.
What you call “science” is looking less and less like a discipline of valid research and study, and more like a comfort zone.
LikeLike
Is there nothing the global warming denialist won’t deny, to keep his religion of “it ain’t me?”
BF said:
You could use a dictionary. “Proxy” means “in place of,” and it does NOT mean “inaccurate.” Proxy data in this case includes stuff like tree rings and ice cores. They’ve been proven highly accurate in study after study.
Research. Science has it, denialism doesn’t.
Helluva a miracle. BF claims Michael Mann is God, Jesus, or Dr. Who: One tree? Tell us, BF: How did that one tree live in so many different locations, on three or four different continents, for more than 5,000 years? How did Mann get that one tree to do that?
I wouldn’t argue with Jesus, God, Dr. Who, or Michael Mann, if Mann did indeed get that one tree to live on different continents at different times, dating 4,000 years or so before Mann’s birth. Helluva a trick. Helluva a miracle. Michael Mann must be a god.
What I wrote about was your disparaging of the hockey stick graph, which wasn’t proxy data on the part you dispute, but instead was actual temperature measurements. You don’t answer any of that argument at all.
You could use some instruction in what “Orwellian” means, too. You don’t have that right, either. Hint: It doesn’t have anything to do with Orson Wells and science fiction, as you appear to believe.
LikeLike
Ed,
I know it doesn’t, but yes it does skew.
My point, Ed, was that you claimed some bizarre correlation exists, where none does – and the point I was making was that concrete provides a better correlation then the ones you point to, but we both know, it is not causative.
My point is:
too bad you are not consistent in your understanding and let yourself be swayed by religious zealotry of Environmentalism.
LikeLike
Anthony Watts has that covered.
Turns out concrete doesn’t cause warming, either. Nor does it skew temperature measurements for the globe as a whole.
But that’s in the research reports. Denialists don’t read research reports, right, BF?
LikeLike
Ed,
A scathing new expose on the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — which sets the world’s agenda when it comes to the current state of the climate — claims that its reports have often been written by graduate students with little or no experience in their field of study and whose efforts normally might be barely enough to satisfy grad school requirements. –Perry Chiaramonte, Fox News, 2 November 2011
What the results tell us is that, based on the very limited time-series data we have for most countries, there is no evidence so far for a statistically significant upward trend in normalized insured loss from extreme events outside the US and West Germany… [W]e warn against taking the findings for the US and Germany as conclusive evidence that climate change has already caused more frequent and/or more intensive natural disasters affecting this country. To start with, one needs to be careful in attributing such a trend to anthropogenic climate change, i.e. climate change caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Our findings reported in this article could be down to natural climate variability that has nothing to do with anthropogenic climate change. –Fabian Barthel & Eric Neumayer, Climate Change, 2012
A new study conducted by federal scientists found no evidence that climate change has caused more severe flooding in the United States during the last century. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) study — titled “Has the magnitude of floods across the USA changed with global CO2 levels” — found no clear relationship between the increase in greenhouse gas emissions blamed for climate change and the severity of flooding in three of four regions of the United States. — Andrew Restuccia, The Hill, 25 October 2011
Donna Laframboise is a journalist, feminist and civil libertarian. Not exactly the ‘white male conservative’ who is assumed by the media to be the typical ‘climate change denier’. First online, and now in this book, she has subjected the IPCC to the critical scrutiny that is should always have received. And what she, and a small group of volunteers who gathered around her, discovered shows that the IPCC is a body that is fatally flawed and is probably beyond redemption. –Pan Pantziarka, London Book Review, 28 October 2011
In March last year, Laframboise recruited 43 private citizens in 12 countries online to audit the entire IPCC 2007 report and count the number of non-peer-reviewed references. The audit showed that 5587 of 18,531 — fully one-third — were non-peer-reviewed sources: including newspaper articles, activist reports, even press releases. The IPCC had a rule that such sources must be flagged as such. It had been ignored. When criticized for this last year by a panel of the world science academies, it simply changed the rule. –Matt Ridley, The Australian, 31 October 2011
LikeLike
Ed,
LOL!
So says the man living in a fantasy!
…and it is goes down, no doubt to honest folk too.
First, you obviously do not understand weather whatsoever.
This hypothesis was tossed out 10 years ago.
There has been NO statistical change at all in such storms, much to the refutation of the AGW crowd’s prediction ability.
Yep, the age old fantasy.
If it is too hot, it’s man’s fault.
If it is too cold, it’s man’s fault.
If nothing changes, it’s man’s fault.
You are so funny – because you are the epitome of the AGW crowd.
You believe you have figured all of that stuff out …. when in fact, science hasn’t even scratched the surface of understanding any of it.
Ed, you left out concrete!
Concrete gets hot when the sun shines, and there has never been more concrete on earth in history….hundreds of millions of tons more of it every decade.
Have you looked at the correlation between concrete production and sunspots! My God, the relationship is greater than .55… concrete must either manipulate sunspots, or mankind manufactures concrete based on the sunspot cycle!
Time for a peer-reviewed paper – but Ed, start making the protest posters against concrete!
Arg formatting….
LikeLike
Ed,
LOL!
So says the man living in a fantasy!
…and it is goes down, no doubt to honest folk too.
LikeLike
Ed,
Ed, Ed, Ed….
So much wrong….
Proxy data is not accurate – which is why it is a proxy.
Mann utilized ONE tree, multiplied its data 300 times, and claimed it represented 300 measurements via is bizarre statistical manipulation.
To call this “accurate” is Orwellian.
Again No, he did not
Ed, do you at all investigate any of this?
Or do you just read some reporter who probably got a “D” in arithmetic to explain this to you?
It is impossible for him to have used “actual” data, since it has been destroyed.
All that is left is Hansen’s bizarre set of heavily manipulated data – where he added degrees to the 30’s – so to correct UHI – during an era where UHI was insignificant!
This is the way to eliminate that disagreeable dirty 30’s warming period ……
There is NOTHING about Mann’s work that can be said to be accurate.
He lied.
He manipulated.
He doesn’t know statistics.
Mann’s work is discredited, and in any other field, he would have been brought up on charges – except Climate Junk Science, he is a hero instead.
A lie.
In other words, Ed, it shows no such thing.
No, they did not – as that is wholly counter to the AGW theory.
IF CO2 is the cause, creating all sort of “unknown to science” feedbacks, the whole AGW religion claimed a continuation.
It has not continued – which is why the “hide the decline” fraud was done
How can Morgan lie about something that has already been admitted by the ones perpetrating it?
LikeLike
“a through f?” Get real.
The global warming hypothesis notes that the average temperature of the atmosphere is rising — is it? Yes. No doubt among honest folk.
Further, the hypothesis notes that warmer air means there is more energy in the atmosphere, and so there will be more violent, more extreme weather. Has that been the history of the last couple of decades? How many category 5 hurricanes have to strike the Gulf Coast before the message gets through? How many record colds does it take before the denialists admit there are extremes of cold, too?
The only point that might be contested is the cause of the warming. Scientists have been looking for causes now for 60 years. Eliminated causes include sunspots, cosmic rays, solar particles, general solar cycles, general weather cycles including Milankovich cycles, and most other sources of pollution other than greenhouse gases.
What’s left? Greenhouse gases. Which greenhouse gas is most significant in this time period and overall? CO2.
So, what is it you’re arguing, Morgan? You don’t believe it? That’s a religious issue, not an issue of science. We shouldn’t make policy on religious doctrine that denies reality in the physical realm.
LikeLike
Thank you for proving my point.
You need to prove a through f, or at least give us some powerfully weighty reasons to believe in them, to make this political movement a reasonable one. To marry it up, as it were, with the science.
But you’re on this cheerio-sized-merry-go-round “proving” a and b. Worse yet, you’re only proving b Darrell-style, with this weird litany of “everyone who knows what he’s talking about agrees with me about it already; it’s proven because everyone on my side, is on my side.”
Even that doesn’t work, though, so in the end all that is “proven” is a)…global climate is not staying still over time. A-yup. The temperature of a perfectly healthy baby isn’t going to stay anchored at 98.6. Living things. Their readouts are going to have some variance. That’s a good thing, means they aren’t dead.
LikeLike
You have a lot of gall to claim that 11 years well above the 20th century average is not warming. Why are you trying to distort the facts? Who said that warming must produce a hotter year, every year? No one. That’s a foolish claim, and yet, that’s exactly what you’re saying: Because not every year is warmer than the last, that means there is cooling.
But look at the record: Warmest decade in history. How is that “cool?” Temperatures stayed up. Up is not down.
“HotAir” at least has the good sense to title their blog with some accuracy — it’s just hot air, really.
We just came off the warmest decade in history, with several of the warmest years in history. Fortunately, warming year-over-year has not be so great over the past decade as it was in the previous two decades — but that still leaves us in the hottest decade ever measured.
And, you seem to forget, your guys claimed that we should be experiencing cooling in that decade. So, instead of a decade of cooling, we get at best a flatline hottest decade in history, and significant warming in many of those years. Alas for the planet, Morgan, up is not down.
See here:
https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2010/03/14/warming-and-science-denialists-stuck-with-political-egg-on-their-predictions/
And here:
https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2010/10/02/another-broken-campaign-promise-2010-hottest-year-on-record/
And here:
https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/but-the-earth-still-warms/
It takes a lot of gall to claim the hottest decade in history “doesn’t show any more warming.” When my oven hits the temperature that the thermostat is set to, it stops heating to get higher. You claim that means it gets cool? That’s absurd. We’re cooking the roast at 350 degrees F, and that it stays at 350 doesn’t mean “cool” in any sense of the word. The hottest decade in history is not cool, either. Up is not down.
LikeLike
Morgan said:
Yeah, let’s be real clear about that. Mann used proxy data up to about 1980. Because his studies showed that proxy data diverged from accuracy after 1980, he substituted actual temperature measurements. Based on the actual measurements (which show warming), critics claim it’s “falsified” to “hide the decline in temperatures.”
But the real kicker? The “hockey stick” chart makes projections for a few decades into the future. Decline? It’s been over a decade since Mann first produced the chart. In that decade, actual temperatures are much higher than those projected, by more than a statistically significant margin.
In other words, the real data showed warming. The real data helped push projections for continued warming in the future. But the projections indicate less warming than was actually measured.
So when Morgan says “hide the decline,” he’s lying. Does he know he’s lying? That’s the only question, isn’t it? Whether he knows or not, we shouldn’t trust someone who claims up is down, based on actual data.
LikeLike
Yeah I know, The Science Is Settled or something…
Seems to me, though, if that were really the case then we’d see some specifics. I’m not seeing any. You slapped a great big article full of stuff, with no indication of where exactly we’re supposed to be reading…and Ed & friends continue to march around a cheerio-sized merry-go-round proving a & b because they like to, neglecting c-d-e and f.
Just seems to me, if there were some facts to make the rest of the case, we’d see it. I’m not seeing it. I’m just seeing new marketing campaigns for corporations…they say “green” and consumers are persuaded, for a little while, to pay top dollar for inferior quality. Sorry, I think a real campaign to save the planet wouldn’t allow itself to be reduced to a bumper-sticker marketing campaign.
LikeLike
Sorry morgan. If you don’t like mann there’s newer papers out there. And yea they just confirm like everything else he got it right.
LikeLike
Sorry. That’s because he puts it in the deep ocean. I agree it makes sense but we really don’t know. If it is there it will probably come bake to bite us. If hansen is right there’s more explaining to do. If trenberth is right that explains the last ten years.
LikeLike
If I upset morgan I apologize. Science isn’t the problem. The problem is it takes a political fix.
??? No upsets here. But you’re wrong in saying science is not the problem.
Ed, and others, like to continually “prove” those two things I mentioned, over and over again: a) The “global climate” is not holding steady and b) in recent years it’s been skyrocketing. I think we’ve settled, here, that b) can only be substantiated if you cherry-pick the data Darrell style. Go back and click open the link I put up, like BF has been requesting. You can take the same readings, analyze them over the same period of time, and come away with wildly different results. It’s all got to do with hiding-the-decline, Michael Mann style. So, you see, it was a big scandal after all. Just a lot of vocal people don’t want it to be one. This is what Frank Baum was writing about with the “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” scene.
But for your “political fix” to make sense, you have to prove c) humans are the primary cause of the warming trend; d) this is “American climate change” and not “global climate change”; e) there is real danger if it goes uncorrected, and f) the danger can be averted with your “political fix”.
Frankly, I’m not seeing anyone conclusively prove c). We do have something of a shouting match going on, which is good since at least the question isn’t being neglected. But d), e) and f) are being entirely sidestepped. Darrell & crew are holding fast to the “Aw, this is boring, when do I get to say bad things about conservatives & Republicans?” method of so-called “science.” Not sure if Henry Bacon would smile on that. Although, I suppose if you’re in the right frame of mind, it might be fun.
LikeLike
Scrooge,
There is no missing heat.
Recheck their calculations.
LikeLike
THe question is. Where’s the missing heat. Is the next el nino going to spike like 98. Or is that heat going to melt ice.
Hansen thinks that pollution from china may have caused cooling. I look at the arctic ozone hole indicates pollution but I don’t see anyone in agreement.
Another argument is we have sensitivity wrong. That goes along with spencer and lindzen. Can only be so much though. Don’t forget without CO2 we would have a snowball earth.
JC was wrong because she used the word scientifically. To us that’s nitpicking. But as a scientist she should know better. Also she doesn’t deny AGW
If I upset morgan I apologize. Science isn’t the problem. The problem is it takes a political fix.
AGW very well could be the most important thing the new generation has to deal with. There is nothing wrong learning about it.
LikeLike
Scoorge,
There is too much in his essay to discuss it all – so, I’ll leave you to pick a couple of his points that you’d like to dialogue.
LikeLike
Scrooge,
Ah, no. She is now reconsidering her future work with BEST – in other words, she is going to quit.
No, just the data – which shows no warming for the last 10 years.
Really!?!?!?
But not even close to everything
.
Morgan is spitting in the ocean – and you think he is going to cause sea level increase.
You want me to entertain a conference to discuss whether we need to subject Morgan to a lashing or merely hang him.
LikeLike
Judith Curry was wrong with that comment and kinda sorta maybe has backed off. You want to argue teams and nonsense go ahead. But science doesn’t belong to a team. If you are really interested in the science I found this article by trenberth one of the top scientists in the U.S. He does a good job of explaining it. It should explain a lot. I don’t think it will stop the arguments but hopefully show where the real difference of opinions come from. The question is not if AGW is happening its how bad it will be.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Tracking_Earths_Energy.html
LikeLike
Morgan
Succinctly said!
LOL!
LikeLike
Ed,
I believe the data – as does all serious scientists, and as Morgan has provided, these scientists are becoming even more skeptical of claims of anthropogenic causation.
You should read Morgan’s link – but you won’t…..
LikeLike
Black Flag,
First, you have to prove your hypothesis … this is how science works.
This is true, but nevermind proving Ed’s hypothesis — he first needs to say what it is. If you follow these links of his, you find research efforts by NOAA which antedate the clash lately between Profs. Muller and Curry. This provides further support for what I’ve been saying, that Ed’s not after truth and he isn’t after saving the planet, it’s all just a bunch of blergh tossed out there to give off a “vibe” that AGW is “proven.”
But if you define Ed’s argument according to what he purports to “prove,” you come away with a) there’s a “global climate” that is in motion, and b) in recent history it’s been on an upswing. Even granting for the sake of argument that a) and b) are not only true, but both proven beyond any doubt, the reasonable response is a) no duh, and b) so what?
Ed, you got any research to definitively prove that once this global climate surpasses some critical temperature reading, or that the speed with which it changes surpasses some critical change factor, something’s going to be wrested from human control? What have you got to offer to suggest the whatever-it-is is under anybody’s control in the first place? That’s what the argument’s really all about, isn’t it?
Assuming I’m wrong, that is…that it isn’t just an exercise in “Me and my progressive friends like to look like we know what we’re doing in these blog threads, because it never turns out that way in reality.”
LikeLike
With one loud and whiny exception, the authors of the BEST study say their numbers confirm global warming. Who to believe: The researchers who did the work, or Black Flag, who says they are lying?
LikeLike
Ed,
Professor Judith Curry – who besides being a BEST co-author chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology – says about the claim “the Earth is warming is still going on…”
There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’
LikeLike
Ed,
Perhaps you can “catch up” with the rest of us, and review the BEST data….
LikeLike
Ed,
It is not a government of laws, as it is not subject to them.
The writings of some men, a few hundred years ago has no bearing on me – they do not grant me anything I do not have already.
They do not protect me. Me spewing their words is as likely to get me put in jail as not.
No, it was to create a government – period.
All government destroys rights – that is the essence of government law and obedience to it.
Did the Constitution protect the Japanese from internment?
Did the Constitution protect you from the TSA groping you?
Did the Constitution protect the Yankee protestors from being shot down by Lincoln’s troops?
Didn’t think so….
LikeLike
You might have bothered to look at the posts I offered, especially the title of this one:
https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/but-the-earth-still-warms/
LikeLike
Ed,
As you appear completely unaware of the BEST controversy, here is the graph created by BEST’s own data set.
There is no “warming”.
Time to change your bath water, Ed – you can drain all that cold water, and turn on your water heater…..
LikeLike
If our government is a government of laws, and not men, as the classical description says, then the Constitution is the law the protects your rights. That is why the Constitution was created, to create a government which secures your rights.
Even if you protest. They are, after all, UNalienable rights, no inalienable rights.
LikeLike
Ed,
No, it does not.
It is a piece of paper.
No pieces of paper has ever protected anything.
Men protect their own rights
LikeLike
Ed,
First, you have to prove your hypothesis … this is how science works.
I do not have to prove anything.
However, volumes upon volumes have been produced – you even sited them….
But you don’t believe it, Ed – because yours is a belief rooted in faith, not science – and no matter how much science is presented, you will deny it, and hold firm to your faith.
You would have done well as one here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
LikeLike
From the Declaration of Independence:
The Constitution protects our rights to be stupid, even if one is not gracious enough to give it credit for what it does, as the Declaration notes.
LikeLike
Here, Ed. I’ll do it just because I know your reaction will further substantiate what I said about you & the folks on “your side” of this issue.
Don’t you have “a lot of gall” pretending this is about science & proof & such, when you know it’s really just about finding creative new ways to silence whoever doesn’t agree with the dogma?
LikeLike
You keep saying that, and yet no one can find the paper, and you can’t show us where it is . . . I’m beginning to believe you’re not being straight with us on this point. If there is a paper that falsifies global warming, why can’t you show it to us?
Each of the last ten years has been significantly warmer than the 20th century average, the warmest century on record. Confirming global warming hypotheses, the past decade was the warmest ever. You’ve got a lot of gall to tell a whopper about the weather and climate, so publicly tracked.
See here:
https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2010/03/14/warming-and-science-denialists-stuck-with-political-egg-on-their-predictions/
And here:
https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2010/10/02/another-broken-campaign-promise-2010-hottest-year-on-record/
And here:
https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/but-the-earth-still-warms/
There’s been no increase in temperature sorta like Osama bin Laden is still alive, and Ronald Reagan and Dwight Eisenhower advise Obama at weekly card games in the Green Room of the White House, still. They can do that only because there has been no warming, right?
LikeLike
Ed,
Hmm… no, it does not.
It is a piece of paper with writing on it.
I protect my rights.
LikeLike
Scrooge,
Been done already, many times. But I know you ignore it, and fall into the “back-fire” response (the more evidence is presented against your case, the more entrenched you become with it)
There has been no “increase” in temp for the last ten years – in direct contradiction to your hypothesis.
LikeLike
Jim
Well, yes it is – it is what defines the difference between pragmatism and principles
Most men easily throw away their principles when such principles become difficult – and easily seize the easy way out – the pragmatist approach – during such times.
The consequences, however, are not so mitigated. The pragmatist trades long-term success – but short term difficulty for long-term failure but short term satisfaction.
So such men as Ike – saw difficulty, and chose to discard the root principles of freedom, peace and non-violence … all of which takes a great amount of time, patience, presence, skill, and effort … and decided, instead, to pick up a club and beat the other guy into submission.
However, the consequences of such a beating – you always fail to convince your victim of the righteousness of his beating.
You cannot reason with your victim -claiming such a beating was deserved – when you have totally abandoned using reasoning, and chose to use violence instead.
The choice of violence is the abandonment of reason.
So such men as Ike, who mouth words preaching civilized behavior – but act in purposeful contradiction to it … is that not evil?
Yep.
The plea of the eternal pragmatist.
But it is wrong.
Mankind is not yeast.
We make choices.
We think.
We reason.
To claim we must abandon that for something else is pragmatic evil.
Thoughts create Ideas
Ideas come before action
Action determines the quality of the man
Thus a change in your thinking will change the man
LikeLike
Publish, heck just tell us which AGW hypothesis is falsified. AGW is not like evolution which only has one leg. Ok maybe its a pretty big tree trunk. But anyway it would be nice to know.
LikeLike
There was earlier action on an evolution/creationism board, before you and I started to correspond, Jim. Some of that stuff was pretty good, before the religious crazies who lack reason joined. There were others of reason, several of whom you know. I’ve worked to forget the names of the baddies and zombies, with some great success. I remember the frustration of dealing with the Black Flag-alikes, who take irrational stands and pretend they’ve said something profound.
The Constitution protects their right to be foolish and crazy. Alas.
LikeLike
How good it would be were you to publish your research which falsifies the hypothesis.
Why haven’t you?
LikeLike
Note — I meant to say “Marxist wet dream utopia” in the prior post. Randian conservative and Anarcho-Libertarian are, minus the odd quibble on abortion, pretty much the same thing. Apologies.
LikeLike
It’s rarely as easy as any of us claim. Ike did evil. Ike did good. The same can be said of Reagan, Clinton, Carter, Obama and probably even Andy Jackson — who I consider the most evil man to ever occupy the White House.
It’s a matter of living in the real world, not some Randian conservative Utopia or some anarcho-libertarian wet dream utopia. Neither is possible because men are inherently sinful. We opt for the best we can get.
Eisenhower did good when he sent federal troops to the south to protect little black children from brutish thugs. Would that he had sent more. He did evil when he overthrew Mossadegh and ensconced the US in SE Asia. The latter, however, may have been with the very best of intentions — or it may have been purely for the sake of protecting Franco-American corporate greed. Probably a mix of both.
It’s rarely as black and white as extremists on either side would have us believe.
Now to you, Ed — I think it’s been more like 20 years, my friend. I met you on the AOL boards in the mid-1990’s. So, give or take, we’re both awfully old. And you really oughtn’t to frustrate the blood pressure of an olde pharte like me with memories of Frwy/ZK Meg; Knocky; Smokey; OlePap; Morning Glry and that tribe of crazies.
Do you hold stock in some pharma concern that sells me my BP meds? Hmmm?
So glad to have known you and Ellie and Nick and all the rest for all these years. You are all bright lights in my life!
Jim
LikeLike
Ellie,
You are typical of the average mind:
You love evil, as long as that evil delivered by “one of your guys”.
LikeLike
James
It is true, and I doubt he has ever said otherwise. One merely needs to live a year and look out a window.
But you, like Ed, claim such change is human-caused – an hypothesis that has been falsified.
LikeLike
Ellie,
So you believe him a Saint if he kills 900,000 people, starts wars, funds overthrows, and essentially creates the conditions that risk mankind’s annihilation.
Very strange attitude you carry.
LikeLike
So in the vein of open mindedness, Morgan, you’re prepared to admit that evolution and climate change might be true, right?
Oh and Ed, don’t forget the claims of having fought the Germans on Wake Island after February 1942.
LikeLike
See? See? Eisenhower was Satan after all! See? Don’t be a Eisenhower=Satan denier, Ed!
LikeLike
Ed
Reading your own posts, were you?
He was not a good man, nor was he great.
His treatment of POW was documented in the book “Other Losses”, which claims he was complicit in the deaths of 900,000 German POW and civilians.
He was also the one who began the doctrine – which still pollutes US foreign policy – of “You are either with us or against us”.
This single doctrine undermined neutrality and national self-determination, where a nation -like Iran- unaligned itself from foreign influences and generated indigenous political self-determination. His doctrine created these nations to be enemies – preparing the way of intervention in Vietnam, Iran, Middle East, Central America, Cuba, etc.
He applied this against Iran, overthrowing their democratically elected leader, installing the brutal Shah and setting the series of dominoes that the region suffers through today.
His only redeeming act was when he left office – and realizing he himself had been duped – warned Americans of the impending doom of the nation at the hands of the military-industrial complex.
No one man is entirely the fault of the consequences – but they are all in the chain of fault. One different decision – in favor of freedom – would have changed the world today – but now, it is far too late.
Public Choice Doctrine has taken hold, and the ignitable walk toward massive default, staggered collapse and the failure of the nation state cannot be avoided.
LikeLike
Not sure it’s appropriate to use phrases like “hard-core denialist” and “denying science” when the core of your complaint is that the other side is simply making itself heard. Makes one reach for the delete key? Were I you, I wouldn’t go there? How open-minded; how enlightened.
LikeLike
Well gosh, Ed, I had to go there….you posted the links! However, I assure you, I won’t go back. Thanks for the memories.
LikeLike