Questionable Motives

February 24, 2014

Should we assume that climate change is still debatable?

Filed under: Climate Change,Scepticism — tildeb @ 3:09 pm

Not when the science is settled and there are real consequences all of us have to face leaving us unprepared.

 

 

Advertisements

58 Comments »

  1. It’s so odd. The “debate” was well and truly over in Australia in early 90’s, as I suspect it was in every other industrialised country… excluding the US.

    Comment by john zande — February 24, 2014 @ 3:58 pm | Reply

    • And a fair bit here in Canada… where the best person for the job as Minister of Science and Technology was… wait for it… a chiropractor.

      Comment by tildeb — February 24, 2014 @ 4:28 pm | Reply

      • Ahhhh, perfect back-ground!

        You have a new MP there, Chrystia Freeland. How’s she fairing? She used to be my wife’s boss.

        Comment by john zande — February 24, 2014 @ 5:11 pm

      • And your seriously want us to take seriously the “Climate Change” that is defended in the video by … wait for it … a theoretical physicist.

        Comment by av8torbob — February 26, 2014 @ 9:50 am

  2. … or, we could ask the American Meteorological Society — actual experts in meteorological sciences — for their views on the issue and use them as a hammer to pound all the “deniers” and other heretics of the Church of Global Warming.

    Oh, wait, never mind. Their heretics too!! Burn them!

    http://www.humanevents.com/2014/02/24/climate-change-consensus-there-is-no-consensus/

    Comment by av8torbob — February 24, 2014 @ 4:58 pm | Reply

  3. Though the typical response for those in The Church of Global Warming is to make others just shut up, there are other views …

    http://www.cfr.org/climate-change/alternative-views-climate-change/p14318

    Comment by Av8torbob — February 24, 2014 @ 9:40 pm | Reply

  4. Well, it’s only 100 Reasons but, hey, they must all be the work of heretics too …

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/146138/100-reasons-why-climate-change-is-natural

    Comment by Av8torbob — February 24, 2014 @ 9:44 pm | Reply

  5. Bob, you obviously didn’t read the study’s findings: only 4% denied it… not that you care about what’s true.

    Comment by tildeb — February 24, 2014 @ 11:16 pm | Reply

    • Actually, I DO care about what’s true; and what’s true is that the issue is not “settled,” no matter how many times your faithful churchgoing cohorts repeat the lie. It’s really just a question of resisting the guilt-fed oppression of religious brainwashing for me 🙂

      Comment by Av8torbob — February 25, 2014 @ 6:41 am | Reply

    • tildeb, you obviously didn’t read the List of 100 Reasons: 100% of them are holes in the Global Warming Hoax … not that you care about what’s true.

      Comment by av8torbob — February 25, 2014 @ 10:55 am | Reply

  6. Wow, what an amazing list of 100 reasons, let’s take a look at some of the reasons listed shall we? Here’s some pretty compelling stuff!!!!:

    “49) The head of Britain’s climate change watchdog has predicted households will need to spend up to £15,000 on a full energy efficiency makeover if the Government is to meet its ambitious targets for cutting carbon emissions.

    50) Wind power is unlikely to be the answer to our energy needs. The wind power industry argues that there are “no direct subsidies” but it involves a total subsidy of as much as £60 per MWh which falls directly on electricity consumers. This burden will grow in line with attempts to achieve Wind power targets, according to a recent OFGEM report.

    51) Wind farms are not an efficient way to produce energy. The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) accepts a figure of 75 per cent back-up power is required.”

    If those sample reasons don’t prove that global warming is a hoax, I don’t know what does!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Wind power is not the answer, therefore global warming is a hoax. If that’s the best you can do bob, then I guess that’s the best you can do.

    Comment by Ashley — February 25, 2014 @ 1:58 pm | Reply

    • Well, Ashley, I’m sure you’re thrilled with your incredible takedown and your ability to respond to an argument no one is making. You must be a regular on here. Congrats!

      Now try the other 97 🙂

      Comment by Av8torbob — February 25, 2014 @ 6:38 pm | Reply

  7. Wow Bob, you’re a gem. Did you or did you not post that link on here and claim that “100% of them are holes in the global warming hoax”? I believe you are making an argument to the effect the global warming is a hoax Bob. You scour the internet looking for “evidence” that global warming is a hoax and then find garbage like the link you posted and think you’ve proven your case. Try harder next time.

    Comment by Ashley — February 25, 2014 @ 8:26 pm | Reply

    • Still 97 to go …

      Comment by av8torbob — February 25, 2014 @ 8:56 pm | Reply

      • av8tor,

        So what you actually meant to say was “most” of the reasons are holes in the global warming hoax, however some of the listed reasons may or may not be complete non-sequitur bullshit. Did you seriously want me to go through each of the 100 reasons and refute each one? Try reading them for yourself. 1) There’s no scientific evidence? WRONG. There’s plenty of evidence. 9) “Leaked e-mails” point to a global conspiracy. No links provided, no names given, just trust us, there are leaked e-mails – and those e-mails absolutely invalidate all the evidence that’s been collected and analyzed and scrutinized to date. 13) Fewer people in Britain believe in the importance of global warming (not whether or not it’s true, just the importance of it). The amount of people willing to believe or not believe something has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever about whether it’s true or not. See point one – evidence, of which there is plenty – is what determines the truth or validity of a claim. 19) The Heidelberg Appeal is a vague, generalized statement with NOT ONE WORD in it regarding denial of man-made climate change or global warming.
        So anywho, I going to stop there and I’m just gonna go ahead and assume you actually didn’t read the list at all – you just typed “global warming is a scam” into Google and the eyes bulged out of your head when you came across an article that had a HUNDRED reasons why it was a scam and slapped it on the forum here and rested your case. I agree wholeheartedly with Cedric’s assessment. You rely on stupid, misinformed ignoramuses to get your “information” about climate change and global warming. You have then relied on that misinformation to form an opinion that is contrary to scientifically established fact.
        That list is a joke. Embarrassed yet?

        Comment by Ashley — February 26, 2014 @ 10:03 am

  8. ANYONE on here who takes science seriously knows that there is no such thing as “settled science.” The term itself is an oxyMORON (No comment on the irony demonstrated between that term and those who refer to the Global Warming Hoax as “settled science”). But, as a way of demonstrating just how stupid it is to label something as “settled science,” I offer a few other scientific issues that were “settled” in their time:

    Geocentrism — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model

    Steady State Cosmology — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory

    Spontaneous Generation — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation

    Aether — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories

    Flat Earth — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

    … just to name a few. I realize of course that, for those who attend regular services at the Church of Global Warming, the constraints of actual science are irrelevant to your deeply held religious beliefs. That’s fine. But please don’t be so ridiculous as to refer to your religion as “settled science.” It just make you look silly. 🙂

    Comment by av8torbob — February 25, 2014 @ 9:20 pm | Reply

    • Holy baby Jesus. Just when I thought you’d posted the stupidest thing ever with your list of 100 “reasons” refuting global climate change, you post a link to a Wikipedia page about a flat earth. There was never any SCIENTIFIC consensus about a flat earth bob. People used to think the earth was flat because they were complete ignoramuses and didn’t/couldn’t know any better. That question is SETTLED.
      The earth is round Bob. Actually oblate spheroid is the proper term if I’m not mistaken – unless you dispute that too? Is there a debate to be had about whether the earth is flat or not Bob? Because if you don’t think there’s a debate to be had, so much for your “there’s no such thing as settled science” argument.
      Quit while you’re ahead Bob. You’re making a bigger fool of yourself with each passing post.

      Comment by Ashley — February 26, 2014 @ 11:00 pm | Reply

      • Hey Ashley … can you read? Seriously? I was giving examples of accepted “facts” that science later proved to be completely false. It’s not a hard concept to understand. If you took from that comment that I think the Earth is flat, I’m not the one who is proving themselves to be a fool.

        Comment by av8torbob — February 27, 2014 @ 6:55 pm

      • That the earth was flat was NEVER an ACCEPTED FACT. It was an ASSERTION made by ignoramuses that DIDN’T HAVE A CLUE WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT. People ASSUMED the earth was flat. They didn’t KNOW anything because they had NO WAY OF KNOWING. If you can’t understand that, you’re even further gone than I thought. Assertions based on ignorance ARE NOT FACTS.
        So according to you, the question about the earth being flat or not has now been settled by science has it? So much for your “there’s no such thing as settled science” eh Bob?

        Comment by Ashley — February 27, 2014 @ 7:33 pm

      • Reality is not your friend, Ashley. You are ignorant, or stupid, or both.

        Science is the practice of observing, drawing conclusions, and making predictions about the natural world. Though they didn’t have modern methods at their disposal, the ancients observed what they could about the world and many deduced that it was flat. Obviously they didn’t know what they were talking about. They were proven wrong by further scientific fact and observation. But, in their time, it was a commonly accepted, “settled” understanding about the world.

        Since that one seems to be so incomprehensible to you, drop it and respond to the rest of the list. You seem to have some kind of mental deficiency that, when presented with a list of things, only allows you to focus on the ones you don’t like … and ignore the rest. The other scientific theories listed their time that were “settled” in their time but were later found to be wrong. Maybe Global Warming will someday be found to be the result of man-made causes. But it’s not “settled” now by a long shot. No matter how many times you repeat your religious mantra.

        p.s. Typing in all caps over and over and over again is a sign of hysteria. You might want to stop doing that. 🙂

        Comment by av8torbob — February 27, 2014 @ 9:13 pm

      • Bob, this is the problem just making shit up. The ‘ancients’ new perfectly well the earth was a sphere (it’s called geometry and easy enough to calculate). Ancient mariners knew this because the horizon revealed the curvature to them. You continue to demonstrate that your contrary opinions are built on ignorance. And you continue to assume they’re not. That you won’t change them when presented with compelling evidence adduced from reality to do so reveals the scope of your arrogance. This behaviour misleads you into holding fast to foolish, inaccurate, factually wrong beliefs and you don’t seem to care. This means you don’t care about what’s true. And that makes you stupid.

        Comment by tildeb — February 27, 2014 @ 10:36 pm

      • Av8torbob,
        Claiming there’s “no such thing as settled science” is a sign of extreme ignorance and stupidity, as is saying “let’s see what the AMS has to say”….and then posting a link to another website while ignoring the fact that the real AMS website says the exact opposite of what you claim it says. Now THAT’S the ultimate in stupidity.
        You’re not the slightest bit embarrassed by any of that are you?

        Comment by Ashley — February 27, 2014 @ 10:54 pm

  9. Av8torbob relies on stupid people on the internet.
    People who somehow need to get their science information second-hand.
    People who need to just meekly trust Av8torbob and whatever he says.
    It’s stupid.

    “… or, we could ask the American Meteorological Society — actual experts in meteorological sciences — for their views….

    We could. That would be smart.
    Only you don’t.
    You give a link…but it’s not to the AMS.
    Oops.

    If smart people like me want to know what the AMS’s stand is on climate change, then there’s a really simple methodology.
    We go to the AMS website.
    Directly.
    No need for the middlemen. No need for any spin. Just go straight to the horse’s mouth.
    The AMS has a website. In plain English.
    Honest.

    Oh, wait, never mind. Their heretics too!! Burn them!

    No, they’re not. Reality is not your friend.

    Though the typical response for those in The Church of Global Warming is to make others just shut up….

    This is a “Just trust me” moment from Av8torbob.
    “Just trust me” that there’s Church of Global Warming and “Just trust me” that they are making others just shut up.
    No.
    No smart person would just trust you. You are just some anonymous kook on the internet. Your opinion is worthless.
    Smart people don’t get their science information that way.

    Smart people go directly to the scientific communities for themselves.
    It’s really easy.
    Take NASA for example.
    NASA has a website. In plain English. All about climate change.

    Same goes for the Royal Society or the AGU or the American Physical Society etc.
    All the scientific communities on the planet are good.
    No need to focus on just one. Anybody can take a random selection and see for themselves.

    Comment by Cedric Katesby — February 26, 2014 @ 4:05 am | Reply

  10. In the 1970s, the call was for a “coming Ice Age.” In the 1990s, the call changed to “Global Warming.” Now, we’re supposed to call it “Climate Change.”

    Settled? Hardly. The only thing that seems to be settled is that you’ll keep changing the freaking name.

    Through each iteration, a few thing always accompany the outcry. It’s apocalyptic. It must be fought by taking money from some people involuntarily. If you disagree you’re a heretic (“Denier”). We will use guilt and institutional power to make you go along.

    For the slow ones (like the monotonous, self-obsessed, Ceddy Boy), I never said “Trust me, there’s a church.” I said the Climate Change Crowd acts like a religion. If you can’t see the parallels, you aren’t paying attention (or you’re really “smart” like Ceddy Boy and you don’t understand the simple concept of an analogy … and you’re a liar).

    I listed some other historical instances of “settled science” that have been completely ignored by those who don’t understand that the scientific process demands that nothing is ever “settled.” The truth is that most say there is evidence that the planet is warming. At the same time, there are some who disagree with what the evidence actually says (meaning there is nothing “settled” about it). The debate is about the cause of what is happening and the response to it — or whether or not a pipsqueak human response would do anything anyway. My point is that the response by the Church of Climate Change is not scientific; it’s left wing politics disguised as “science” to rope in like-minded and gullible doofuses (like Ceddy Boy) … and it works. The priests are running the show. 🙂

    Comment by av8torbob — February 26, 2014 @ 9:33 am | Reply

  11. Well, it looks like tildeb has deleted my previous post about “settled” science. Typical. I’m not going to interrupt your church service anymore by taking the time to retype the whole thing. You can look the list up for yourself but it includes: Spontaneous Generation, Aether, Steady-State Universe Cosmology, Geocentrism, Flat Earth … all “settled” in their time.

    Comment by av8torbob — February 26, 2014 @ 9:39 am | Reply

    • Because it had a bunch of links it went into moderation automatically. If this ever happens, just let me know and I’ll retrieve it from WordPress for you.

      Comment by tildeb — February 26, 2014 @ 5:10 pm | Reply

      • Fair enough. Thanks for letting me know.

        Comment by av8torbob — February 26, 2014 @ 7:34 pm

  12. 9.In the 1970s, the call was for a “coming Ice Age.”

    Behold the stupid. Why should anyone just believe you about this? There’s no reason to just blindly trust you.

    I said the Climate Change Crowd acts like a religion. If you can’t see the parallels, you aren’t paying attention…

    More stupid. There’s no reason why anybody should just trust you. Reality is not your friend.

    My point is that the response by the Church of Climate Change is not scientific

    Why should anybody just take your word for it when they can just go to the NASA website or the website of any other scientific community on the planet?

    Smart people can fact-check. They can (without any “help” from you) go to the scientific communities themselves and find out directly.
    There’s no need to get scientific information second-hand.
    You have nothing but hand-waving.

    Comment by Cedric Katesby — February 26, 2014 @ 11:46 am | Reply

    • Obviously, Ceddy Boy, you either cannot or will not read the entire comment (wherein I acknowledged the majority opinion on warming). Nothing new there. What’s comical is that you reply with vacuous name-calling and then accuse me of “nothing but hand-waving.”

      Reality, logic, science, respect, well-constructed arguments, credibility … are not your friend(s). 🙂

      Comment by av8torbob — February 26, 2014 @ 11:54 am | Reply

      • av8tor,

        “Reality, logic, science, respect, well-constructed arguments, credibility … are not your friend(s) [Cedric]”

        Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!! This coming from a guy who posts a “list” of 100 “reasons” why climate change is natural from express.co.uk. A list that turns out to be a bunch of idiotic assertions, non-sequiturs and white noise that would make any half-educated person with even a partial grip on logic blush ten shades of red at how ridiculous it really is – once you’ve actually READ it. And Cedric is the one who doesn’t have a good grasp on logic or well constructed arguments eh?

        To quote the great Bart Simpson. “The ironing is delicious”

        Comment by Ashley — February 26, 2014 @ 1:14 pm

  13. … Only 97 to go Ashley 🙂

    Comment by av8torbob — February 26, 2014 @ 1:27 pm | Reply

    • av8tor,

      I already responded to some of “the other 97” Bob – I guess you didn’t read that did you? I’m not going to refute all 100 of the reasons Bob. If you had any capacity for critical thinking and logic, you’d read through the list and see for yourself that it’s all non-sequitur babble. But then again, you’ve already demonstrated that you’ll go to ridiculous lengths and whip out any old non-sense that you think proves your case without actually reading it. Ignorance is bliss isn’t it buddy?!

      Comment by Ashley — February 26, 2014 @ 1:47 pm | Reply

      • So, Ashley suffers from the same syndrome as Ceddy Boy — an inability to read and comprehend. I’m beginning to wonder if Ashley and Ceddy Boy are the same person. 🙂

        Comment by av8torbob — February 26, 2014 @ 2:40 pm

    • av8tor,

      What exactly is it that I’m not “reading and comprehending”? I read through the list Bob. The list that YOU posted saying that “100% of them are holes in the global warming hoax”. If you’re going to post garbage and claim that it’s a refutation of global warming, I would expect that you’d be able to defend or at least even discuss what it is you posted. But instead you say “try the other 97” or “you haven’t read” or “you don’t comprehend”. With stuff like that, it’s not really all that hard to see why Tildeb says he doesn’t think that you care what’s true or Cedric says that you rely on stupid people on the internet to get your information.

      Comment by Ashley — February 26, 2014 @ 3:31 pm | Reply

  14. It’s Av8torbob versus NASA and every single scientific community on the planet. Not really a tough choice.
    Nobody needs to just meekly trust you, Av. You’re just a nobody on the internet.

    “Aw, back in the 70’s….”

    Nope. Nobody cares what you think happened back in the 70’s. Nor in the 80’s. Nor at any other time including now. Your eggs are addled.
    Smart people can go direct to the scientific communities and bypass you completely.

    “… or, we could ask the American Meteorological Society — actual experts in meteorological sciences — for their views….

    Only…you don’t.
    The AMS. They have a website. In plain English.
    (shrug)

    Comment by Cedric Katesby — February 26, 2014 @ 8:11 pm | Reply

  15. A gift for Bob showing the climate conspiracy religionistas at work:

    (h/t to Dead Wild Roses via Peter Sinclair and the Yale Project @ Climate Denial Crock of the Week)

    Comment by tildeb — February 27, 2014 @ 12:13 pm | Reply

    • Takeaway: “Do not build your cities below sea level … because the level of the sea goes up and down sometimes when the weather changes.”

      Brilliant!

      This is supposed to be a comedy, correct?

      Comment by av8torbob — February 27, 2014 @ 5:25 pm | Reply

    • For those who didn’t pay attention to this apocalyptic (again) nonsense, the example given (beginning at the 4:00 mark in the video) for the 20 meter increase in sea levels occurred 14,000 years ago. Was that a man-made, fossil fuel burning phenomenon too?

      Seriously, do you people actually listen to what these folks say or do you just light candles and hum to yourselves while they’re talking?

      Comment by av8torbob — February 27, 2014 @ 5:36 pm | Reply

      • So we’re trying to tell the 14 million people and the governments that represent them who live within the 3 meter apron above sea level in just the Caribbean basin that they should take sea level rise seriously. In the Bay of Bengal, about 100 million people live within a half meter of sea level. So your quip is either incredibly stupid or incredibly arrogant. I suspect the pendulum that is you swings every hour.

        Comment by tildeb — February 27, 2014 @ 7:34 pm

      • No tildeb, it’s not a “quip.” Obviously, we are smart (and moral) to warn people about rising sea levels. That’s not my point. My point is that the video warns that ocean levels have the potential to rise 1-6 meters because of “global warming.” Yet, in the very same video, they show evidence that sea levels rose more than 3 times that … before human beings could have EVER had an effect with their “sinful” fossil fuel burning. Which proves that the apocalyptic garbage that is attributed to humans is a triviality when compared to what happens naturally over and over again, and over which we have absolutely no control.

        Reasonable people can see that. People blinded by religious-like faith cannot.

        Comment by av8torbob — February 27, 2014 @ 8:59 pm

      • One other point … given YOUR worldview, the people who live at or below sea level are irrational for doing so. They are not fit for survival. Given our superior scientific knowledge, we should buy up all the property that is 4 meters above sea level as it will eventually be highly valuable beachfront property. In fact, given that we are more fit to survive, we should INCREASE global warming in any way we can to accelerate our acquisition of beachfront property and ensure our own “flourishing.”

        Sounds sick (to rational, thinking, moral human beings), but it’s not based on my worldview, it’s based on yours.

        I know how you absolutely despise it when I take your worldview to its logical conclusion but I couldn’t resist. 🙂

        Comment by av8torbob — February 27, 2014 @ 9:28 pm

      • Why are sea levels rising, Bob? And you have no clue about my world view to misrepresent it so badly.

        Comment by tildeb — February 27, 2014 @ 10:24 pm

  16. Was that a man-made, fossil fuel burning phenomenon too?

    You can’t be that stupid.
    Perhaps simple sentences will help.

    People get cancer.
    They have always gotten cancer.
    They can get cancer from smoking.
    People smoke and this greatly increases the rates of cancer nowadays.
    In the past, they got cancer.
    In the past, they didn’t smoke.
    But….(think about it)…they still got cancer.

    Comment by Cedric Katesby — February 27, 2014 @ 9:03 pm | Reply

    • You can’t be that stupid.
      Perhaps simple sentences will help.

      Sea levels rise and fall.
      They have always risen and fallen.
      People didn’t burn fossil fuels 14,000 years ago.
      Sea levels rose more then than they are predicted to rise now.
      People didn’t cause it.
      But … (think about it) … sea levels still rose and fell.

      Comment by av8torbob — February 27, 2014 @ 9:20 pm | Reply

      • The tides come in. The tides go out. You can’t explain that.

        signed, Bill O’Reilly

        Comment by tildeb — February 27, 2014 @ 10:26 pm

      • Shit, maybe you are that stupid?
        Let’s take you by the hand and lead you though it like a small, slow-witted child.

        Sea levels rise and fall.

        Yes, cancer happens. It’s always happened.

        They have always risen and fallen.

        Yes, cancer happens. Scientists do not dispute this. It was scientists that found out about this in the first place.

        People didn’t burn fossil fuels 14,000 years ago.

        People didn’t smoke 14000 years ago.

        Sea levels rose more then than they are predicted to rise now.
        People didn’t cause it.

        People got cancer before. Smoking didn’t cause it. So…?

        But … (think about it) … sea levels still rose and fell

        Yes. Think about it. People still got cancer.
        Think, Av8torbob.
        Think real hard.

        Comment by Cedric Katesby — February 27, 2014 @ 10:48 pm

      • But Cedric, Can’t you see what av8torbob is saying?!?! Sea levels used to rise and fall, climates changed and crazy weather stuff used to happen before humans even existed – therefore, there’s no possible way that humans could be contributing to any of that now! Just like sepcies extinction. Species used to go extinct before humans ever showed up so there’s no way humans could ever have artificially or prematurely caused the extinction of any species. Right? Case closed.

        Comment by Ashley — February 28, 2014 @ 8:30 am

      • I often wonder why people like av8torbob waste their gems of deduction on the internet when they could send off their “logic” to places like NASA.
        I would pay good money to see Av lecture NASA on how they all got it wrong on this global warming thing ’cause…um…there was lots of sea level rise in the past.
        He could maybe even dig up a graph from NASA showing ancient sea level rise….and then show it to NASA.
        That would work really well.

        illusion of superiority

        Comment by Cedric Katesby — February 28, 2014 @ 10:17 am

  17. Question: Why do atheists always insist on starting arguments, making snide comments, or generally getting angry about a mythical figure they don’t believe in? I certainly don’t go trolling around on atheist blogs trying to start arguments against the non-existence of God.

    Guess who. Go on, guess.
    How do these people sleep straight in their beds at night?

    http://true-horizon.blogspot.com/

    Comment by Cedric Katesby — April 24, 2014 @ 2:50 am | Reply

    • Not sure what the point of your last comment is there, Ceddy Boy?! Yes, I have a blog. So what?

      But back to the topic at hand … Since you like posting random videos and masquerading them as arguments, I can do that too:

      Comment by Bob — May 1, 2014 @ 1:18 pm | Reply

      • Wills is complaining about some of the proposed solutions. Fine. But he makes the same mistake you do claiming the issue is created by progressives in order to impose a solution. The problem is created by changing the composition of our atmosphere to our detriment. His solution is to stop acting on any other solutions. This is not a solution for the problem but a tactic to avoid coming to any solution other than rejecting what reality is telling us and pretending there’s no problem. The makes him – like you – very much part of the problem.

        Comment by tildeb — May 1, 2014 @ 2:14 pm

      • Well, tildeb, it seems to me the “problem” is more about the REALITY Mann’s fraudulent hockey stick than my (or George Will’s) reluctance to bend over and take the “progressive” (now THAT’S funny) solution 🙂

        Comment by Bob — May 1, 2014 @ 7:57 pm

      • Here’s the problem:

        Your solution – along with Wills – is to blame ‘progressives’? You do realize you’ve confused the term ‘progressives’ with ‘realists’, right? That makes you an anti-realist. Well done, Bob.

        Comment by tildeb — May 2, 2014 @ 7:56 am

  18. …the REALITY Mann’s fraudulent hockey stick…

    Not according to NASA. It’s you versus them. It’s you versus NASA and every single scientific community on the planet. That hasn’t changed since you were last here and it’s not going to change six months from now or six years from now or sixty years from now.
    The only way to to create a new scientific consensus is work.
    That’s right, work.
    Lots of it.
    Less talky-talky and more worky-worky.
    The old-fashioned way. Your side doesn’t have it. Mine does.
    You have blogs and links to septictanks, op-eds in newspapers and sciencyness. The same tired old tricks of the creationists.
    I, on the other hand, have NASA and all the work they do covering all the physical sciences and going back decades.
    (shrug)

    ….reluctance to bend over and take the “progressive”

    It’s no you versus “progressives” or whatever. It’s you versus reality. A global scientific conspiracy doesn’t work. It’s not physically possible. You can invoke all the boogymen you want but you are still left with NASA. NASA and every single scientific community on the planet. Plus the Pentagon of course.

    How to talk to an OSTRICH: The Pentagon & Climate Change

    Comment by Cedric Katesby — May 5, 2014 @ 2:23 pm | Reply

  19. You know the scary thing is – to me anyways? This guy is a commercial pilot. He takes who-knows how many hundreds, possibly thousands of humans lives into his hands almost daily basis. I’ve never been very fond of flying. I’m almost phobic about it (which I already know is a completely irrational fear). To know that someone who thinks and talks like that is at the controls of a commercial jet liner is almost terrifying. And to boot, to know that he’s an engineer makes me wonder about the admission standards of the United States Naval Academy. But then again, history is filled with geniuses who contributed to the advancement of mankind andwere also absolute bonafide crackpots (i.e. Sir Isaac Newton – quite possibly simultaneously the most intelligent and the most mad human being that ever lived).

    Comment by Ashley — May 7, 2014 @ 12:41 pm | Reply

    • Well, there is a well known correlation between the schools of engineering/dentistry and young/old earth creationists. Young/old earth creationists form the bulk of evolution deniers. And there is a very strong correlation between evolution deniers and climate change deniers. So it doesn’t surprise me than an engineer would deny climate change. From the ‘intelligent design’ perspective many of these engineers assume for the universe, climate change is part and parcel of it, so it’s no big deal… until you start understanding what the evidence is telling us. And then the cognitive dissonance is so fundamental to how one has constructed a road map of the world that only compartmentalization will serve. This is what we see from even big brained people like Francis Collins who cannot care that the square peg of their waterfall-induced religious belief cannot possibly fit into the round hole of the reality we inhabit so the two are kept apart by some astounding mental gymnastics… the kind of sophisticated gymnastics resulting in an evidence-proof apologetics that only the really big-brained ‘thinkers’ can manage to keep cohesive. It’s hard work denying reality while trying to sound rational.

      Comment by tildeb — May 7, 2014 @ 2:11 pm | Reply

      • The way I have to look at it is from a cognitive dissonance point of view. These engineers almost certainly had their young earth creationist and evolution-denying ideas firmly entrenched in their minds long before they ever became an engineer. There’s certainly nothing in the study of engineering that would lead to those kinds of views. As an engineer, I find this to be a smear on the integrity of the profession. Part of me thinks “how can someone be intelligent enough to understand complicated engineering concepts but be gullible enough to believe in supernatural nonsense and stupid enough to put forth ridiculous, illogical arguments for your baseless beliefs?” I have a very hard time understanding how this happens. Faith must be an extremely powerful force.
        I had a good chuckle when I checked out bob’s blog (strangely written about himself in the 3rd person). He brings a unique background to his defense of a Christian worldview. He’s a pilot and an aerospace engineer. What those 2 fields of study have to do with the Christian worldview is completely beyond me. Call me crazy, but I don’t understand how those things are even remotely connected in any way.

        Comment by Ashley — May 7, 2014 @ 2:49 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: