If we think of climate as our life support system, then at what point – what milestone, what knowable data collected – do we decide that we no longer have time luxury to afford small incremental changes but must act to save the life of the system itself? This is the kind of answer we need from scientific consensus to overpower the short term interests and political capital of those who monetize their carbon assets.
tildeb
Questionable Motives 
The ominous music, the emotional appeal, the “end times” language. OH NO! Oogity Boogity! It all sounds so, well, so … religious!
But hey, if the World Bank and UN priests say it’s true, then we shall all fall in line. Well, except for the fact that it also sounds so … Darwinistic. That’s kind of a problem. I mean, who are we to put moral language on the evolution of the species to bring on its own demise? Especially when we could use this religious guilt to extract taxes from the wealthy to redistribute their property and divide it up among the less fit for survival.
Wait a minute, that sounds ANTI-Darwinist. So confusing …
http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/opinion/op_ed/2013/09/cooling_off_time_for_devotees_of_global_warming
Comment by Stanley — October 10, 2013 @ 2:37 pm |
Maybe this will help you get over yourself, Stanley…
(h/t Climate Denial Crock of the Week)
Comment by tildeb — October 10, 2013 @ 3:06 pm |
We don’t yet have a conscious recognition of the planet. We need that burnt into our heads (and hearts) before anything is going to happen.
Comment by john zande — October 10, 2013 @ 3:04 pm |
This should help: launch date in 2015
Comment by tildeb — October 10, 2013 @ 3:16 pm |
Indeed. Let’s hope it does fly and nothing else “unexpected” happens between now and then.
Comment by john zande — October 10, 2013 @ 3:30 pm
Mate, Culpeper is starting a communal blog type thing and he wants you and your brilliant writing in. We don’t have your email, so if you can, can you fire him an email (address below) and he’ll explain everyhting.
rl.culpeper@yahoo.com
Comment by john zande — October 10, 2013 @ 3:33 pm |
Ha Ha Ha! Hilarious video!
Sorry to bother you. I’ll let you get back to your bunker building efforts so all the like-minded faithful can make some more “the end is near” music and videos. You guys should start an “organization” (do NOT call it a church or anything like that) that can collect money (we’ll call them ‘taxes’) through the use of guilt and fear (geez, this is sounding really familiar!) and self-righteously condemn the heretics of our cause (we’ll call them ‘deniers’).
Wait, you’ve already done that! Nice …
Comment by Stanley — October 11, 2013 @ 10:18 am |
Hi Tildeb! How are you guys doing? Wow, you’ve written a lot of in-depth posts here. It’s going to take me forever to read them all. I appreciate the effort you put into this.
(So, if I disagree with something here, am I supposed to mock you with sarcasm like the previous gentleman?) *Shrug*
Comment by Quackzalcoatl — October 11, 2013 @ 10:44 am |
Yes. This is tildeb‘s practice on other folks’ sites so I assume he approves of it.
Comment by Stanley — October 11, 2013 @ 10:56 am |
It’s hard really to tell the tone sometimes, though. I get pissy with people and then feel stupid about it when they turn out to be pretty cool. I hate being “that guy,” I don’t care how dissed I may feel. It doesn’t accomplish anything constructive at all. (Unless you’re on good enough terms where you can laugh about it and know there’s no animosity behind it all.)
Comment by Quackzalcoatl — October 11, 2013 @ 11:07 am
Agreed Quackzalcoati … I just find ironic hypocrisy in the fact that tildeb’s mockery of all thing religious sounds pretty lame (and awfully religious) when the cause is one he champions. He appears blind to that fact so I just thought I’d point it out 🙂
Comment by Stanley — October 11, 2013 @ 11:21 am
Well, sarcasm has its place as does mockery. But we have a major problem on our collective hands – human caused global warming leading directly to climate change – that far too many people like Stanley think is no problem at all but a conspiracy aimed at working towards all kinds of nefarious goals. That’s a shame because rather than understand what’s going on in reality he chooses to empower his conspiratorial beliefs as a substitute. (That really should be clue…) And that, too, is very much a central part of the problem all of us must face when trying to do what we can to mitigate the changes we – as a collective – have set in motion. The Stanleys of the world are the poster children for willful ignorance at work.. and so stupid that they are proud of it.
Comment by tildeb — October 11, 2013 @ 11:25 am
Stanley, you’ve been fooled by appearances before so it’s no surprise you’d be so easily fooled now. Your attributions are not accurate. You do not reference them to the reality you assume they reflect. Just because someone is passionate about something does not mean they are zealots in the partisan sense of the word. I go to great lengths to explain how and why I think the conclusions I reach are justified. If you care to address any of those, I will be glad to explore them further with you. But by waving all that away and plastering your silly label on me, you fool only yourself. You appear foolish. You write foolishly. You do not exercise critical thinking and you don’t care to because it cannot be supported by reality. Your assumptions stand naked and you are the one who thinks this is appropriate. That’s foolishness in action. Don’t blame me for your foolish failings, for your intellectual laziness, for your shortsighted conspiratorial imaginings. Look a little closer to home and start to fix these problems that keep you locked into an ignorance that respects your beliefs about reality more than reality itself. This is your burden to carry and not mine.
Comment by tildeb — October 11, 2013 @ 11:37 am
But hey, if the World Bank and UN priests say it’s true, then we shall all fall in line.
You mean NASA.
NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
Reality is not your friend.
The Carbon Crisis in 90 Seconds.
Comment by Cedric Katesby — October 27, 2013 @ 9:32 am
Climate has been on a warming trend since the Ice Ages. So, why should we be surprised it is getting ‘warmer?’
But, if anyone wanted to reduce CO2 emissions the easiest method would be to move to Asia and actually do something to reduce the HUGE impact Asia is having upon the climate.
Blame or fix. Now that is truly the question.
🙂
Wayne
luvsiesous.com
Comment by Wayne — October 22, 2013 @ 9:39 pm |
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mike-ciandella/2014/01/02/frozen-out-98-stories-ignore-ice-bound-ship-was-global-warming-missi
Comment by av8torbob — January 3, 2014 @ 10:32 am |
Oh look, ice that trapped a ship that had some climate scientists heading to the Antarctic. Therefore no climate change caused by human activity.
Really, Bob?
Comment by tildeb — January 3, 2014 @ 12:28 pm |
Chill out there, tildeb (pun intended). Even with your (dare I say) religious devotion to the ChurchOfAlGore, can’t you see the humor in the fact that a bunch of the global warming faithful are currently trapped in a block of ice?! That’s just funny.
Comment by Bob — January 4, 2014 @ 4:30 pm
If you want to find out about how much ice there is in the Antarctic, then count it.
There is no substitute.
Even with your (dare I say) religious devotion to the ChurchOfAlGore…
It’s amazing.
Creationists have this thing about Darwin. Climate deniers have this thing about Al Gore.
Science doesn’t work like that.
Climate Science 1956: A Blast from the Past
Comment by Cedric Katesby — January 5, 2014 @ 4:47 am |
Compare and contrast the drivel spouted by Bob and Stanley with this story:
This is how scientists think: collect evidence from reality and try out various explanations for it. Test these explanations with new data and see how well it fits… not just some but all of the data. This is hard and demanding and disciplined work. The increased rate, frequency, and amplitude of climate change correlates with increased human activity and so this explanation is tested against all the data. The result is a fit. This is a useful explanation and it can be used successfully to make predictions. These predictions also work, although they tend to err on the side of being too conservative. No belief of the religious kind is involved at all. That’s why every major scientific organization in the world agrees and has reached consensus.
Granted, we must take on faith (of the religious kind) that the combined firepower of Bob and Stanley’s intellectual capacity far exceeds the global scientific community to take their criticisms seriously. These two giants of scientific endeavors have have zero data (that isn’t PRATT) upon which to convince the world that they are right and the explanation that fits the data is wrong. They want to have their opinions taken seriously, to be an equivalent position to that of climate scientists… the same climate scientists who brought us equivalent evidence using the equivalent method of science of loss of ozone over the Antarctic. They were magically right then but wrong now, you see, because Bob and Stanley believe they are wrong. This argument is so asinine that they are left throwing nothing but their own excrement at the world as it ignores their contrary beliefs and passes them by. That is the extent of their scientific contribution and commentary about it.
Comment by tildeb — January 4, 2014 @ 5:17 pm |
Problem, evidence boy … yours is old 🙂 But let’s not get caught up in facts. You have your blind faith to follow, after all. (And the story is still funny) Ha Ha Ha Ha …
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html
Comment by Bob — January 4, 2014 @ 7:29 pm |
Bob, an increase in surface ice does not translate to more ice; I don’t doubt you have difficulty grasping this fact, which is why you’re being fooled – because you are gullible – into believing this is evidence against AGW climate change. It isn’t. The evidence is all one way, although you wouldn’t know that unless you had the intellectual integrity to actually learn what the data set indicates rather than seek only that evidence that appears to support your beliefs contrary to scientific consensus. Your beliefs are wrong, not because I say so or believe differently than you but, because REALITY shows us data that indicates your beliefs stand contrary to it. That’s your problem to deal with, and your beliefs will not protect you from reality in spite of your belief that it will. You’re a dupe and you seem to have no means available to you to stop being duped that don;t require you to put aside your contrary beliefs and this you seem unwilling to do. That’s why you are a climate change denier and nothing reality can show you will alter your belief because you simply don’t care more about reality than the beliefs you hold about it. This is identical to the medical definition of what constitutes a delusion. That fact should trouble you.
Comment by tildeb — January 4, 2014 @ 8:06 pm
tildeb, I can promise you that NOTHING I have ever heard from you “troubles me.” From the first time you commented in defense of the fraud, Bill Nye on my blog, I have known you wouldn’t know intellectual integrity if it slapped you in the face. Your close-minded refusal to even consider any idea that is contrary to your pre-conceived, materialistic ASSUMPTIONS about your empty view of “reality” is sad to see … especially when you are so blinded by those assumptions you don’t even realize that your very ability to reason makes mockery of your materialistic worldview.
That, and the “defenses” offered by your weak-minded, name-calling, butt buddies is a fact that should really trouble you if you took the time to think about it … but you won’t.
Comment by Bob — January 4, 2014 @ 8:58 pm |
Problem, evidence boy … yours is old
Not according to NASA.
But let’s not get caught up in facts.
NASA deals with facts all the time.
You have your blind faith to follow, after all.
NASA is not faith-based. It’s a scientific community.
I can promise you that NOTHING I….
It’s not you versus some other guy on the internet. It’s you versus the scientific consensus. It’s you versus NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
Think about it for a moment.
Kinda big.
You see, tideb might be right or wrong about “X”. So might you. So if you and he argue over something then a casual observer doesn’t know which way to jump on the issue. It’s a toss up.
Two anonymous people on the internet.
Only that’s not really true. You like to frame it that way because it brings you comfort but the reality is bigger. Much bigger.
Let me help you with that.
“I can promise NASA and every single scientific community on the planet that NOTHING I have ever heard from them “troubles me and my article I just found in the Daily Mail”.
From the first time NASA and every single scientific community on the planet commented in defense of the fraud, Bill Nye on my blog, I and the Daily Mail have known that they wouldn’t know intellectual integrity if it slapped them in the face. NASA’s close-minded refusal to even consider any idea that is contrary to NASA’s pre-conceived, materialistic ASSUMPTIONS about their empty view of “reality” is sad to see … especially when every single scientific community is so blinded by those assumptions they don’t even realize that NASA’s very ability to reason makes mockery of their materialistic worldview.
That, and the “defenses” offered by NASA’s weak-minded, name-calling, butt buddies is a fact that should really trouble NASA and every single scientific community on the planet if they took the time to think about it … but they won’t.”
See?
It makes you sound like a total nutjob.
Rejecting the scientific consensus on something is big.
It’s serious.
Much, much bigger than say, two people in disagreement on the internet. That’s tiny.
NASA has a website. Most national and international scientific communities do. So it’s really easy for a casual observer to type in “NASA” and “climate change” to see for themselves what the science says.
No scientific community on the planet rejects the scientific consensus on climate change.
Not one.
That didn’t happen by magic.
A scientific consensus is created by work, usually over a very long time.
There’s a scientific consensus on the moon landings. On gravity. On Evolution. On the safety of vaccines etc.
They all happen the same way.
Work.
Hard Work.
No short-cuts.
If you are going to reject the scientific consensus on “X”, then you have to have a really, really , REALLY good reason for doing so.
If it’s really, really, REALLY good then you’re in line to win a Nobel Prize. Fame and fortune are just around the corner.
Or….
…you’re just some hopeless tool on the internet with a link to the Daily Mail.
Comment by Cedric Katesby — January 5, 2014 @ 5:08 am |
Ah, NASA. Just to be sure, we are talking about THE NASA right? The NASA that crashed a Mars lander because it programmed its descent in English instead of Metric units? The NASA that spent billions to build the Johnson Space Center in Houston … for political reasons? The NASA that looked past issues with Challenger … for political reasons? The NASA that recently told us one of its highest priorities was understanding “The Religion of Peace” … for political reasons?
Surely THAT NASA would never push the Climate Change hoax … for political reasons. No, that would be impossible.
… at least to sycophantic, moronic, “freethinking” religious zealots like you, Cedric.
Time to go worship at the temple of NASA, isn’t it? At least for some hopeless tool on the internet with a connection to the NASA website. 🙂
Comment by Bob — January 5, 2014 @ 7:23 am
“Ah, NASA and every single scientific community on the planet. Just to be sure, we are talking about THE NASA and every single scientific community on the planet, right? The NASA and every single scientific community on the planet thatthat crashed a Mars lander because it programmed its descent in English instead of Metric units?”
No, that was just NASA.
Besides, your logic sucks.
Let’s take the moon landings for example.
Some people deny that too.
So if you want to reject the scientific consensus on the moon landings then you could say the same thing but…you’d sound nutty.
The scientific reality of the moon landings doesn’t magically vanish just because a Mars lander crashed.
The NASA and every single scientific community on the planet that spent billions to build the Johnson Space Center in Houston … for political reasons?
No idea what you are talking about but….no.
NASA may or may not have done something but you can’t factor in every single scientific community on the planet.
Nor does it work for the moon landings.
Johnson Space Center blah, blah, blah, therefore no moon landings.
(..awkward silence…)
Nope.
That’s just stupid.
The NASA that looked past issues with Challenger … for political reasons?
Nope. It’s not just NASA.
It’s NASA…..and every single scientific community on the planet.
It’s this thing called a scientific consensus.
A scientific consensus is big.
It doesn’t appear by magic.
Time to go worship at the temple of NASA, isn’t it?
NASA isn’t religious. It’s about science. Two different things.
You have nothing.
Except links.
I, on the other hand, have NASA.
NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
There’s no wriggling around that.
If you are going to reject the scientific consensus on “X”, then you have to have a really, really , REALLY good reason for doing so.
If it’s really, really, REALLY good then you’re in line to win a Nobel Prize. Fame and fortune are just around the corner.
Or….
…you’re just some hopeless tool on the internet with a link to the Daily Mail.
Reality is not your friend.
Comment by Cedric Katesby — January 5, 2014 @ 11:31 am
Cedric, you are such a disingenuous punk … You and tildeb mentioned NASA, and only NASA, in your previous comments. I respond with FACTS about NASA and you pretend it was me who isolated it as the source of the hoax. Amazing.
For the record, there is no greater fan of NASA than me. I have been a NASA groupie since I was a kid. I went to school with, trained with, flew with, and have friends who are astronauts. There are few people I respect more. But all that does not mean I take everything NASA says uncritically. Unlike you, I don’t just keep pronouncing what a freethinker I am, I actually go out there and try to find ALL the data regarding a scientific subject like this and weigh it accordingly. Unlike you, I consider evidence contrary to my view. Unlike you, I don’t have any trouble seeing how NASA could be offering politically motivated conclusions. I gave you examples of some of those but apparently you have trouble comprehending them. You also conveniently skipped the biggest one:
http://www.space.com/8725-nasa-chief-bolden-muslim-remark-al-jazeera-stir.html
Why don’t you go check that out and try to explain to me not only how such a politically motivated load of BS could come out of the NASA Administrator’s mouth, but how a bureaucracy that spouts that kind of nonsense couldn’t also spout nonsense about other politically rich topics (like the “Global Warming” hoax). NASA long ago lost its mission and turned into another bloated, government program filled with bureaucrats who appeal to morons like you in the name of “science.”
Finally, I didn’t say NASA was “religious,” I said you Global Warming zealots are. Are you really so dense that you can’t comprehend the difference? As Stanley noted above, you use guilt, pronounce people heretics (“deniers”), coerce financial transfers of wealth, and worship the priests of your cause, all in the name of saving the world. If you can’t see the parallels in that, it’s not my logic that sucks.
Comment by Bob — January 5, 2014 @ 3:44 pm |
You and tildeb mentioned NASA, and only NASA, in your previous comments.
The words have not magically disappeared. Lying will get you nowhere. Just scroll up a teeny, tiny bit and they are still there.
“It’s you versus the scientific consensus. It’s you versus NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.”
and
…”NASA and every single scientific community on the planet”
and again…
“NASA and every single scientific community on the planet…” multiple times.
“Rejecting the scientific consensus on something is big.”
and
“No scientific community on the planet rejects the scientific consensus on climate change.”
Etc, etc, etc.
It’s not possible to make it more clear.
I respond with FACTS about NASA….
Allcaps will not help you. It’s still you verus NASA and every single scientific community on the planet. That’s not going away anytime soon.
“…you pretend it was me who isolated it as the source of the hoax….”
There is no hoax, you simpleton.
There is no big, spooky-wooky global scientific conspiracy.
Such a thing would be physically impossible.
NASA and every single scientific community on the planet are not lying to you about the moon landings.
They couldn’t.
Nor are they lying to you about climate change.
But all that does not mean I take everything NASA says uncritically.
No one is asking you to. Stop creating strawmen.
Unlike you, I don’t just keep pronouncing what a freethinker I am, I actually go out there and try to find ALL the data regarding a scientific subject like this and weigh it accordingly.
Any crackpot can say the same. If you are going to reject the scientific consensus on “X”, then you have to have a really, really , REALLY good reason for doing so.
If it’s really, really, REALLY good then you’re in line to win a Nobel Prize. Fame and fortune are just around the corner.
But you don’t have a really, really good reason.
Why don’t you go check that out and try to explain to me not….
Because it’s stupid.
NASA and every single scientific community on the planet is still there.
The scientific consensus does not disappear no matter what someone said or did not say.
Science does not work like that
“Climate change is a hoax because some guy on the internet didn’t explain to me something about a link I pasted on Muslim thingy.”
(???)
It’s dumb.
….but how a bureaucracy that spouts that kind of nonsense couldn’t also spout nonsense about other politically rich topics…
Your conspiracy doesn’t work.
There is no “bureaucracy”. It’s all the scientific communities on the planet. They’re separate.
….turned into another bloated, government program….
There is no “government”. Governments change. There’s more than one of them. No single government from whatever country, past or present, can physically control NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
Doesn’t work.
There’s no mechanism.
Finally, I didn’t say NASA was “religious,” I said you Global Warming zealots are.
Your words have not magically disappeared. Scroll up.
Time to go worship at the temple of NASA, isn’t it?
There is no “temple” of NASA.
NASA is not religious.
It’s you versus NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
I’m just the messenger.
My zealotry or lack thereof doesn’t change that.
Reality is not your friend.
That Mitchell and Webb Look – landing on the Moon
Comment by Cedric Katesby — January 6, 2014 @ 4:11 am |
Cedric — Just because I don’t trust you to go check the NASA Administrator’s asinine “third, and perhaps foremost” comment, I am putting it here so you and your fellow parishioners won’t remain NASA political deniers 🙂 :
“When I became the NASA administrator, (President Obama) charged me with three things,” Bolden said in the interview which aired last week. “One, he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math and engineering.”
Comment by Bob — January 5, 2014 @ 4:03 pm |
For the record you may be interested to know that Henry M. Morris, the father of modern young earth creationism, endorsed the idea of global warming. His argument ran like this: the Flood caused the massive destruction of plant and animal life, forming, among other things, the oil and coal deposits we have today. This had the effect of lowering the CO2 content in the atmosphere, which in turn caused a drop in global temperatures and brought on the ice age. As plant and animal life gradually returned to normal levels the CO2 in the atmosphere increased, and caused global warming. In support of this he cited the work of Dr. Gilbert Plass who published an article in the Scientific American in July, 1959. Morris also noted that there was a tremendous interest in global warming in the late 1950’s, and said that “The most immediate reason for this interest is the possibility that carbon dioxide is again being added to the atmosphere in large amounts due to the burning of coal and oil.” (The Genesis Flood, 1961, p. 307). He then quoted the I.G.Y. Bulletin as saying “Man, in his burning of fossil fuels and denudation of land surfaces may be performing a gigantic geophysical experiment in which the
CO2 cycle is being influenced.”
Comment by Bob Wheeler — January 5, 2014 @ 8:11 pm |
Well, if Henry Morris endorsed it, that’s another strike against the hoax.
Comment by Bob — January 5, 2014 @ 9:53 pm |
Well, if Henry Morris endorsed it, that’s another strike against the hoax.
No it doesn’t.
You have fallen victim to a logical fallacy.
“Well, if Hitler endorsed it, that’s another strike against washing your hands before eating.”
See the problem?
Science isn’t about “endorsement” Either for or against.
In science, only the evidence counts.
The work.
Science Works! How the Scientific Peer Review Process works
Comment by Cedric Katesby — January 6, 2014 @ 4:20 am
Ok, genius, you show your utter ignorance once again. Obviously you have NO IDEA who Henry Morris is but I will be sure to acknowledge your allegiance to one of the world’s most prolific Young Earth Creationists in the future. (And I’m the “nutjob.” Ha Ha Ha Ha!)
That’s just classic.
I guess I misspoke when I labeled you “religious” there Ceddy Boy. I think cultist is more accurate. Enjoy the KoolAid.
Comment by Bob — January 6, 2014 @ 6:27 pm
Ok, genius, you show your utter ignorance once again. Obviously you have NO IDEA who Henry Morris is….
Did it occur to you to type in my handle and “Henry Morris”?
Evidently not.
Google is not your friend.
Go ahead and google it now.
I’ll wait.
(…time passes…)
See?
So, yes, I know who Henry Morris was.
Bob Wheeler kindly took the time to back me up on this.
(Thank you by the way.)
I will be sure to acknowledge your allegiance to one of the world’s most prolific Young Earth Creationists…
You have nothing but babble. There is no “allegiance”. Stop listening to the voices in your head and focus on the real conversation around you.
You made a logical fallacy. I pointed it out because I’m rather smart that way.
The substitute I used to illustrate the fallacy was…Hitler.
Now think hard why I chose Hitler.
I’ll wait.
(…time passes…)
Figured it out yet?
Oh good.
If fact, I can take your logic again and continue with the Hitler substitution. It works beautifully well.
“Ok, genius, you show your utter ignorance once again. Obviously you have NO IDEA who Adolf Hitler was but I will be sure to acknowledge your allegiance to one of the world’s most infamous dictators in the future. (And I’m the “nutjob.” Ha Ha Ha Ha!)”
(…awkward silence…)
Yep, the more you comment, the more you embarrass yourself.
Oh and it’s still just you versus NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
Reality is not your friend.
It sucks to be you.
Comment by Cedric Katesby — January 6, 2014 @ 10:06 pm
I can assure you that Cedric knows perfectly well who Henry Morris was — he and I have discussed him before, and Cedric is by no means an admirer of his. But Cedric is perfectly right about one thing: Morris’ work, like that of any other scientific theory, deserves to be judged on its own merits. The question is not, who said it, but does the evidence support it?
May I also point out that sarcasm is a poor substitute for a logical argument?
Comment by Bob Wheeler — January 6, 2014 @ 7:31 pm |