A detailed examination of what freedom really is...and what freedom really isn't, too.
On this page of a previous BC article, I gave what I feel is an accurate description of the liberal view of freedom:…
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
A detailed examination of what freedom really is...and what freedom really isn't, too.
On this page of a previous BC article, I gave what I feel is an accurate description of the liberal view of freedom:…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - zingzing
well, not "this week," but they published the results.
27 - Glenn Contrarian
Mr. Hunter -
Please excuse me if I'm more inclined to take the word of 98% of America's climatologists instead of yours.
28 - zingzing
glenn--to appeal to the doubter (invariably of the conservative/republican stripe for some reason i can't figure out), don't tell him of impending doom. tell him of a new markets, money to be made, spoils to get, new ways to exploit fear. even if global warming is one big hoax, it's an economic opportunity if a person realizes that fossil fuels won't last forever. and they won't. and we're coming close to realizing that that's the case. get in while the getting's good, you fucking disaster capitalists! invest! don't wait til it's too late! either the end of fossil fuels or the end of the world is coming! now's the time! green is the new black that was the old gold! money!
29 - Glenn Contrarian
And speaking of who's deliberately trying to influence people by warping the news, read how the Fox News Washington managing editor e-mailed his staff and ordered his staff to downplay the importance of climate science that showed the world was getting warmer.
So...all those conservatives who are SO cynical about global warming - WHEN are they going to apply that SAME cynicism to those who are DELIBERATELY trying to warp the news?
30 - Glenn Contrarian
zing -
Ah - appeal to their greed! It worked to get Idi Amin out of power - might work here, too....
31 - zingzing
yeah, glenn, now you're getting it, but don't call it "greed." too many christians on their side. alienating them by calling them sinners might not work. let's call it a "sense of opportunity." or if you can think of something more pithy, that will do as well. conservatives love doom. it creates new markets. like in south america during the 70s and 80s, russia during the 90s, and the middle east today. i can't see why they're not latching onto worldwide doom harder right now, but they're stupid that way. they miss their own best opportunities.
if there's one thing that rich white fucks are good at doing, it's getting richer. yet they fuck this one up? come on, now, you rich white fucks... get some green on you. you know you like it.
32 - Glenn Contrarian
It's sorta like what I tell my sons every time they want to buy something and find out it wasn't worth buying - "It's not what you sell, but how you sell it"...after which I remind them of Pet Rocks.
But I was always a lousy salesman....
33 - Doug Hunter
#25
Yes, absolutely. I think there's a huge middle ground ready to be taken, call it green energy independence. People want to dream of America saving the world and solving the energy crisis not allowing the UN to tax and grow like a cancer or transfering money to developing countries or paying a carbon tax lowering our standard of living. Frankly, I don't think those things will do anything but slightly delay CO2 growth anyway, I remember reading the estimated slowdown from the recent cap and trade bill and the effects were minimal. Even if you believe the worst case scenarios we're not going to avoid them by conserving and efficiency we're going to have to have a revolution in energy technology to something not carbon based.
34 - Doug Hunter
#27
What exactly did I disagree with climatologists on. You pulled the same old switcheroo that I described in my post. I oppose the political agenda and quixotic non-solutions to a problem I don't believe is apocalyptic and you repeat that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. No shit.
You're talking past me and quite smug about it, but continue to beat the strawman all you want as it is good fun and I have a go at it sometimes as well.
35 - Doug Hunter
#28
We exploit fear we don't participate in it, you can't turn our own tactics on us! I apologize for not appropriately salivating fear at the ringing of the global warming bell as I'm supposed to.
#29
Good on someone to try and put a little balance to the situation. There are alot of people exaggerating the problems out there, part of it is the nature of news. No one wants to hear a story of modest warming or effects, it's dangerous apocalypse that makes the front page. Activists groups are pushing it openly to "emotionalize the issue" according to the Greenpeace founder for example (when pressed on why he was publishing exaggerated stories or -- as I like to call them -- lies).
Here are a couple of articles on the issue.
Science chief John Beddington calls for honesty on climate change
Exaggerated claims undermine drive to cut emissions, scientists warn
Someone is indeed 'exploiting fear' and 'emotionalizing the issue' for gain here. It's a shame you can't understand who that is.
36 - Jordan Richardson
The problem is that many don't understand that it's irrational to throw out the actual evidence of climate change when a few overstatements leak out to the press. Discarding the gallons of actual proof of climate change over "Climategate" or other such incidents is just silly, but the public's understanding of how the scientific community actually works has always been rife with trouble.
From the article Doug provided on Beddington, for example, there is still little doubt about the problem we're facing:
"It’s unchallengeable that CO2 traps heat and warms the Earth and that burning fossil fuels shoves billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. But where you can get challenges is on the speed of change."
And further down the page:
"Some people ask why we should act when scientists say they are only 90 per cent certain about the problem. But would you get on a plane that had a 10 per cent chance of landing?"
Again, the problem is clear. The details are not. There are reasons to "emotionalize" the issue because that's how many people respond. And while we're quibbling over the details, the very clear concept of climate change roars on unchecked.
37 - Irene Athena
Jordan just to point out a statistical subtlety here, but a 90 percent Confidence Interval ("90 percent certain") regarding one's statistical analysis of the likelihood of event X is NOT the same as saying there's a 10% chance X will happen.
For instance, a study could conclude with a CI of 90 that event X had a 1% chance of happening.
Sorry for being a stat Nazi ;)
38 - Jordan Richardson
You'd have to take that up with Professor Beddington, I'm afraid. :)
39 - Irene Athena
Just the same, there are enough OTHER good reasons, besides global warming, to start making lifestyle changes en masse. Probably best to take all our quibbling energy and redirect it to the effort of finding new ways of doing things.
40 - Irene Athena
Yeah, I know you quoted him, those weren't your words. I should've said that.
41 - Irene Athena
Well I've got to get to bed. Have a good evening or morning, or whatever you're having now, Jordan.
42 - Jordan Richardson
Goodnight Irene. (Always wanted to say that!)
43 - Doug Hunter
#36
No particular disagreement. I don't argue with the underlying science, I argue politics. The solutions presented thusfar I consider lacking. Cap and trade and carbon taxes just delay the effect slightly at great cost to society and create opportunities for corruption in the artificial marketplace. China is creating excess greenhouse gases then destroying them with no purpose but to earn credits which can then be sold to other countries who use these exchanges all the while opening coal fired power plants on the order of 2 a week. Giving the UN the power to tax is just something that's been on their wish list forever and is more likely to result in them expanding their bureacracy and reach than in any meaningful change. The most recent accord pledges $100 Billion wealth transfer from rich to poor countries, it seems like it's more about the money than an actual solution. We are not closer to a carbon free economy and now we have less resources to pursue it with.
I laid out my opinion on what I would support and what I think is truly the only long term solution in #33.
44 - Doug Hunter
Here's an article on the Chinese gaming of carbon markets
Some relevant quotes
"The submission provides evidence that manufacturers are 'gaming the CDM system and undermining carbon markets by producing more potent greenhouse gases just so they can get paid to destroy them,' according to the London-based Environmental Investigation Agency, which worked with CDM Watch to expose the misuse."
"'The insistence that developed countries must continue to squander billions on fake offsets that actually increase production of greenhouse gases is irrational,' said Fionnuala Walravens, with Environmental Investigation Agency."
45 - Jordan Richardson
Doug, no arguments here.
Cap and trade does more harm than good and probably doesn't delay the effect at all. It's rightly called a "scheme."
Any sort of tax structure would continue to wound those who are already bleeding and would continue to let the major polluters off the hook.
In terms of carbon based technology, that's a tricky area too. We know that clean coal is a complete fabrication and we know that ethanol can lead to more problems as well (like trouble with shipping, the land we'd have to give up to farm it, and the fact that ethanol actually burns 19% more CO2 than gasoline for the same energy). Other proposed solutions are just as slippery and their only benefits are to the corporations managing the resources.
Doug is right to suggest a revolution in energy as a solution, but wholesale system change is the most powerful solution available to us. The damage done to the environment by individuals driving cars or mowing their lawns or using standard lightbulbs pales in comparison to the damage done by corporations like the enormous Smithfield Farms (with their disgusting pig shit holding ponds, etc.) and Monsanto, yet our governments insist on telling us to make "minor adjustments" while letting these bastards "trade" credits.
This, to me, seems like the "middle ground."
46 - Dr Dreadful
after which I remind them of Pet Rocks.
Bottled water is a way better example.
47 - Dr Dreadful
the fact remains that only six percent of scientists are Republicans.
There are a lot of possible reasons for that. There was a related survey, I believe, which showed that only 23% of the general public self-identified as Republicans (compared to 30-something per cent who said they were Democrats). The additional bias may have somewhat to do with the general liberal climate of academia, but personally I think it has more to do with the general perception of scientists that a Democratic-controlled government is likely to give them more money. As Dr Tyson pointed out, this perception is erroneous, but most scientists are too busy scientificating to pay much attention to politics, so if all they hear is the loud obnoxious noises coming from the religious-conservative wing of the GOP, one can hardly blame them for turning away from the party.
This chap has some interesting thoughts on the question, and some nice stats to go with it.
48 - roger nowosielski
Good point, Dreadful. What Glenn assumes as as a pre-selection bias, you rightly expose as a possible consequence.
You had better be more careful with the way you posit relationships, Glenn, or Clavos's charge is liable to stick.
49 - Glenn Contrarian
Okay, y'all are Real Sure that global warming won't be that bad. So let me make a quick, small list of organizations here that y'all think are either flat wrong or blowing things WAY out of proportion:
- National Academies of Science
- International Food Policy Research Institute
- Rutgers University
- Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS)
- EPA
- NOAA
- USGS
Now I realize that the Koch brothers, Big Oil, Glenn Beck, and Fox News are all quite fair and balanced and FAR more qualified to speak on the issue of climate change than any of these organizations (which is why Dubya censored government scientists from speaking about global warming and even manipulated their data) - but here's what these organizations said, anyway.
In the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - the first major climate change victim in America will be the Southwest. Conditions there are similar to the conditions at the beginning of a 60-year drought that occurred sometime in the twelfth century.
According to Lonnie Thompson, distinguished university professor in the School of Earth Sciences at Ohio State University, "...virtually all climate researchers are now convinced that global warming poses a clear and present danger to civilization.” (boldface mine - and you really should read the article)
According to the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), climate change will worsen global food security. Surging prices for staple foods in 2008 and 2010 may be just a foretaste of the future as the impacts of climate change and population growth combine, a report issued at the UN talks in Cancun said Wednesday. Between 2010 and 2050, the price of corn, also called maize, could rise by 42-131 percent, that of rice by 11-78 percent, and that of wheat by 17-67 percent.
Please note that these estimates are in 2010 dollars.
Two scientists from Rutgers tried to explain to Gov. Christie that yes, Virginia, global warming does exist. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels that had been around 280 parts per million until 1850 started rising with the industrial use of coal and petroleum, pushing toward 400 ppm and possibly 600 ppm or more under present global growth projections. "We have not seen those carbon dioxide concentrations in 55 million years,'' since a last atmospheric peak that scientists cannot fully explain, one of the scientists pointed out.
Doug, do you really think that if we double the amount of CO2 in the air worldwide, that it's not going to have serious consequences? Here's a simplified explanation by NOAA that illustrates quite well the problem with having so much additional CO2 in the atmosphere.
AUSTRALIA's top intelligence agency believes south-east Asia will be the region worst affected by climate change by 2030, with decreased water flows from the Himalayan glaciers triggering a "cascade of economic, social and political consequences". The factors in the article included a likelihood of conflicts due to significantly lessened water flowing through the Indus and Mekong rivers, the former being so important to India and Pakistan, and the latter to China and southeast Asia.
And how high are the sea levels going to rise while we're going through such great changes on land?
Possibly as much as three feet worldwide, according to the EPA
According to NOAA, historical records show that sea level in San Francisco Bay has risen seven inches over the past 150 years, and it is predicted to rise an additional 9.4 to 18.9 inches by the end of the 21st century. Models indicate that an 11.8 inch rise in sea level would shift the 100-year storm surge-induced flood event to once every 10 years. With each flood event, the Bay Area stands to lose valuable real estate, critical public infrastructure, and natural resources.
The site includes information showing how the sea level rise would affect other metropolitan areas in other states as well. BUT the site's estimates are based on the belief that the West Antarctic ice sheet is in no danger of breaking off and melting. The USGS sees it a little differently:
"The West Antarctic ice sheet is especially vulnerable, because much of it is grounded below sea level. Small changes in global sea level or a rise in ocean temperatures could cause a breakup of the two buttressing ice shelves (Ronne/Filchner and Ross). The resulting surge of the West Antarctic ice sheet would lead to a rapid rise in global sea level.
Reduction of the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets similar to past reductions would cause sea level to rise 10 or more meters. A sea-level rise of 10 meters would flood about 25 percent of the U.S. population, with the major impact being mostly on the people and infrastructures in the Gulf and East Coast States.
(note - the West Antarctic ice shelf by itself would 'only' raise the sea level by 3.5 meters - but try to imagine what will happen to ALL our coastal cities if and when the seas rise by over ten feet!)
Lastly, Here's a NASA site with measurements, charts, graphs, and trends enough to satisfy most scientifically-inclined minds (which is why the vast majority of scientists are in strong agreement about the reality of and dangers posed by global warming).
But who am I kidding! These are merely facts and figures published by nogoodnik brainiacs who hate America and only want to bring socialism to the masses, right? So y'all keep on listening to Fox News, 'cause they surely know better than any of these guys!
50 - Glenn Contrarian
Roger -
Good point, Dreadful. What Glenn assumes as as a pre-selection bias, you rightly expose as a possible consequence.
'Expose'? Such a consequence would only apply if his ASSUMPTION were true that scientists are 'too busy' to pay attention to politics. Talk about sweeping assumptions and painting with a broad brush!
There were several scientists in the early 1930's who did pay attention to politics in Germany. They were all Jewish...and they came to America and - after Einstein personally wrote FDR and convinced him to support the scientists - began the Manhattan Project.
It's a serious error to make an assumption such as the one Doc posited. If he's got PROOF or EVIDENCE of the verity of his assumption, then that's another matter...but until then it remains just as much an assumption (and as erroneous) as that of many conservatives who claim that scientists are only agreeing about climate change because the other scientists would ostracize them for disagreeing.
51 - Jeannie Danna
Glenn,
Bookmarked this one.
:D I'm sure I will enjoy this article, written by my liberal friend. bbl
52 - Jeannie Danna
Before I continue reading this article,I want to address Dave and all other NEO-CONs, Conserves, Tea, Libertarians, & Anarchists.
Stop professing to know what Liberals believe. You don't speak for all of us.
53 - Glenn Contrarian
Jeannie - thanks. But for some reason I think I should expect that #49 is going to get either attacked or ignored, but not seriously debated.
Deja vu all over again....
54 - Jeannie Danna
Glenn,
You know, The same people that want small ineffectual government without any social net, are the same people that will scream and yell the LOUDEST for rescue after a climate change disaster happens to them!
:D I'm reading rest of your article in morning. Nite Glenn.
55 - Sarah
You really need a print link or a "view on a singe page" link. No one should have to page through 7 different pages.
56 - Dr Dreadful
Sarah - don't get us started! :-)
57 - Dr Dreadful
Glenn: you're right, it is an assumption, but it is based on the general science community pulse I've picked up from blogs etc.
You have to admit that the statistic is sufficiently dramatic as to make one curious. I don't think it's simply that most scientists don't pay attention to politics, or simply that conservative Republicans have expressed hostility to science, or simply that scientists move in a predominantly liberal academic environment. It's likely an outcome of all those factors and others.
58 - roger nowosielski
Missing the point, Glenn. Your suggestion was that conservative thinkers are less predisposed to become scientists, and that, plainly, is not substantiated by your appeal to "statistics." As to why those who have become scientists exhibit leanings towards liberal thought, that's a wholly different matter. And if that's what you want to argue about, fine with me. But as to your presentation of the subject matter, it was confounding as usual.
59 - Clavos
That's a hallmark of Glenn's arguments, Roger and Doc. He consistently quotes a series of indisputable facts, then takes an unwarranted (and usually illogical) leap in his interpretation of the meaning of those facts.
Meh.
60 - Glenn Contrarian
And that's a hallmark of your 'refutations', Clavos - you erroneously throw out logical fallacies in a manner that is not appropriate to their use.
And Roger - you're falling into the conservatives' habit of using throwaway arguments (excuses, really) to throw doubt on hard data. Maybe this, maybe that...but with NO HARD DATA to back up your suppositions. Without hard data, your suppositions are on that - suppositions. You should step back and ask yourself if maybe, just maybe the problem is exactly what the hard data shows it to be, rather than trying to hem-haw around the issue.
For example, take another look at my references showing how Fox News deliberately manipulated their newscast to throw doubt on the issue of warming.
Really, Roger - is it wise to assume the word of Fox News, Big Oil, and conservative pundits is somehow of equal standing with the word of 98% of the world's climatologists and nearly all of the world's respected scientific institutions?
What is the motive of the scientists? Do the scientists want to be right about impending catastrophe? No. They'd MUCH rather be wrong...but that's not what the data show.
I suggest you not be so quick assume that one side of any argument is of equal standing with the other side of the same argument. Hard data versus frankly nebulous suppositions - one side is NOT equivalent to the other.
61 - roger nowosielski
Glenn,
Clavos is right and I'd look at it if I were you. Your constant reliance on "facts" to the exclusion of thinking, your willful or inadvertent misinterpretation of facts to support your favorite positions. I don't have to reach any further than the latest episode of misinterpreting the relationship simply because it suits your beliefs.
You do cut a picture, Glenn, of someone who needs to convince himself of the viability of their position/stance by overreaching - as though you weren't confident enough that it is viable enough without mustering all possible "evidence" in support of it.
If you truly believe that liberal positions are more enlightened and viable than conservative ones, you should argue for those positions in terms of principles, yes, moral principles or principles based on love, concern and charity. But your constant appeal to "facts" in order to keep on validating your positions only tells me that you're less secure in your beliefs than you'd like to be, that the one person you want to convince the most is yourself.
Again, I'd think on that if I were you. Ultimately, it's not logic that's on trial here but the heart. You should know that. Stand by your heart and let logic take care of itself.
62 - Glenn Contrarian
Roger -
you insinuate that I am insecure in my opinions...but you are basing this insinuation on your own (and Clavos') faulty reasoning. Remember, Roger - I'm not like most other people. I'm sincerely GRATEFUL when someone's able to prove me wrong...as you yourself should know from experience.
To simplify my explanation, try to understand my mind. If I get a math problem wrong and someone's able to prove my error, then I'm grateful for it. When it comes to climate change or any other scientific issue, if someone's able to prove my error, then I'm grateful for it.
In other words, Roger, PRIDE does not enter into my arguments for or against any particular subject...whereas most other people who debate certainly DO allow their pride to color their reasoning, and DO allow their pride to prevent them from being able to accept that they are in error.
No, Roger - I'm probably one of the least insecure people you'll ever meet when it comes to my knowledge on any particular subject.
Now - you mentioned it's the heart that's on trial. When it comes to presenting an argument, sure, I'm not that effective - not because of any insecurity on my part, but because many of those in my audience are themselves insecure when it comes to fact.
Roger, I'd make a lousy politician - I know that. But you yourself should beware of relying too much on listening to your own heart when it comes to matters that can be solved mathematically or scientifically. Truly, if Joe Everyman is unable to accept scientific data and observation, is it the fault of those presenting the data and observation? Or is it the fault of Joe Everyman?
Think about it - if your supposition were true, then every doggone scientist who EVER based his opinions on scientific fact and observation would automatically be labeled insecure when he tried to present his findings to the Great Unwashed.
No, Roger - you're falling into the same trap where Clavos dwells, unable to accept scientific data and observation by those best qualified to interpret it. The problem isn't mine - it's yours.
Unless you or someone else here is able to prove me wrong, in which case I'll be happy, sincerely grateful and I'll publicly eat crow just like I've done before...because I refuse to let my pride lead me around by the nose.
Have you seen others here do that? No. There's not many people like me, Roger - because when it comes to debates over important matters, most people refuse to admit error...or when they do, it's only on minor points. Such people, Roger, are truly insecure.
P.S. I really, really hope that the scientists are all somehow wrong when it comes to global warming. I don't want to see all the chaos and cultural upheaval that will happen as a result. I'd LOVE to be able to say that the scientists are wrong.
And you know what? The scientists feel the same way. They WANT to be wrong...but that's not what the data show. Who then, truly, is insecure when it comes to this issue?
63 - Clavos
And that's a hallmark of your 'refutations', Clavos - you erroneously throw out logical fallacies in a manner that is not appropriate to their use.
Bullshit, Glenn. You're the one committing the errors. The logical fallacies you employ are not of my making, I merely point them out.
64 - Cannonshop
wow, this gets personal fast...or got personal fast, less than fifty comments, and people are calling each other names.
NOT a record, just...surprising. Science is supposed to be dispassionate-separate the result you WANT in favour of the result you GET, and don't throw out evidence unless it is contaminated by the experimentor.
IS CO2 a greenhouse gas? yes. so is water-vapour, methane, and a host of other non-solid-non-liquids. The better question is, are levels increasing beyond the ability of the CO2 to O2 conversion process (That'd be Photosynthesis) to compensate, and if so, is the change temporary, or long-term, and finally, is it man-made? which all lead to the same question: "Can WE DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT?"
Climate-models have yet to produce consistent, repeatable, accurate results. Mann's Hockeystick peaks on random-numbers at the same point (or within a few degrees of the same point) as it does with actual observations-this makes it NOT an accurate model or predictor-yet it is the basis of everyone else's research (at least, all of it that reaches down to us neanaderthals via media sources).
It takes direct experimentor interference via number-theory games ("Tricking" the data) for the current generation of theoretical models to begin to resemble reality-and that's if you're looking to model past performance-if it needs human interference, then it's not observational anymore, if you need to change the process mid-experiment, it's not good science.
any ninth grader from ten years ago (or more) could tell you that, it's called cheating when done in academic circles, and can get you fired if you do it in the commercial world (or on the hook for fraud, depending on the industry-hair-tonic sellers certianly want 'studies' to back their claims, but if your data is risking several hundered lives in a go on a product, maybe tricking the data to get a desired result for publication isn't so swift an idea.)
Making LAW based on questionable science isn't too smart-Yes, people SHOULD use less energy and resources, people SHOULD seek renewable resources whenever they can, people SHOULD seek means to avoid burning fuels if there are viable options, and it IS a good idea to get off the Petroleum Addiction. Getting "Off the Grid" is a personal goal of mine, and the most likely means are all in the alternative energy sectors-but that does not translate into it being a good idea to use bogeymen and bad science to force people to do what they SHOULD do-at gun-point, with massive profits for the unscrupulous who know how to game the system without actually fixing or reforming anything.
I'm rather noting that the 94% of scientists who back this boogeyman, can't come up with a means OTHER than curtailing freedoms and redistributing wealth, to fix the problem. Maybe I'm wrong, but it sure smells like Ideology overcoming ethics to me.
65 - Clavos
Well said, Cannonshop...
66 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
Bullshit, Glenn. You're the one committing the errors. The logical fallacies you employ are not of my making, I merely point them out.
Go back and read up on the causation-correlation logical fallacy. That fallacy applies to two factors that are wholly unrelated...whereas every single one of the correlations I point out are related.
It's just like when on the one hand you tried to use that logical fallacy claim to show that the much higher tax rates of the 50's, 60's, and 70's had nothing to do with the economy we had then, yet on the other hand you try to say that if Obama raises taxes, well, there goes the economy!
You can't have things both ways, Clavos - and you can't use the causation correlation fallacy against observations of factors that ARE closely related.
67 - Glenn Contrarian
C-shop -
Can WE DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT?"
Ah. So since YOU (and the rest of conservativedom) believe that we "can't do anything about it" (despite what those same scientists are telling you), let's all just throw our hands up in the air and give up. That's real good, guy.
Climate-models have yet to produce consistent, repeatable, accurate results.
WRONG.
(1) Climate models consistently show a significant rise in the overall temperature of the world. The only thing that could be called an inconsistency is the degree of that rise...and that's because every one of the models don't show an EXACT prediction, but a RANGE of probability...and even the low end of the models show a rise that will adversely affect the planet.
(2) They ARE repeatable...and they have REPEATEDLY shown the same range of results. Apparently you're expecting an absolutely exact result, and since the scientists are showing a range of results with the vast majority of those results being a dangerous rise in temperature and sea level, you're assuming that they must be wrong.
Next time there's a hurricane, look at where the weatherman says the hurricane is likely to hit. When it's two days away from landfall, does he say the hurricane will hit EXACTLY at one geographical point? No. He gives a RANGE.
(3) And that brings us to accuracy...and when the observed results fall within the RANGE of prediction, then the prediction is accurate. Unfortunately for humankind, over the past decade the observed results of worldwide climate change have fallen on the HIGH half of the bell curve of predictions.
So NO, C-shop, your mind is obviously not of a scientific bent - otherwise you wouldn't come up with this frankly lame excuse - and all you're doing is parroting the song-and-dance that Big Oil and Fox News are feeding you.
AND LOOK AT YOUR LAST 'POINT' - that 94% of scientists are backing this because they can't come up with another way to 'redistribute wealth'. SO THAT'S THEIR EVIL PLAN, HUH?
Lemme see here - scientists from thousands of universities based in scores of different countries ALL GOT TOGETHER and said, "Hey, let's all do 'wealth distribution'! Let's make all this up and all those Real American Conservatives will NEVER be able to discover our Evil Plan! Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk...."
SO IF YOU IGNORE THE REST OF THE COMMENT, C-shop, I'D LIKE YOU TO ANSWER THIS ONE QUESTION - if Climate Change is a 'boogeyman' and has been since it was first became understood by mainstream science back in the early 90's, then was it just an incredible streak of blind luck that nine of the past ten years have consecutively been the highest on record? Or are the scientists from all these different countries somehow all getting together and changing the data so that they can go forward with Their Evil Plan?
68 - roger nowosielski
Glenn is a fanatic, Cannon and he gives liberalism a bad name. He embraced his new religion without reservation. I suppose his Southern upbringing and racist culture - by his own admission now, not mine - had him completely turned around. The ugliness of it had him so shook up that he took to running in the opposite direction and never looked back. It's like a child of an alcoholic father. They vow to themselves never to touch a drop.
69 - zingzing
would it be better if glenn had embraced conservatism, roger? i don't know why, but i'm beginning to suspect you might think so...
70 - Clavos
whereas every single one of the correlations I point out are related.
As I have pointed out to you numerous times in the past, Glenn, they are related only in that they are correlated. ALL the other "related" factors to which you allude are mere figments of your overactive imagination and you have yet to prove (as opposed to merely asserting) otherwise, once again correlation does not imply causation.
71 - zingzing
"once again correlation does not imply causation."
of course, nor does it negate the entire point.
72 - roger nowosielski
Probably he'd be truer then to self. But no, I don't wish that.
73 - Clavos
of course, nor does it negate the entire point.
When it invalidates the conclusion, it does, unless the point can be supported by other, more pertinent, data.
74 - zingzing
baby and bathwater. even if the baby did poop the bathwater.
"unless the point can be supported by other, more pertinent, data."
well, it's a pretty strong coincidence, so it probably can be. then again, i don't think anything could be "pertinent" enough for you on this issue.
75 - roger nowosielski
Whatever the case, zing, Glenn's tropes of thought are indefensible. Pick up a worthier target.