patrick.net

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

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 ?

I'm losing respect for you here fast.

25

marcus 2015 Jan 17, 9:33am

www.youtube.com/embed/BSXgiml5UwM

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

26

HydroCabron 2015 Jan 17, 11:43am

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.

27

curious2 2015 Jan 17, 1:37pm

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

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.

28

Bellingham Bill 2015 Jan 17, 1:44pm

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/Don_Blankenship

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

29

HydroCabron 2015 Jan 17, 3:11pm

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.

30

marcus 2015 Jan 17, 3:38pm

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.

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.

31

Peter P 2015 Jan 17, 3:44pm

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.

32

Peter P 2015 Jan 17, 3:52pm

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.

33

Peter P 2015 Jan 17, 4:04pm

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.

34

Peter P 2015 Jan 17, 4:05pm

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

35

turtledove 2015 Jan 17, 4:08pm

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.

36

Peter P 2015 Jan 17, 4:13pm

Since when do we develop the solution first?

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

37

Peter P 2015 Jan 17, 4:24pm

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.

38

turtledove 2015 Jan 17, 4:31pm

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.

39

turtledove 2015 Jan 17, 4:58pm

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!

40

Peter P 2015 Jan 17, 5:29pm

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. :-)

41

Peter P 2015 Jan 17, 5:30pm

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.

I *love* shopping. I can probably do interior design, but decorating is too much work.

42

Peter P 2015 Jan 17, 5:32pm

jazz music says

It's happening, it's too late,

Yep. Let's enjoy life.

43

turtledove 2015 Jan 17, 5:43pm

Peter P says

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. :-)

That's it! We're starting our own religion. Let's just admit, up-front, that it's about the money. Rules will only be created because they result in the highest returns.

The sad part is... there are people who would follow us.

Our planet is so fucked!

44

turtledove 2015 Jan 17, 5:47pm

and as long as I manipulate color in real time I ain't too bad for a Y chromosome.

I'm an XX and I'm not always great with color. I painted my entire downstairs "sinus-infection yellow" before I noticed the problem.

Remember folks, religion is a journey... not a destination. We are a very forgiving sect.... assuming your tithing is current.

45

turtledove 2015 Jan 17, 6:00pm

How much must I tithe in order to be made immune to the glycemic load of pasta?

How much have you got?

That's where the guilt comes in. Is it all just about you? Don't you have a responsibility to help your lesser-abled fellow man fight against the glycemic load of pasta? How much is a better world worth to you? Can you really put a price on that? Give, give, give.

46

Peter P 2015 Jan 17, 6:08pm

She was a triathlete. I was just a blue collar grunt.

It's a matter of framing. :-)

47

Peter P 2015 Jan 17, 6:12pm

The Holy Pasta will have truffle!

48

marcus 2015 Jan 17, 6:25pm

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.

I think solutions are worth questioning.

I think that if we could all agree that AGW is happening and that it's man made, then and only then can we really start to have some meaningful discussions about what to do about it.

Any reasonable solution is going to put incentives on us getting off of fossil fuels sooner rather than later. This might be beneficial to a sustainable future anyway, because we will always be using some oil. It would be nice if it was fairly cheap. Even in the distant future.

The idea that there are already powerful liberals positioned to profit from AGW in ways that dwarf the profits currently being made off of fossil fuels is by far the most ludicrous claim that I frequently hear from the deniers.

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.

This makes little sense to me. Much of business is still determined by markets. Sure, it will be big corporate interests that invest in new utilities or whatever. And I guess markets that trade in carbon credits could take on a life of their own. But the net result is incentives for progressing away from the energy sources that are the cheapest in the short run near term, but most expensive to us all in the long run.

That's really the problem. Actually all of humanity is "profiting" off of the cheap energy we get from oil. But there is a price we are paying, or future generations will be paying. And that's being denied by many.

Truthfully I think that science is capable of answering many of the toughest questions. But there are many questions we don't really want to know the answer to, or that we aren't even willing to even ask.

49

turtledove 2015 Jan 17, 7:38pm

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27465050

The idea that there are already powerful liberals positioned to profit from AGW in ways that dwarf the profits currently being made off of fossil fuels is by far the most ludicrous claim that I frequently hear from the deniers.

You see, here's the problem I have with your "religion." Anyone who doesn't agree with you, wholeheartedly, is a "denier." How, exactly am I a denier? Do I deny climate change? No....

Back in the middle ages, anyone who questioned the religious tenets of the dominant religion was called a "heretic." It didn't matter what portion they disputed. No one considered the potential validity of the argument. They were heretics, without question.

You call anyone who disagrees with any point a "denier" and claim, therefore, that they don't believe in science.

So from where you are siting, we are either -- right now -- all in.... or all out. I hate to break it to you... but that, is the enemy of science.

50

Peter P 2015 Jan 17, 7:41pm

I'm AGW agnostic.

51

Bellingham Bill 2015 Jan 17, 8:01pm

jazz music says

Here's some red meat for you right wingers

ah, 2012 was the all-time low. Got me worried for a moment.

"Although, the last two summers had seen greater coverage than the record-setting low of 2012, she cautioned that the long-term trend was still clear: September Arctic sea ice is declining in extent by more than 10% per decade.

"The eight lowest ice covers in the satellite record have now occurred in the past eight years."

There's a pizza place in San Jose that only plays Fox News on the TV, and the owner -- a very nice man btw -- likes talking politics and history to the patrons.

5 years ago or so he made the assertion that Antarctic ice was expanding (thus global warming was a fraud). I didn't know the right-wing information he was using for this so just said "hmm, that's interesting".

Actually, of course, now I've learned that land-ice is melting

while sea-ice is expanding, due to something ice experts don't fully understand (either higher winds and/or lower salt content)

Sea ice doesn't stop sealevel rise, so the only thing that matters is water content of the land ice.

52

marcus 2015 Jan 17, 8:25pm

Anyone who doesn't agree with you, wholeheartedly, is a "denier." How, exactly am I a denier? Do I deny climate change? No....

Actually, I wasn't even referring to just you. But since you mention it, you not a denier? You could have fooled me.

I think climate change is the religion of the left.

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.

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.

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.

You're pretty dug in to this,.. and "winning" in your mind, as if you have a reasonable position to stake out here. I believe that you don't. And not because I'm infallible or your BS that this is a religion.

Let me ask you this.

Lets say that 50 years from now, we get to where a much greater majority of us acknowledge not only global warming, but also that it's caused by man and that what man does in the future impacts it.(btw, to remind you, that's what anthropogenic means - you can't say that you don't deny AGW).

Will it still be a religion then, if we can get to the point of reaching that agreement ?

How great does the majority of people that accepts AGW have to be for it not to be a religion?

What is it that makes it a religion now? Is it simply that you don't believe that we know it's man made, and that reminds you of the time that you realized you didn't believe in religion or in god ?

53

marcus 2015 Jan 17, 8:49pm

Speaking of religion. I believe that the republican dogma which says government can not solve problems and can not do anything well (despite all the evidence to the contrary), is the root of the issue you have here.

And it is true, that republicans do make proving this one of their highest priorities. IF government is dysfuntional and doesn't work, it would seem to justify low taxes.

If AGW is real, solutions to this involve interfering with markets. Possibly getting us away from fossil fuels while they are still the cheapest source of energy.

from where you are siting, we are either -- right now -- all in.... or all out

I'm only all in on acknowledging what's true or what's likely enough to be true to take seriously.

I hate to break it to you... but that, is the enemy of science.

And you'r wrong. Many times in the past science has gotten to the point of 100% certainty on something. That's not anti science. I don't know that science has ruled with 100% certainty on AGW. I would say it is very close to 100% certain, that greenhouse gas levels are a big part of the cause, but the predictions they give us come from models, and are only educated guesses.

It's pro science to understand and accept that our best educated guesses are what we have to work with here. I'm not opposed to being careful about solutions.

But can we at least agree that there is a problem?

54

turtledove 2015 Jan 17, 8:58pm

Actually, I wasn't even referring to just you. But since you mention it, you not a denier ? YOu could have fooled me.

Every single thing I said attacked not the existence of climate change, but the reason why it occurs and the mandated solution. Show me where I ever said that climate change doesn't exist? I believe I said the opposite no less than two times in this very thread.

Are you suggesting that my comparison to a religion means that I'm saying that climate change doesn't exist? Please don't confuse my irreligiosity (I might have made up that word) with an outright denial of climate change... which, I might point out is an assumption on your part and not an explicit statement by me.

My comparison is not to say that neither exist. Believe it or not, my aversion to religion has nothing to do with God or the hereafter. I don't have enough information to say definitively that neither is possible. My aversion is to the institution. I see a parallel institution forming with respect to climate change.

Lets say that 50 years from now, we get to where we acknowledge not only global warming, but also that it's caused by man and that what man does in the future impacts it.

Don't be absurd. If climate change is occurring because the golden retrievers of the world chew chair legs then that's something that we can change. Obviously, we should then discourage our goldens from chewing chair legs. But I'm not going to mandate that chair chewing goldens pay serious fines because you THINK they might be affecting climate change. The world's climate changes. We know this. It changed before goldens even walked this earth... even before the very first golden chewed his very first chair leg. Tell me something truly practical that can be done, and I will be first in line to try to make a difference. Tell me I have to pay for something that you think MIGHT be causing it when there is evidence that other things caused the same phenomenom in the past... I get suspicious of your motivations. I have to wonder... How does money solve the problem of climate change, exactly?

As a person who sits a little to the left, I would think that you would appreciate Marxist history. Marxist history is based on two ideas: 1) Money is what motivates people most. If you want to find out why something happened, 'follow the money.' and 2) History is not dominated by 'great men', but by different classes - different groups of people - competing against each other.

So why is Marxist history relevant here? Because money really motivates people strongly; 'greed' is the most sincere emotion there is.

Again, I ask... Why is the solution to climate change, money?

55

marcus 2015 Jan 17, 9:23pm

Every single thing I said attacked not the existence of climate change, but the reason why it occurs

Again, anthropogenic climate change or anthropogenic global warming refers not only to the warming trend, but also to the cause.

I'm not arguing for any particular mandated change. I'm just saddened that our government is so fucked up that it probably won't legislate anything meaningful as if AGW is real in my lifetime.

Why is the solution to climate change, money?

You answered this. Because money is a strong motivator.

We will eventually have energy sources that are not only cleaner, but also cheaper than oil. But only after decades of scaling up. You know, economies of scale.

By doing things like having high taxes on gasoline, and taxing entities that pollute, we expedite the change. That crossover point where the newer and cleaner sources of energy become cheaper than fossil fuels arrives sooner.

Yes, money makes the world go round.

56

HydroCabron 2015 Jan 17, 10:02pm

If the changes required to cut carbon emissions didn't cost money, they would already be in effect.

(I can't believe I had to type that.)

57

Bellingham Bill 2015 Jan 17, 10:20pm