patrick.net

Tough shit.

People have a right to their cars and 6000-sq.-ft. homes.

Having a government do something about this is far worse than extincting all the species.

Must be the urban heat islands screwing up the satellite measurements of ocean temperature.

Hey, but its a dry heat...

Call it Crazy says

Wow... One whole degree!

.007 of one degree... Fahrenheit.

Climate change is starting to resemble religion:

1) God = Climate Change

2) Purpose: To explain what we don't understand.

3) Both demand a moral obligation to follow; bad things happen to those who don't follow the word.

4) Both require a tithing, or a financial offering, or you will live in hell.

5) Leaders of both have no tolerance for opposing positions; evidence to the contrary is scorned, downplayed... It is sinful to discuss such evidence.

6) Believers follow blindly; feel they must convert non-believers; judge non-believers harshly; dismiss anything that contradicts their beliefs.

I think climate change is the religion of the left. Yeah, I said it! Go ahead, hit the "dislike" button. Number 6 requires it of you.

I'm fairly certain global warming is real and it is about number 24 on my list of things that will really screw up the 21th century.

People won't be so panicky when we get 90% of energy needs from solar in 15-20 yrs.

turtledove says

Climate change is starting to resemble religion:

1) God = Climate Change

2) Purpose: To explain what we don't understand.

3) Both demand a moral obligation to follow; bad things happen to those who don't follow the word.

4) Both require a tithing, or a financial offering, or you will live in hell.

5) Leaders of both have no tolerance for opposing positions; evidence to the contrary is scorned, downplayed... It is sinful to discuss such evidence.

6) Believers follow blindly; feel they must convert non-believers; judge non-believers harshly; dismiss anything that contradicts their beliefs.

I think climate change is the religion of the left. Yeah, I said it! Go ahead, hit the "dislike" button. Number 6 requires it of you.

Very well said!

turtledove says

Climate change is starting to resemble religion:

1) God = Climate Change

I can't think of any religions whose followers would prefer that their god(s) didn't exist.

turtledove says

3) Both demand a moral obligation to follow; bad things happen to those who don't follow the word

Actually, it's likely that bad things will happen to everyone. I don't know where you got the idea that only climate skeptics would be affected if anthropogenic climate change is real.

turtledove says

4) Both require a tithing, or a financial offering, or you will live in hell.

If evidence turns directly against climate change, the researchers will continue to earn a living, just as they did before they began sounding alarms. (I have no idea what you're talking about with this one)

turtledove says

5) Leaders of both have no tolerance for opposing positions; evidence to the contrary is scorned, downplayed... It is sinful to discuss such evidence.

Climate-change skeptics enjoy a wide audience and get plenty of airtime and respect in the media, in the workplace, at social gatherings, and on internet fora.

I can't think of any other issue which is virtually settled among the experts but is portrayed as still being "undecided" or "open" in the media, and which is called into question at many social gatherings I attend, both with family and friends.

If you went around saying that special relativity wasn't true, people would roll their eyes at the dinner table. With climate change, people give you a respectful hearing.

HydroCabron says

If evidence turns directly against climate change, the researchers will continue to earn a living, just as they did before they began sounding alarms. (I have no idea what you're talking about with this one)

i don't get it. Republicans, seemingly for bizarre tribal reasons are willing to reject the obvious for no reason other than the fact that "the left" (whatever that means) accepts it.

How intelligent does a person have to be to look at all the evidence from "both sides" (whatever that means) and to decide that either anthropogenic climate change is real, or the chance that it's real is high enough (given the implications) to take it seriously ?

I mean people are known to take bomb threats seriously based on nothing more than some anonymous phone call. Why wouldn't we take this seriously ? We are all literate here. How is it that in this day in age, with so much information at our finger tips, otherwise intelligent people have such a difficult time separating the legitimate from the garbage ?

But if you want to compare it to a religion, okay, let's use Pascal's wager for belief in God, substituting anthropogenic climate change ( ACC ) for belief in God.

Say we (meaning the human race) take ACC seriously and adapt accordingly as fast as reasonably possible without too much disruption to humankind.

What is the upside to doing this if ACC is real ? What's the downside if it's not ?

Say we don't take it seriously and wait, assuming that in time after many more years of carbon build up in the atmosphere, if it is true, the trends will establish themselves so clearly that everyone including those who benefit so much from fossil fuels will agree that it's real.

What is the upside to waiting in this way, if it turns out that ACC is indeed false ?

What's the downside to waiting in this way if it turns out that ACC was true all along, as most of the respected climate scientists said all along ?

turtledove says

Believers follow blindly; feel they must convert non-believers

Only in today's political environment can people who trust science and experts, be considered blind followers, while those who buy into stupid propaganda that even they know is paid for by billionaires who profit off of building doubt about what the experts say, claim that somehow they are the ones that are being more circumspect.

More data and analysis.

http://www.wired.com/2015/01/2014-hottest-year-ever/

excerpt:

The record warmth wasn’t spread evenly across the globe. Europe, parts of Asia, Alaska, and the Arctic were extremely warm. At the same time, the US Midwest and East Coast were unusually cold, according to NASA’s analysis:

Don't let them pull the old Fahrenheit / centIgrade switcharoo on u...

CaptainShuddup says

Call it Crazy says

Wow... One whole degree!

.007 of one degree... Fahrenheit.

Stop showing off.

humanity says

turtledove says

Believers follow blindly; feel they must convert non-believers

Only in today's political environment can people who trust science and experts, be considered blind followers, while those who buy into stupid propaganda that even they know is paid for by billionaires who profit off of building doubt about what the experts say, claim that somehow they are the ones that are being more circumspect.

Spoken like a Scientism faithful.

Martyred jihadists won't want Muhammed around on payday.

HydroCabron says

I can't think of any religions whose followers would prefer that their god(s) didn't exist.

Turtledove, thanks for being you.

While I do not necessarily deny the possibility of a warming trend, I have no respect for "climate scientists." If they have real skills they would be working for hedge funds or trading desks as quants.

Large-scale altruism does not exist.

HC said: I can't think of any religions whose followers would prefer that their god(s) didn't exist.
You obviously don't know any Catholics.

EBGuy says

HC said: I can't think of any religions whose followers would prefer that their god(s) didn't exist.

You obviously don't know any Catholics.

Hindus have 300 million Gods. We have an overpopulation of Gods.

Call it Crazy says

Take a look at this chart and graph. Make sure to notice the graph on the bottom where it notes that the surface air temp for 2014 is a little over 1 degree Fahrenheit higher over the AVERAGE for the last 100 years...

Are we worried that this 1 degree rise is going to melt both polar ice caps and Kansas will have oceanfront property??

Get real!

he he he
Probably not, but Kansas will be oceanfront? You mean all those who purchased Arizona ocean front are screwed?

Peter P says

While I do not necessarily deny the possibility of a warming trend, I have no respect for "climate scientists." If they have real skills they would be working for hedge funds or trading desks as quants.

Large-scale altruism does not exist.

I agree. The problem lies in the desperate need for a reason why.... even if we have to make one up. Mars is also suffering from warming.... well, forget about that because that fact goes against our argument that warming is manmade. Furthermore, it makes it difficult for us to assign carbon credits if it turns out that we, humans that is, aren't causing it.... Therefore, the science must prove the theory that keeps the climate players in power and allows them to control the money, which, of course, guarantees that they stay in power. If something comes along that indisputably refutes their position, they just retool the science so that they're still RIGHT! Perhaps they could start out by saying that it's getting cooler (1970s)... then when that doesn't pan out, they'll show how it's getting warmer.... then when that doesn't pan out, they'll say that cooling is part of the warming. See what I mean? Right no matter what.

Hey, that's bordering on infallibility. Infallibility... another tenet of religion!

Perhaps this is a secular solution to creating a belief system as a means of controlling populations.

Call it Crazy says

he he he

Probably not, but Kansas will be oceanfront? You mean all those who purchased Arizona ocean front are screwed?

Gee, with that extra one degree rise next year, I shouldn't have to heat my pool at all. It should be real toasty!

Plus, with such a rise in sea levels due to the ice melting, I won't have to drive 2 miles to the marina. I'll be able to moor my boat right in my driveway.

Isn't Global Warming, I mean Climate Change wonderful!!

I hope Ohio becomes oceanfront.

turtledove says

Therefore, the science must prove the theory that keeps the climate players in power and allows them to control the money, which, of course, guarantees that they stay in power. If something comes along that indisputably refutes their position, they just retool the science so that they're still RIGHT!

I thought you were one of the intelligent republicans Turtle Dove.

DO you have an example of "something comes along that indisputably refutes their position ?"

PLease don't tell me, it something like "it was colder than usual last Friday in Buffalo.

If it's Mars is warming ?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm

I'm losing respect for you here fast.

turtledove says

Mars is also suffering from warming.... well, forget about that because that fact goes against our argument that warming is manmade.

www.youtube.com/embed/BSXgiml5UwM

turtledove says

Mars is also suffering from warming.... well, forget about that because that fact goes against our argument that warming is manmade.

Your entire paragraph is pathetic pseudo-intellectual rubbish long debunked - the majority of 1970s climatologists never believed in a coming ice age, Mars isn't warming currently, and so on. But I'd like to touch on the Mars issue.

You suggest that Earth and Mars may be warming together, which suggests the usual solar-radiation hypothesis: they're warming together due to solar activity.

If you believe this, could you do us a favor: please heap scorn on anyone who claims the Earth is not warming, like the usual morons who say "so much for global warming" every winter.

If you have any integrity, you can't switch from believing that the Earth is warming due to solar activity to believing that it's not warming whenever it's convenient. Pick one.

turtledove says

Climate change is starting to resemble religion....

I have noticed the same pattern, including celebrations when former "climate deniers" are converted to the new cult, and incredible reverence for now sacred pre-industrial cultures. The problem is, to borrow an old phrase, "Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it." The climate has always changed, through billions of years prior to human history. If we want to stabilize the climate, we will need a geo-engineering solution, but most of the climate cultists reject geo-engineering also because human activity is almost by definition sinful.

If the dinosaurs had geo-engineering, they might have lived longer. Sadly for them, with their comparatively small brains, they could not control the climate. Humans might learn how, but we don't seem to be getting closer when the sectarian "debate" consists of shouting matches between false doctrines ("evil industrialization is ruining everything" vs "climate change is not happening at all").

If ppl are serious about climate change, many simple steps could address it. For example, urban heat islands could be alleviated by using lighter colors for roofs and streets, and planting more trees. Instead, the momentum is towards massive transfer payments including cap&trade and "compensation" to foreign kleptocracies whenever they experience unfavorable weather. Transfers to corrupt foreign governments create myriad opportunities for kickbacks, and thus attract powerful constituencies, even though they would not bring humans any closer to managing the climate.

AGW vs. conservatism is a perfect shit-storm.

First, there's science. Conservatives reject that out of hand (Creationism, Noah's Ark, etc) -- it's no accident that post-graduates broke for Obama 55%.

Then there's "Ecology". Conservatives are animated by "Got Mine Fuck You". Anything that gets in the way of that is anathema. Even better, the "You" here is either foreigners or future Americans who can't vote in 2016 unless they have a time machine.

Then there's the fossil fuel industry, which has always been a GOP stronghold/ area of special interest.

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

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

And finally there's the reflexive liberal-punching that conservatives must engage in, to keep the tribal lines clear.

marcus says

If it's Mars is warming ?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm

At this time, there is little empirical evidence that Mars is warming. Mars' climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo, not solar variations, and we know the sun is not heating up all the planets in our solar system because we can accurately measure the sun’s output here on Earth.

Good luck getting Turtledove to retract anything.

Conservatives are too busy calling research "religion", and accusing anyone who disagrees with them of intellectual dishonesty, to practice intellectual honesty.

Like in the early '90s, when they stopped saying "It's not warming - it's within statistical noise" and shifted to "it's warming but nobody known why." Nice and honest - everything aboveboard.

HydroCabron says

it's warming but nobody known why

I know, right ? The liberal scientists just make that stuff up about carbon in the atmosphere. Their models are just nonsensical gibberish.

turtledove says

the desperate need for a reason why.... even if we have to make one up

exactly, the scientists just made that up about greenhouse gasses. Our atmosphere isn't that delicate. And hey, if the scientists are right, and we're fucked, c'est la vie.

sbh says

You might be on to something. But even if you're right about climate change voodoo, it's still more rational than religion.

Of course, there are more rational religions and less rational ones. There are even religions built on top of rational disciplines. Scientism is the worshipping of science. :-)

Nowadays, I do not trust scientists any more than nuns.

marcus says

exactly, the scientists just made that up about greenhouse gasses. Our atmosphere isn't that delicate. And hey, if the scientists are right, and we're fucked, c'est la vie.

Scientists are just as dangerous as economists. There is much incentive for them to come up with an alarmist theme, then research can be designed and data can be interpreted to suit their agenda.

I respect greedy industrialists more than self-important small minds. Other than philosophy and mathematics, there is not much credibility left in the academia.

And what if global warming is as predicted? I am quite confident that America is more than capable of exploiting the coming changes.

sbh says

I'm talking about religion that derives from consciousness/sources outside of time, not systems of worship that may surround just about anything.

True, but when someone derives his entire epistemology from one exclusive source, problem/hilarity ensues.

At least locavores are not necessarily vegetarians. Most cannibals are locavores too!

sbh says

You might be on to something. But even if you're right about climate change voodoo, it's still more rational than religion.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it voodoo... The climate is changing. What concerns me is the very flexible science behind what these changes mean. They race to give an answer that enables some foreordained conclusion of capNtrade. Since when do we develop the solution first? They create fear to justify that act and fly it under the flag of "we have a moral obligation to do something fast.... and anyone who disagrees isn't a moral person." It's interesting that the solution enriches a select few...

You don't think that's worth questioning, Marcus? Because once the business side of it is set into place, interested parties will fight to the death to make sure that it continues undisturbed, irrespective of what science says at any time in the future. The very people I've heard you rile against will be the likely beneficiaries.

turtledove says

Since when do we develop the solution first?

Always! We make hammers, then we find nails. This is humanity.

sbh says

Someone whose discipline manages to combine climate change, NCAA basketball, and stoicism would be worth listening to.

I think cooking and sex would be a better combination.

Peter P says

sbh says

Someone whose discipline manages to combine climate change, NCAA basketball, and stoicism would be worth listening to.

I think cooking and sex would be a better combination.

Shopping and decorating should be critical parts of the ritual.

sbh says

Shopping is essential, for sure. Decorating? Dunno. That generally requires an XX chromosome or an gay man, and that's a tall order for any fledgling sect. In the early stages of recruitment one needs to cast a wide net.

Exactly! We want to cast a wide net. Who are the most disenfranchised of traditional religions? Gays and women!!! Bring em home, baby!

sbh says

Peter P says

I think cooking and sex would be a better combination.

Go with something Roman, then.

Commandment #1: Thou shalt not use cream in Carbonara.

Hey, this could be a Pastafarian sect. :-)