Folding, spindeling, and mutilating lauguage for fun since Aug, 2004
Thursday, 19 June 2008

He-who-must-not-be-linked-to (unless you want to either kow-tow to his views or be accused of stalking) referenced this article about Galileo.


Of course, the "REAL" story is that the church loved Galileo and encouraged him and nurtured him, but he was such an ass that he gave them no choice but to persecute prosecute him after they tried; time-and-time again to avoid it.


The poor church just could not get a break from the relentless assault of Galileo's powerful ego, which obviously threatened to bring down the tottering, frail, underdog of the One True World Church (TM).


Besides, Galileo wasn't treated as badly as some of the other heretics brought before the Inquisition, and really, having to renounce the theory of Heliocentrism and live quietly in obscurity wasn't that terrible of a punishment for having an ego.  That proves the church was a bunch of good guys!


I mean, it's not like the church was supressing knowledge or anything, they were just telling him to say that what he believed to be true (and eventually turned out to be true) wasn't true and to stop talking about it.


I mean, the scientists act as though that is censorship.


What a bunch of babies.  Why are they still whining about it?  How come they won't just admit that the church is a benevolant institution that should once again be allowed to be the final arbiter of all knowledge?




Now, if you want to see REAL censorship in action, go here and read about how the rules of science requiring that your results reflect/predict reality, and the system that diverts funding to those who produce accurate, peer-reviewed research is censoring those who don't believe Global Warming is happening.


Did you know that if your results don't line up with reality, you have to modify your approach until you get results that line up with reality?  God, those heavy-handed bastard scientists.


You know what I bet?  I bet those eleitist scientists think that if you do a math problem, and you get the wrong answer, that it must be because you did the problem wrong!  They'd probably tell you that math works, and the problem is you and your flawed approach!


Like Galileo, they probably think that you have to take a correct approach to get correct answers:


Philosophy is written in this grand book - the universe - which stands continuously open to our gaze. But the book cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and interpret the characters in which it is written. It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometrical figures, without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it; without these one is wandering about in a dark labyrinth.

                                                                                              --Galileo Galilei


(Hat tip: He Who Must Not Be Named)

Thursday, 19 June 2008 05:41:56 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [18] |  |  | #
Friday, 20 June 2008 07:55:21 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
But wait...

You DO believe that Global Warming is happening, don't you? Or am I confusing you with someone else?
Friday, 20 June 2008 12:18:10 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)

Yes, I'm being sarcastic....using ironic voice to "take the part" of the poor embattlered global warming deniers with the half-dozen flawed studies to pit against the body of evidence produced by "big science".

They are occasionally cast in the role of Galileo by pundits.
Friday, 20 June 2008 13:16:51 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Oh! I see (I think). So you don't believe the Hobgoblins are imaginary. But by the sarcastic slant of your post, it seemed that you believe GW is not real.

I'm left wondering when the man-made GW scientists' results are going to line up with reality...
Friday, 20 June 2008 18:12:37 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Aruing with Global warming denialists always brings the following analogy to my mind:

Climate science reminds me of a rifle scope. You sight down it, and you shoot a couple inches above the bulls-eye, and someone says "look! you missed! That thing doesn't work! Then, you adjust it, and you shoot an inch above the bulls-eye, and they say "Ha! that'll show you for using such a stupid piece of technology!"

So then you adjust it some more, and miss by less...never mind, you are hitting the target the whole time, just getting closer and closer to the bulls-eye...

and in the mean time the other person takes every shot not in the bulls-eye to ridicule you for using a scope, when shooting from the hip would be so much better.

Except with Global Warming they claim the target doesn't even exsist, the scope doesn't work, and you can't prove you hit the target because all you have to show them is bullets.

Monday, 23 June 2008 11:33:15 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
So never mind the basic facts. That greenhouse gases (mainly CO2) increase AFTER the warming (look at the charts). That the world has been MUCH warmer than it is today - even before man existed - to cause all this mess. That the world has been MUCH warmer than it is today - even after man existed but before generating ANY C02. That the world has been MUCH COLDER than it is today.

So just what caused the great warming cycles in the past, Teresa? Was it all the cows, horses, pigs, sheep, giraffes, lions, gazelles, etc. farting? Because we all know there used to be so many more of these animals than there are today.

Or could it just possibly be that the Sun's activity and/or the orbit of the earth around it and/or changes in volcanic activity that combine to make our climate hotter and colder?

I submit that the latter makes SO much more sense than the prior.

For someone who, quite logically, has problems with organized religion, you sure have latched on to the "Global Warming is all our fault" gods without a second thought!
Monday, 23 June 2008 13:20:08 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)

Speaking of basic facts...

I'm a little short on time today, so I'll just quote from this site:

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)

Objection: Current warming is just part of a natural cycle.

Answer: While it is undoubtedly true that there are natural cycles and variations in global climate, those who insist that current warming is purely natural -- or even mostly natural -- have two challenges.

First, they need to identify the mechanism behind this alleged natural cycle. Absent a forcing of some sort, there will be no change in global energy balance. The balance is changing, so natural or otherwise, we need to find this mysterious cause.

Second, they need to come up with an explanation for why a 35% increase in the second most important greenhouse gas does not affect the global temperature. Theory predicts temperature will rise given an enhanced greenhouse effect, so how or why is it not happening?

The mainstream climate science community has provided a well-developed, internally consistent theory that accounts for the effects we are now observing. It provides explanations and makes predictions. Where is the skeptic community's model or theory whereby CO2 does not affect the temperature? Where is the evidence of some other natural forcing, like the Milankovich cycles that controlled the ice ages (a fine historical example of a dramatic and regular climate cycle that can be read in the ice core records taken both in Greenland and in the Antarctic)?

(there's a graph here I cant figure out how to include. If you are interested, go to the site)

Is this graph a candidate for explaining today's warming? A naive reading of this cycle indicates we should be experiencing a cooling trend now -- and indeed we were gradually cooling over the length of the pre-industrial Holocene, around .5C averaged over 8,000 years.

Not only is the direction of the change wrong, but compare the speed of those fluctuations to today's changes. Leaving aside the descents into glaciation, which were much more gradual, the sudden (geologically speaking) jumps up in temperature every ~100,000 years represent a rate of change roughly ten times slower what we are currently witnessing.

So could current changes be part of a natural cycle? Well, no natural cause has been identified. There is no climatological theory in which CO2 does not drive temperature. And natural cycle precedents do not exhibit the same extreme changes we're now witnessing.

In short: No.

Tuesday, 24 June 2008 05:55:19 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Wow, Teresa. Thanks for showing me the chart. You should take a closer look at it, because it proves my point. CO2 rises AFTER it gets warmer and falls AFTER it gets cooler. That suggests that the temperature affects CO2 levels, not the other way around.

On your first challenge, scientists have been looking for the mechanism behind the cycle for many more years than they've been looking at man-made causes. And this statement hear is very absurd: "So could current changes be part of a natural cycle? Well, no natural cause has been identified." Well - it may not have been identified to your satisfaction, but it certainly exists! What else could have caused the cycle all those millions of years ago?

On your second challenge, look closer at your own charts! CO2 rises AFTER the temperature. So if were are, in fact, in a Global Warming trend, OF COURSE CO2 levels are rising! Your own charts predict it!

As for the statement that the earth should be cooling instead of warming, the author is just guessing. Reading the chart, the earth is near the apex of a cycle. So of course there will be fluctuations in temperature before the cooling begins.

Where oh where has common sense gone?
Tuesday, 24 June 2008 08:56:35 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)

Do you miss the part where the difference between past warming trends is that NATURAL warming forcers in the past contributed to increased CO2 in the atmosphere, leading to increased warming that released more CO2...and that the CO2 contributed to the warming? Warmer planet = more CO2 which leads to a warmer yet planet, which = more CO2 which leads to a yet more warmer planet.

The predictive model encompases these cycles.

So...does your common sense then say that somehow CO2 that is released by humans will NOT have a warming affect...but CO2 released by non-human factors does?

Did you miss the bit about the rate of this trend being greater by a substantial amount? What's different? What natural change accounts for it? What non-human factor have we detected that could account for the increased CO2?

Make no mistake. The question is NOT about what caused past cycles...but instead what is different about this current cycle that makes the rate so much faster and the magnitude so much greater? what is different about the planet between previous cycles and this one that accounts for the difference?

We have a pretty good idea how much CO2 humans produce. It seems that if there was some other NEW player on the planet that was more able to account for the difference between the current rate of warming, and any other warming trend in the past...something that explained the difference better than man-made CO2...we would have detected it by now.

Certainly, with all of the brilliant minds working to disprove that human-produced CO2 doesn't cause warming, but natural CO2 does...SOMEONE should have come up with a solution. I mean, youve got the geniuses that "proved" that smoking doesn't cause cancer trying to find the cause...

But let me just say that should, in the future, you be proven one will be happier about it than me. I would love to let you gloat on and on and on...because it would mean that we can keep going the way we have without changing anything, and I like my comfortable life.


It would be just ducky if some of your crack scientists could get on detecting some source other than human industrial activity that has arisen since the last cycle that is producing more enough of an amount of greehouse effect to account for the change better than what we've got?

Tell me, what has changed in the world since the last warming period that might account for the remarkable differences with past cycles? Something bigger and more impactful than human activity that has eluded our detection all this time?

Tuesday, 24 June 2008 13:32:06 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)

In your model, the earth would have fried itself way before the arrival of man. If heat produced the CO2, and the CO2 resulted in more heat, which resulted in more CO2...

Umm - What made it stop?

Just what IS the evidence that more CO2 results in higher temperatures? I keep hearing that it does, but what - exactly - is the evidence. Surely your crack scientists aren't pinning some coorelation in a chart that shows higher temperatures mean higher CO2 levels, which MUST mean that the higher the CO2 levels, the higher the temperature! Puhlease! The fact is that "my" crack scientists have been pointing this out - and it is being ignored. There is no evidence that CO2 has ever "driven" the climate in the past, nor is there any compelling evidence that it is doing so now.

Tuesday, 24 June 2008 16:08:46 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)

"In your model, the earth would have fried itself way before the arrival of man. If heat produced the CO2, and the CO2 resulted in more heat, which resulted in more CO2... "

Have you heard about the forcers for cooling...or are you ignoring them?

I'm getting a little confused by your approach to the topic.

First, I get the impression that you don't think that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then maybe it's that you think that only naturally released CO2 has a greenhouse effect, and now you seem to think its the only factor in the system, and is all-powerful to fry the earth by itself...

...but then your back to it not having any effect.

Tuesday, 24 June 2008 19:05:16 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)

I'm not ignoring forcers for cooling. You are, by saying that we must reduce CO2 in the atmosphere to cool the earth. Something reduced the CO2 in the past, what was it?

I never said it wasn't a greenhouse gas or that it wasn't, I'm only using existing terminology. And I am merely responding to what seems to be baseless arguments that reducing CO2 will have a cooling affect on the earth's climate. There is absolutely NO evidence to suggest it.

Your confusing yourself, Teresa. I have been very consistent with my argument.

I don't like they way you post replies without answering any questions. What made the GW stop in the past? What are these "cooling forcers" and "warming forcers" you keep bringing up. Sounds cool, but they're just buzz words. Just what IS the evidence that more CO2 results in higher temperatures and less of it results in lower temperatures?
Tuesday, 24 June 2008 20:26:27 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)

"Just what IS the evidence that more CO2 results in higher temperatures and less of it reslts in lower temperatures?"

From the same website as before:

Objection: Correlation is not proof of causation. There is no proof that CO2 is the cause of current warming.

Answer: There is no "proof" in science -- that is a property of mathematics. In science, what matters is the balance of evidence, and theories that can explain that evidence. Where possible, scientists make predictions and design experiments to confirm, modify, or contradict their theories, and must modify these theories as new information comes in.

In the case of anthropogenic global warming, there is a theory (first conceived over 100 years ago) based on well-established laws of physics. It is consistent with mountains of observation and data, both contemporary and historical. It is supported by sophisticated, refined global climate models that can successfully reproduce the climate's behavior over the last century.

Given the lack of any extra planet Earths and a few really large time machines, it is simply impossible to do any better than this.

Aside: It is usually interesting to ask just what observations or evidence your skeptic would consider "proof" that global warming is caused by rising CO2 levels. Don't be surprised if you get no answer!

Tuesday, 24 June 2008 21:12:39 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Oh brother...

I didn't ask for proof, just for some evidence explaining why CO2 is so important in the equation. REAL evidence, not some bogus charts and patterns that suggest the opposite of what the public is being told.
Wednesday, 25 June 2008 05:15:37 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)

As the article I cited above asks...what, then, do you consider to be REAL evidence? And what explination for CO2's importance in this warming trend would satisfy you?

Is it like Kirk Camerons "croco-duck"? You want to see something that is completely inconsistant with the theory in order to prove the theory is real?

You seem to be demanding proof of a warming-CO2-increase-loop where warming never leads CO2.

You also seem to be demanding that past warming trends show that CO2 is the most important factor when historically, it has not been.

And you seem to be denying that a demonstrable and dramatic increase in CO2 will increase it's importance as a factor in a cycle it is part of.

Wednesday, 25 June 2008 06:05:16 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)

You are contradicting yourself. If CO2 is not the most important factor in GW, then why the HELL aren't we focusing on what IS the most important factor?

ok.... wait!

I just found this:
and this:

This guy talks in ways I can understand. Some of the comments are quite good, too. Especially the comments on the second link. So - we'll just have to postpone this debate while I educate myself further.
Wednesday, 25 June 2008 06:27:43 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)

Not all warming cycles are created equal. Past warming and cooling cycles were different than the current one.

The current warming cycle is, in fact radically different from past cycles.

The question is, why? What's different? Has there been some change on the earth in the recent past that would account for the dramatic differences?

What factor has changed? The bulk of the scientific evidence, the climate models and their predictions, etc. all seem to indicate that if you take one warming factor (CO2), and increase its quantity dramatically, it's importance will increase.

If you can find some other factor that has increased as dramatically (or more) than CO2...then maybe you will have a point. Can you find some other measurable factor in climate science that had changed so dramatically that it can account for the difference?

does it fit with the other evidence? Does it allow for predictions that are born out in fact?

The AGW proponants have an answer that fits those tests. Come up with a better one, and you just might win a Nobel!
Wednesday, 25 June 2008 09:37:24 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Like Al Gore? No thanks. I don't what that kind of company.
Wednesday, 25 June 2008 11:01:24 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)

Awwww....come on! You could be the great Libertarian hope! Reclaiming the Nobel prize in the name of redeeming it from the white liberul guilt that caused it to be created in the first place!

Ye, we're rampant industrialist pigs! And we're proud of it! Who needs an ozone layer? The invisible hand of the market will sheild us!


It would be a proud day.
Comments are closed.
Admin Login
Sign In
Pick a theme: