Seriously, I enjoy opinions that are in disagreement with my own. I don't hold myself to the impossible standard of being right all the time, unlike some. But I cannot, will not, abide those who confuse their opinion for wisdom, and celebrate their own stupidity.
The Billings Gazette reports
on a study that claims that much of the West's climate related water
trends are human caused and, of course, the AP falls right in line with
This right here should give a clue of just how dumb Andy can be. The job of the media is to report, precisely as the Billings Gazette did. But in less than one sentence, Andy separates the Gazette from the AP (a wire service from which the Gazette got the report) and labels the AP 'collaborators' against what Andy knows is the truth. Really, could Andy's thinking, such as passes for said, be more muddled? In this case, The Gazette = the AP. The Gazette reports a story, which is their goddamned job. Therefore, the AP reports a story which is their goddamned job. BUT, to Andy, the AP didn't ???, therefore they are falling in line ... with what? Their job?
Notice, Andy hasn't the chops to actually take issue with the science of the study reported, so he's taking issue with the fact that it got reported. The real dumb takes place when he confuses the two.
The report (that would be a scientific study, Andrew - W) used statistical models and claim to compare «changes that
would have happened with natural fluctuations over time» to human
caused activity. That's a very powerful statement. How do they know
what would have happened naturally over time?
From the article:
The researchers used statistical modeling to compare climate changes
that would have happened with natural fluctuations over time, to
climate changes with the addition of human-caused greenhouse gases and
other emissions from vehicles, power plants and other sources.
That sounds like accepted practice of study to me. But not to Andy.
Then they go on to make the claim that 60% of the problem is human
caused. I guess when one plugs into the statistical model the assumption
of what the climate would have been like with natural fluctuations over
time, one can make the claim that humans do cause climate change.
This is the point where I laughed out loud. This is the same 'Andy Hammond' who has argued so vociferously that the global warming we are seeing is precisely not human caused because we see such fluctuations naturally. In other words, Andy claims the power to see, have faith in, and predict these natural fluctuations, but scientists trained in that very field are only assuming they know what is happening. I'd call Andy a "dumbshit" at this point, but the word really doesn't carry enough weight to describe the idiocy that Andy just foisted onto the world at large.
It's nothing but pure BS. It's an attempt to curtail growth and capitalism.
Yes, Andy, I'm certain that that Ad Hominem argument explains precisely why these scientists have come to the scientific conclusions that they have.
GeeGuy has a post up that just isn't making very much sense. I mean, the words all go together okay, but the point really misses the mark. I don't necessarily blame GeeGuy for that; after all he references Andy Hammond, and worse still, Jeff Jacoby, both of whom are hardly paragons of reason, logic or often coherence.
Their argument plays out like this: Anthropogenic Global Warming Advocates (AGWA) are relying not on science but on consensus for the validity of what is actually just a theory. That sounds reasonable. It definitely passes the smell test ... if one plugs one's nose before sniffing too hard. Ya see, what they start with is called a "generalized assumption", and worse, it's an assumption based on the All Seeing Will, that somehow gives them magical insight into the mind and thoughts of others. It's easy to posit that some AGWA are convinced of their correct ideas by the very science presented. If one accepts that, then two things are clarified: 1) Some could indeed be most, and thereby consensus of the scientific community does become an issue worth considering as a basis for truth, and 2) the thesis of Mr.s Jacoby, Hammond and GeeGuy falls flat on it's face, relying as it does on the idea that something must be universally accepted in order to be true.
Lest you think, I'm being too hard on these fellows, let's go to the tape:
if they were 100% confident that humans caused global warming, they should welcome any and all debate and evidence for or against it, knowing that when all evidence is in, it will be proven to be a fact.
Really? Again, 2 things: 1) Any scientist worth his weight in cornbread knows that facts based on observation can and most likely will be relative to the observer. It is a 'fact' that Newton's theories of thermodynamics and Kinetics 'work" in the observable world. We build bridges based on those theories ... but ya know what? All the evidence isn't in yet, and so poor Newton only has theories. Let's debate them some more before we build another bridge, 'kay? 2) All AGWA are lumped into the same pool, which allows the good Sir Deniers an ability to pull off a rather pathetic slight of hand. They are able to discredit all AGWA by arguing against any single one. And don't you now get the oder that that was coming from their rather stinky effort all along?
I love this quote from Jacoby:
Some environmentalists and
commentators have suggested that global-warming "denial" be made a
crime, much as Holocaust denial is in some countries. Others have
proposed that climate-change dissidents be prosecuted in
Notice, please, that Jacoby names not one single person who has called for such extreme measures ... not one. He does give examples of those who believe that 1) those trained in the disciplines that should know better, ought to actually know better, and 2) that professionals with differing opinion would attack each other professionally (like that doesn't happen in academia right this very fricking now.) In other words, Jacoby is a Chicken-little, screaming about war-crimes-trials that no one has called for ... but the believers in disbelief will accept his spew with nary a question.
Notice this as well: Jacoby flows almost effortlessly from discussing scientists, with some authority on the issue, to discussing the media and the mundane reader, as if they are all the same. That's a nice trick, but I don't accept it. It surprises me not in the least that Hammond and GeeGuy do. The point they *so* wish to drive home is that people are being silenced for their opposition to the AGWA. No, they're not. Grey's work and Bell's work are still well-funded (no link to crackpots ... look them up yourselves.) But it isn't the squelching science that offends these good boys; it's the squelching of dissent to an agenda, the only fantasy that fits the view they've created for themselves. And that's ultimately why I write this post for you today. The simple irony of those crying over being repressed while doing the very thing that is getting them repressed is overwhelming. Dennis the peasant would be so very pleased.
Here's what is just ball-twistingly ridiculous about the situation. Most of those of cry loudest about the science now, have in the past denied that global warming was even happening, or if it was, it wasn't as bad as that time in the Middle ages. Most have now come around to the view that GW is very real, but certainly we aren't having a thing to do with it. If, and it might surprise you to find that I still accept the "if" ... If anthropogenic global warming is a factor in what is occurring globally then debating the goddamned issue is the worst thing we do. Those who are true believers in AGW want to do something, but still we must wait until all the evidence is in, according to Jacoby, Hammond and GeeGuy. It hardly seems fair, much like shooting fish in a barrel, that these guys, and most of the AGW deniers, wail and moan about inaction of bureaucracy, and yet here it seems appropriate to them. We must have this debate until the end ... the very end they will not accept until we're beyond it. After all, there's little at stake except the survival of millions.
GeeGuy, having been given full license to conflate the knowing with the advocates points to a very few and cries 'hypocrisy!', again conflating the few with the whole. Right, sure. If you think that kinda silly, you really should. Al Gore and Madonna prove that AGW isn't happening. That's sensible ~wink~ 'cause we're just like them with our private jets and our advocacy ... Andy just looks to be a victim. To which one can only point out that if you act like prey, you will attract a predator. So much for your fantasy of courage, Andy. Jacoby? Not much I can say except ... why does this obvious hack still draw a pay-check? Fear mongering , lying, assuming and whining now passes for journalism at the Boston Globe, as well as Newsweek. If we allow it to continue, folks, we really are screwed.
I haven't written much about global warming here at Not Pillage, nor do I intend to. I happily critique others who write about it, especially when they haven't a clue what path they're following. What strikes me as truly relevant, however, isn't any science, from whatever side. It's the efforts to silence, unbalance and discredit those who disagree with a particular point of view. I have to give Jacoby, Hammond and GeeGuy credit. Their efforts to silence disagreement, by projecting that effort elsewhere is really attractive. But, seriously, guys, it still stinks to high heaven.
It seems that Andrew has latched onto a quote from a book by Michael Crichton, as if it is wisdom incarnate. In Jurassic Park, Crichton posits that life will survive, no matter what humans do. That's such a nice sentiment ... except for three things.
1) Crichton is an author. Many are flailing around trying to discredit a man who had access to the best science available while he was Vice President of the United States ... but Andy wants us to accept the word of a Science Fiction author as if gospel. Yes, MC has learned a great deal about the science, but predicting the future of a planet is well beyond modern capability ... or so the Climate Change deniers would have us believe. I can't be the only one to find the irony in such an enormously ludicrous situation, can I?
2) It may not be true. If the Earth reaches a point of imbalance, such that the atmosphere warms to the degree that Venus did in the past, well, life would be toast. Now, I admit that it is possible that 'some' form of life may survive ... may. But it, the planet, and all as we know to be life simply wouldn't be. We can't verify that living organisms would survive sulfuric acid rain. We can't verify that 'life' would survive surface temperatures of 900 degrees. I find it a ridiculous thought that somehow this is supposed to comfort me in the face of adversity. Yet, Andy does.
3) The whole point of the book, Jurassic Park, was that animals that should not be ... are. They face behavioral and biological challenges that slated them for extinction. We erroneously brought them back, and face the consequences of doing so. I seriously doubt that the dinosaurs on Isla Nublar considered that it was okay for their species to be extinct simply because some form of life would find a way to survive. No, they wanted to survive themselves, as I kinda suspect that we do. But, according to Andy, that's not our motivation, really. Our motivation should be that something survive. That would appear to be exactly what Andy is arguing for. It's truly okee-doky if you're screwed, because something will be fine well after you're gone.
That isn't how biological critters work, nor is it how human critters think. See, I'm having a hard time discerning exactly what Andy is arguing here. I'm fairly certain that he's responding to the Doom'n'Gloom environmentalists that think we are destroying the Earth through Global Warming, but it is possible that he hasn't thought it through that far. Maybe he's trying to convince us all that the Earth will survive even if we do find a way to kill ourselves off as a species.
That spectacularly misses the point. The point of discussing global warming or other environmental hazards posed by human animals is that we might make the planet uninhabitable for ourselves. Rational self-interest, don't ya know?
Andy Hammond, I think you're almost there. But you have an unbelievable gift for completely missing the point.
I like Gee Guy. I know he's written some pretty bone-headed stuff before, but frankly, so have I. He runs one of the most engaging, investigative and well written websites in the state ... from a right wing perspective, no less. *SHOCK* So when Gee Guy challenges me to justify where I'm coming from, I tend to pay attention. Just such a challenge was laid in a comment to yesterday's post. I want to respond, and I urge you to read the comment as a whole, because I'm going to break it up into a few parts to reply. Gee Guy writes:
We can debate global warming all day, Wulfgar. In fact, I think you and I have been doing just that for a couple years now.
Actually, no we haven't, and I think that's the very problem at hand. We've been debating the debate on global warming (how META!) but not one word I've written has ever been in reply to the actual science of global climatic change. I'm not a scientist; I'm not a climatologist. All of our discussion on the topic has focused on how global warming is presented and argued, in newspapers, blogs and media. That's not debating global warming; it's debating who's favored ox is getting gored on that particular day. (Yes, the pun was intended.) I'm trying, very hard, to keep up with the science. But that isn't what's being discussed anymore. What's being discussed is the hypocrisy of Vice President Gore, the presentation of global warming in the media and the conspiracy theory of scientists seeking grant money to scare us all to death. Bwahahahaha!
There's a lot to discuss in that, which was what I tried to do in my post of the yesterday, but it sure ain't science. And it sure ain't discussing global warming.
But I am not sure why you are defending Al Gore on his hypocrisy (at
least you're not using the whole carbon neutral, rich people should be
allowed pollute argument). You are not a 'knee-jerk' liberal, so I am
surprised you jump to his defense here.
This is the real meat of Gee Guy's comment. I am defending Al Gore for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that I don't think he's a hypocrite. The MetaFilter thread ripped the accusations against Gore a brand new asshole. It turns out, that '20 times more than average' figure isn't established at all. It can't be verified. Nashville utilities won't admit to releasing the numbers, and the organization that claims to have received those numbers has already lied it's ass off about the fact that they are independent and non-partisan. The AP review of Gore's power bills show them to be twelve times beefier than the average in Tennessee, substantially less than the 20 times figure claimed by the Tennessee Center For Policy Research.
Second, energy offsets aren't the fantasy that Coulter and others believe them to be. It may not be utile in the long run, but it is making an effort. Remember, what's being discussed here isn't effectiveness of effort. It's hypocrisy. And Al Gore doesn't roll that way.
Third, and to me this is huge, there is hypocrisy displayed by the very people who point the finger at Al Gore.
The International commission to study global warming has said that global warming is likely to be human caused. The dissenters immediately focus on the weak terminology of 'likely'. They claim that the science isn't all in, yet. I tend to agree. The best of Michael Crichton's comments concerning the science is we're not actually looking at and trusting the science. That's all well and good ... except, the very people who scream the loudest that we aren't reviewing the science are coming up with the wildest conspiracy theories about why the science that supports Al Gore is wrong. Like Ryan, they keep coming back to the few (the extreme minority) and claim that these people must be correct. And when challenged as to why so many in the climatology community disagree, they fall back on bad conspiracy theory.
For a conspiracy theory to be a good one, it must fit the facts at hand. The global warming denier's conspiracy theory doesn't. It posits that scientists are being manipulated by censure and the promise of grant money if they agree that global warming is human caused. Question: how did Al Gore learn about global warming before it became such a profitable issue? If scientists are only jumping on the band-wagon because it's so damned profitable, how did the theory of human caused global warming ever gain legs before people were willing to pay? And who are these people? Exxon Mobile is willing to pay considerable sums if you are willing to *deny* human causes for global warming.. But somehow, some magical way, the grant fairy has enticed the bulk of the scientific community into saying "Shit, man! The Earth's warming up and we gots the CO2!".
Further, the people screaming the loudest about scientific censure are the scientists who disagree that global warming is a reality (human caused). "Any one who disagrees will be buried!" they cry. Except ... they haven't been. That's kind of a major flaw when pointing fingers at a great cabal of grant-scratching science thugs, isn't it?
Jack Horner has argued that the Tyrannosaurus Rex was a scavenger. He's full of shit, of course, but I love the guy anyway. By claiming such, in bold defiance of the paleontological community, he has gained more than a little notoriety ... and profit. If you want a conspiracy theory to drive you conclusions, isn't it more rational to suspect that the dissenters are the one's with the most to gain? Well shit yeah it would ... but that doesn't fit the narrative. No, the point is to manipulate the facts to fit the agenda; the point is to claim to value the science while devaluing the science. That's hypocritical. Blame Al Gore that your scientists aren't as trust-worthy as his. Yeah, that's a problem, kids.
Fourth, the claims that Al Gore is a hypocrite ignore the obvious that hypocrisy is individual in nature and solutions often aren't. If global warming is human caused, Al Gore can't solve the problem. He can help, and is attempting such. But he can't do it, and calling him a hypocrite is ridiculous from those who refuse to help in the least.
By now, I'm sure you've all heard the "ChickenHawk" argument as refers to the Iraqi war. The argument is simple; those who support the unleashing of our unbridled fury against the Muslim menace should be willing to put their ass where their mouths are and sign up (or kiss that ass goodbye ... whatever.) Many war supporters have tried to portray the argument other than it is, but that's just cheap avoidance. There's something to be said about the hypocrisy of supporting all out conflict, as long as somebody else deals with it. I've written before that I am not a big fan of the ChickenHawk argument. I think it's flawed. One can easily recognize the ideological necessity of an action, and still hold to the belief that they have not the skills or wherewithal to perform such action by themselves in a direct roll. I accept that. It stinks of hypocrisy, but really it isn't.
Here we have Al Gore, a minister preaching about global warming. He is doing what he can to offset his carbon signature. Here we have a bunch of people who openly mock the idea that they need to participate in the grand campaign against Muslim fascism, and yet won't lift a fricking finger off the keyboard to fight in such an epic struggle. And the latter are the very people screaming loudest about how Al Gore owes them a pound of flesh. Who is the bigger hypocrite I ask you?
And surely you can see that someone who is staking his whole next
presidential campaign on being the climate change rock star is a little
more exposed on the whole hypocrisy scale than the environmentalist who
drives a Yukon. It's just the difference between talking the talk, and
walking the walk.
The guy hasn't declared, nor if he does will he base it entirely on a movie that he participated in. Let's at least keep it real.
And expecting someone who lectures me about my eco-unfriendly lifestyle
to walk the walk is something different than saying anyone who wants
roads should build them themselves.
And here is the very proof that we are not discussing global warming. Al Gore is walking the walk, but yet you blithely accept that he isn't doing so to your satisfaction. I'm sorry, Gee Guy, but he is at least trying. What is truly stunning is that those who believe that Al Gore isn't doing what they think he should (given their assessment of him as some kind of eco-freak-hippy) can still think that anyone who denies Gore's claims must be somehow above favoring their own special personage. Uhhm, no. Seriously, not. Al Gore has lectured, as you put it, that human kind is responsible for the consequences of a warming planet. You choose to see that as a personal affront. I would ask you to justify that stance ... but I think it's all too clear.
We're not really talking about global warming because it's too delicious to discuss the messenger instead of the message. It is entirely possible that global warming is caused by sunspots or cow-farts ... possible, but highly unlikely. Regardless, that isn't what the 'opposition' is focused on. They are focused like a laser on proving Al Gore to be WRONG.
A couple of years ago, there were a whole bunch a folks focused on the idea that Michael Moore was clearly wrong. After all, he's *FAT*. He'd just won an Oscar for doing a movie with unpalatable claims in it. Yeah, that Michael Moore was just so wrong ... except he wasn't. He claimed that Bush lied us into a war. Bush has admitted such. He claimed that Bush had a history of incompetence. Established fact. Moore claimed that military recruiters would do whatever to get bodies to fight Bush's war. Proven. That's where we find ourselves with Al Gore.
No, my friend. We haven't discussed global warming. We need to get past the tripe first ... and I'm sincerely convinced that that's not possible yet. Maybe someday.