Ice cores and deep sea bed cores provide the best available record of changes in global temperature and CO2 content of the atmosphere going back 800,000 years. The data shows a clear periodicity in global temperatures which is thought to be linked to the Milankovitch cycle.
Back in 1920, Milutin Milankovitch, a Serbian mathematician, proposed that fine changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun could explain an approximately 100,000 year cycle in glaciation seen from geological evidence. The tilt of the Earth’s axis swings slightly over a 41,000 year cycle – the eccentricity of Earth’s orbit moves from almost circular to more elliptical and back again over a 413,000 year cycle – and overlaying that you have not only the precession of the equinoxes, which is an inherent wobble in the Earth’s axial spin over a 26,000 year cycle, but also a precession of the whole of Earth’s orbit over a 23,000 year cycle.
Ice core data does show a rough concordance between glaciation and the synchronicity of these orbital cycles. Even though there’s no significant change in the mean amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth over the period of its annual orbit – the orbital changes can lead to increased polar shadowing and cooling.
Once ice does start advancing from the poles, a positive feedback loop can develop – since more ice increases the albedo of Earth’s surface and reflects more of the Sun’s heat back into space, thus reducing mean global temperatures.
It’s thought that what limits the ice advancing is increasing CO2 in the atmosphere – which can be measured from trapped bubbles of air in the ice cores. More ice formation leads to less exposed land area for photosynthesis and silicate rock weathering to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. So the more ice that’s formed, the more CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere – which causes mean global temperatures to rise, which limits ongoing ice formation.
Of course the opposite is true in an ice-melting phase. Ice melting also follows a positive feedback loop since less ice means less albedo, meaning less solar radiation is reflected back into space and mean global temperatures rise. But again, CO2 becomes the limiting factor. With more exposed land, more CO2 is drawn from the atmosphere by photosynthesizing forests and rock weathering. A consequent drop in atmospheric CO2 cools the planet and hence limits ongoing ice melting.
But there lies the rub. We are in an ice-melting phase of the Milankovitch cycle now, where the Earth’s orbit is closer to circular and the Earth’s tilt is closer to perpendicular. But CO2 levels aren’t declining – partly because we’ve chopped a lot of trees and forests down, but mostly because of anthropogenic CO2 production. Without the limiting factor of declining CO2 we’ve seen in previous Milankovitch cycles, presumably the ice is just going to keep on melting as the albedo of the Earth surface declines.
So you might want to rethink that next coastal real estate purchase – or hope for the best from Copenhagen.
Anthropic induced global warming is not likely to set up a 170 meter sea level rise. In fact from a climate history perspective it is likely to be a transient spike, where the future will see much the same Milankovitch cycling. The problem we are setting up is that ecosystems may for a couple of thousand years face radical climate shifts and collapse. The problem we are setting up is potentially the next great extinction of life. Our induced global warming will doubtless play a role here, as with our other activities that are reducing the biological capacity of the planet.
LC
What is the explanation that Earths orbit becomes circular and eleptical? The influences of Jupiter and other planets?
The biological capacity of our planet is being challenged by our overpopulation. No astronomical function has anything to do with that.
“Anthropic induced global warming is not likely to set up a 170 meter sea level rise.”
True, but why bring this up? The article doesn’t mention sea level changes at all.
@BlueAmberol
This article talks about astronomical induced climate change like ice ages. This has no relationship with the global warming we experience now because this one is purely human induced.
@Andrew
The article doesn’t mention a 170 meter sea level change but the accompanying final graphic does.
170 metre sea level rise?! As Sean Connery would say: “That musht be shome mishtake?”
According to the Wikipedia article on Sea Level:
So, by those figures, the sea level rise would be ~74 metres.
The highest order perturbation term is on eccentricity and semi-major axis of an orbit. These changes are due to perturbations from other planets, primarily Jupiter.
LC
The meta-cause of most environmental destruction is over-population. Humans apparently have a very limited ability to extrapolate from the specific to the general in this regard since I haven’t heard about ZPG in 25 years! Why is population a sacred cow? Are we as yet so near the monkey that we cannot think beyond the sexy thing?
I acknowledge the sea level graphic is extreme – and a bit tongue-in-cheek on my part. I understand the IPCC estimated a sea-level rise of between 18 centimetres and 59 cm by 2100 – though other commentators have suggested the rise could exceed 1 metre. I’d be happy if all the predictions are wrong because we act quickly. Thanks for reading.
Really not trying to be nitpicky; but isn’t it well known that the CO2 chart lags the temperature chart by about 800 years? Doesn’t this turn the causal hypothisis on it’s head? Yes, CO2 and temperature could be interdependent, but can CO2 by the lynchpin when it’s a lagging indicator?
@IVAN3MAN
Your figure on sea level rise requires the application of the principle of superposition, which requires linearity. I’ve seen too many people throughout this debate confuse and ignore basic principles such as this. Models can be linear, but there is no such thing as a linear system in reality; and climate is anything but.
Looks like the current warming period is right on time.
@ steinauf,
I never stated that the climate follows linear models, and I realize that, in the real world, it is subject to the chaos theory — the “butterfly effect”. I merely pointed out, above, what would be, in the worst-case scenario, the maximum sea-level rise according to those figures from Wikipedia.
It is curious that there are two scientific areas which really get people angry: Evolution and climatology. Why? because they upset preconceptions about things held by people with conservative minds.
LC
The cat is finally out of the bag with the revelation of Global Warming Hoaxers fudging data to fit their religious belief in man-made warming. Apparently, there is no warming — man-made or not. Just fraudulent propaganda.
Too bad the news of the hoaxers is not being widely reported. (Guess they’re too afraid that might constitute “peer-review.”)
and earlier post, and Wikipedia says:
“So, by those figures, the sea level rise would be ~74 metres.”
So what — that’s only an inch or two, right?
RUF said;
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!
“Give ’em an inch and they’ll a mile” – literally, eh? :{
Mike Jackson;
“Victims of the almighty Sarlacc: His Excellency hopes that you will die honorably.”
Yeah. Ok. Where is your proof here – and not the endless rhetoric of you last post, please.
Also what has this to do with the Milankovitch cycle ?
“Yeah. Ok. Where is your proof here”
Heh. Good soldier. Keeping up with the News to Ignore program, eh?
“Also what has this to do with the Milankovitch cycle ?”
Nothing, why?
In the spirit of open-mindedness, can anyone postulate a theory as to why Universe Today hasn’t yet addressed the CRU revelations, giving its interest in GWT ?
Boring? Distraction? Nobody in their right minds cares if leading GWT scientists are behaving badly? The evil denialists made them do it?
Mike Jackson said:
No the proof of your accusations here, sunshine?
“Also what has this to do with the Milankovitch cycle ?”
Nothing, why?”
Well the article title says “An Astronomical Perspective on Climate Change” What you have said here has very little to do with the astronomical climate change by natural processes? I.e. 1950 to 400,000 years ago?
“No the proof of your accusations here, sunshine?”
Are you serious, buttercup? Are you actually unaware of the CRU scandal? I thought you were just feigning ignorance.
” What you have said here has very little to do with [the article title]”
So what?? What is your point??
Milankovitch cycle and ever increasing human population growth tells me trying to lower CO2 by expensive means will accomplice zelch. 3rd world countries will continue to cut down forests, and guess what, they have a right to do what they have to do to live and feed themselves!!!!. I admit the Earths’ temperature has risen since the end of LittleIceAge and where it goes, actually, NOBODY really knows!!!!. Western European countries are fortunate they have zero population growth, however, years of being highly taxed for ‘cradle to grave’ medical and social care has caught up with them, now there are not enough workers to support an aging population so they now import workers from 3rd world countries because the aging population DEMANDS and actually should get the care promised when they payed high taxes. The Milankovitch cycle tells me humans MUST change and WILL have to more to areas not affected by either the rising or lowering oceans. People, lets think about this, our shorelines and climate will change for better or worst and there is not much humans can do about it -but we can clean up the atmosphere and spend our money wisely for disasters that will hit regions instead of trying to believe we can keep the Earth the way it is.- we cannot keep our world shorelines the way it is 2009 forever!!!!!!!!
“rabid dog… stroking your own inflated ego… crazed biassed jackass… absolute stupidity”
(“rant and rave”, indeed)
A student of Lawrence Crowell, I assume. My guess is he will NOT be demanding that your post be removed, as he did one of mine that contained no such ad hominems.
Liberalism–A license to hate.
And why the anger? Because Crumb wants to play dumb and demand that I post up dozens of emails that anyone with an honest interest in GWT has been reading for a week.
@ Mike Jackson said;
“Why? because they upset preconceptions about things held by
people with conservative minds.”
So, according to you crap here, anyone who disagrees with you is “conservative” (a “liberal”) or what ever.
Have you ever thought that your “preconceptions” are from the mind of a off as a naïve, closed-minded bigot?
Such insane jingoism. You’re obviously a narrow-minded, bellicose bully!!
The hacked emails from CRU are being terribly misrepresented. These amount to discussions on peer review criteria, and whether papers should be rejected if they claim global warming is false. This is a trend not disimilar from what has occurred with other scientific organizations and journals with respect to creationism and other falisfied claims. Most currently automatically reject such papers. In physics this is extended to papers which make claims of perpetual motion machines and other free energy devices. The exponents of these things cry foul of course, but to entertain these things and put them to serious review is a waste of time. Anti-global warming claims are entering into a grey zone before they are simply blocked. These emails simply indicate the beginning of discussions to automatically dismiss presumed research or claims that AGW is false.
If you at all track scientific trends and the matters debated it is very clear that the anti global warming crowd is losing the scientific debate. They now have moved to influence the popular media, funded with $$$ by corporations who have a financial stake in the debate.
If there is any relevance to the Milankovitch cycle and global warming it is that global warming can’t be excused as a natural consequence of this cycle.
LC
Jor-El – “Krypton is doomed!”
Science Council – “STFU, or you’ll end up in the Phantom Zone along with Zod.”
If the governments of the world really wanted to do something to combat global warming, they would ban the clearing of ALL forests. (and enforce the bans)
Less trees for CO2 absorption = more CO2 in the air, regardless of its origin.
I frankly don’t understand why some of these anti-global warming wogs are so upset. They have won the political debate already, even if they have lost the science debate. The healthcare debate is telling, where it is clear that what is coming is some shred of what is needed to solve the problem. Now if we can’t really solve that problem, what chance in hell do we have to successfully address global warming? Global warming is one or two orders of magnitude larger and more complex than a financial matter with healthcare.
The matter is going to largely run its course and future generations will face what ever consequences there are from planetary heating. It is like what Jered Diamond wrote about Easter Island, “Did they not see the day when the last tree would be cut down?” It is the same story, just much bigger. In order that the most wealthy can keep their positions of power we could well be swindled out of any plausible long term future.
LC
Must be getting close to the truth. Crumb is — “unsettled.”
Unsettled is the least of it. It took a lot of anger for him to post this about Crowell’s earlier remark.
To Wit:
@ [Lawrence Crowell] said;
“Why? because they upset preconceptions about things held by
people with conservative minds.”
So, according to you crap here, anyone who disagrees with you is “conservative” (a “liberal”) or what ever.
Have you ever thought that your “preconceptions” are from the mind of a off as a naïve, closed-minded bigot?
Such insane jingoism. You’re obviously a narrow-minded, bellicose bully!!
————————
Even a stopped clock occasionally is correct.
Michael Mann in 2009 explaining to the New York Times how science works:
“Skepticism is essential for the functioning of science. It yields an erratic path towards eventual truth. But legitimate scientific skepticism is exercised through formal scientific circles, in particular the peer review process. A necessary though not in general sufficient condition for taking a scientific criticism seriously is that it has passed through the legitimate scientific peer review process. those such as McIntyre who operate almost entirely outside of this system are not to be trusted.”
Phil Jones to Mike Mann 5 years EARLIER:
“The other paper by MM [yes, that very same McIntyre] is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !”
——————
And that is how science advances, decide that your scientific critics are mad and corrupt, akin to perpetual motion cranks, and conspire to prevent their work from being published. And all the while stating your firm belief in the value of scientific skepticism.
And Larry Crowell thinks that is the proper way to do science.
I can understand Crumb’s anger. When I hear this sort of quasi-science I tend to feel my blood boil. I then switch my mind to playing internally the allegretto movement of Beethoven’s 7th symphony before saying anything. That at least quells my initial impulse to go on an attack.
In the gemish of opinion and thought the anti-global warming trend is what I see as generally conservative. Not all of conservative ideas are bad, and I tend to have sympathies with the fiscal conservatives. However, recent GOP administrations have run up debts like drunken sailors. Conservative thinking generally involves bucking any change in things. This can prevent changes that are inappropriate, but it can also stifle changes that are needed.
The conservative trend in this nation has long past the bipartisan “get the job done” approach of the Eisenhower period. It has shifted to a belief in vanquishing opposition and setting up a permanent sort of rule. It has alarmingly been shifting from basic conservativism to something similar to fascism.
So in the constellation of conservative thinking there is a spectrum of quasi-science, such as creationism. The GOP panders to the religious right, and pose a prospect of setting up a theocratic wing to what might evolve into increasingly totalitarian governance. Global warming is also a problem for the patrons of the Republican Party. If we are to seriously address this issue it will require drastic changes in our technical infrastructure. This is something American industry, in particular oil and coal industry, is reluctant to do. So in order to maintain the status quo it will require a media that is increasingly partisan and mendacious, and heavier handed tactics will be employed to stifle scientific research. The Bush administration did exactly this to the extent they could get away with it.
I track what is going on in science outside of my field, and in the general articles I read in the AAAS “Science” and their online publications evidence for global warming looks rather inescapable. Of course others might read Glen Beck’s books (a comic-pundit who claims to have scooped an entire scientific community at universities, NASA and NOAA), or gazettes from the “Heritage Foundation” and the “Club for Growth.” I’ll stick to the real stuff thank you. These counter claims are an orchestrated campaign similar to the Tobacco Institute’s strategy of defraying health concerns with tobacco use. That will work only up to the point where we are irrevocably faced with a planetary wide disaster. That could well shape up in 25-50 years, and we might then be too late.
Lawrence B. Crowell
What Jackson does not understand is that a scientific debate does eventually reach a conclusion, if at least a tentative one. Right now the data for global warming is simply winning the day and the scales are shifting heavily in that direction. It is unlikely there will be a shift the other way to reverse the current trend. Eventually the alternatives are discarded, and they are no longer given serious consideration.
The debate over global warming is more of a media mud-fest than a real scientific debate. In 10 years or so the conclusion will most likely put the anti-global warming hypotheses into the same trash can with perpetual motion, creationism, and free energy.
LC
Conspiracy upon conspiracy. Theocracy in the works. No doubt the Joooos are behind it all.
Liberalism- License to Hate.
In psychology there is something called cognitive dissonance, which are neuro-psychological blind spots. You don’t know how wrong you are.
LC
I’ve been reading Universe Today for years, Crowell, and I’m very familiar with your habit of injecting your pithy warnings of the “danger” that Americans of faith present.
You are a bigot.
If anyone started posting here about the danger that African Americans present to America, with your same regularity, they would be instantly recognized as a bigot.
You are a bigot, but I understand the nature of your lack of insight. You are a liberal and believe that YOUR bigotry is palatable.
That is cognitive dissonance.
Crowell wrote: ” They now have moved to influence the popular media, funded with $$$ by corporations who have a financial stake in the debate.”
Please, the big money has already left the station and put money down on carbon credit schemes and other schemes to make money off this.
Even Shell oil corporation has spent way more money on promoting carbon credit schemes than on studies against gobal warming.
Now, Mr. Jackson may have injected the CRU scandal into this thread, but really can you discuss global warming without it and have any credibility.
No.
Motive and bias are always relevant to the matter in question.
Crowell, are you in bed with Goldman-Sachs?
You know the Wall Street banking house.
Because they are into the whole AGW scam big time as are many other corporations.
Crowell is on auto pilot because he’s already drank the Kool-Aid.
Crowell wrote: “What Jackson does not understand is that a scientific debate does eventually reach a conclusion, if at least a tentative one.”
So, the science isn’t settled is it?
That’s not what you were saying two weeks ago.
I’d say that’s progress.
I consider myself very conservative, fiscaly.
I also consider myself moderately conservative in the general political sense.
I also think that most of the climate change is the result of normal processes, as the atmosphere started warming before the industrial revolution.
I also think that too much attention is being given to CO2, and not enough is being done about pollution, including light pollution.
There are not very many “green” ideas that are truely good for the environment. For example: Fuel cells and hydrogen power are great and all, but H2O vapor is also a greenhouse gas, and a very powerful one.
Personally, I firmly believe that humans have deforested so much of the Earth, that even if we never industrialized, there would be effects on the climate. Entire ecosystems have been destroyed. We don’t know how to live in harmony.
Conservatives spiritualist think that we have a right to dominate the planet. Even of God wanted us to be fruitful and multiply, I don’t think He meant doing so until we destoy ourselves. If God created the Earth, then we are poor stewards, and are undeserving of this gift.
We are like a spoiled brat who destroys a brand new toy on Christmas morning and then complains to his parents.
This planet is our only option. There is no where else for us to go. If we are wrong about global warming, then we should err on the side of caution – that would be the conservative thing to do.
Our government needs to stop messing around with stupid, pointless cap and trade bills, and focus on finding responsible environmentally friendly means of producing power, be it solar, wind, geothermal, or our own lazy butts.
Instead of trying to raise the price on carbon and hydrocarbons, (which will lead to another recession, or a great depression) we need programs that help homeowners make their houses more efficient, and purchase solar panels or alternative sources of energy, which are still too expensive to be justifiable.
We need leaders who actually will help instead of shouting meaningless tripe and lying to their nations.
But in the mean time, the best thing we can do is plant trees, recycle, and unplug what we aren’t using.
The ozone layer hole is proof that our actions can have global consequences. It is not about saving the planet. It’s about saving ourselves from ignorance and stupidity.
@ Mike J, I think your comments are approaching what might be called baiting. My comment about science and religion is that science flies instruments into space to probe the universe, while religion flies airplanes into buildings. Of course that is at the extremes, but religion is about upholding something as an absolute truth, in spite of any evidence to the contrary. Things through history have gotten “punchy,” when people of faith start squabbling amongst themselves or with those who present uncomfortable facts.
Sorry, but I am a bit on the Harris-Dawkins side of things. I don’t give much stock in any ideas of disembodied conscious beings, or at least I see little reason to presume such things exist. Generally I would think most people should get this figured out after they get Santa Claus figured out before the age of 9 or 10.
Lawrence B. Crowell
Baiting? You post this and then accuse others of baiting?:
“The GOP panders to the religious right, and pose a prospect of setting up a theocratic wing to what might evolve into increasingly totalitarian governance. ‘
That’s not arguing to keep religion separate from science, a principle that the religious hold to anyway, but the non-religious are constantly still arguing is under attack . You are warning of a totalitarian government instituted by people of faith in America and leading to the establishment of a theocracy.
You post that kind of scaremongering sentence and then posture as a reasonable, tolerant person?
Crumb, you are sooo slow on the uptake. You still don’t get it, do you?
You mistakenly cited me as the author of something CROWELL SAID.
See?
@ [Lawrence Crowell] said;
“Why? because they upset preconceptions about things held by
people with conservative minds.”
So, according to you crap here, anyone who disagrees with you is “conservative” (a “liberal”) or what ever.
Have you ever thought that your “preconceptions” are from the mind of a off as a naïve, closed-minded bigot?
Such insane jingoism. You’re obviously a narrow-minded, bellicose bully!
—————
LMAO
Well this thread has gone into the tank. There is a clear trend where axe-grinders, true believers, and other people with “agendas” come here and turn any possible discussion into crap. Anaconda does this consistently, and now the Anti-AGW types are doing the same.
It is another set of trolls IMO. Don’t feed trolls!
LC
I’ve dealt with trolls like MJ on other forums a lot less technical than this. His comments are off-topic and are the result of an individual more interested in raising a stir to gain some type of perverse satisfaction by disturbing the emotional equilibrium of total strangers. I say the best way to “attack” him is to ignore him.
But somehow this respect for staying on topic (this is about climate change, by the way) doesn’t apply to people like Crowell when he brings religion, Sarah Palin etc, the “pathologies” of the conservative mind into the discusssion. No one wants to call him a troll. They just let him mix politics and science here shamelessly, and call a regular reader like me a troll for responding.
I enjoy reading Universe Today and those who add information in the comments. But then Crowell, and a just few others (more rarely), feel the need to add their pithy poltical and ideological comments as well.
Look at the posts that get hijacked and see who starts it.
Mike Jackson said:
“Crumb, you are sooo slow on the uptake. You still don’t get it, do you?
Twisting the truth again, eh?
Accuse the accuser. Neat lawyer’s trick
…so just in case you missed i. Here kit is again…
… oh. I GET it perfectly!!!
The US should spend funds to research and build cleaner power plants and vehicles to clean our dirty air, and funds are needed to clean the large surface areas tainted with dangerous pollutents. It makes me really wonder and mad why the US will spend vast amounts of funds to lower CO2 when the 2.largest industrial powers-China and India with 2.5 Billion people, will not have anything to do with lowering their CO2. I’ve said earlier in this thread 3rd world nations will continue to clear their forests, and because it IS THEIR country , these 3rd world nations will do what they have to do in order to grow crops to feed themselves-the rich European and US cannot tell them to stop- these 3rd world nations will say the European and US had cleared their forests in their early industrial period, and they will say why can’t they do the same thing!!!!!! Forests lower CO2, but without the entire world on the same page, the program to lower CO2 will merely be a costly wasted effort. We have to remember the Sun which drives 98% of our weather and climates-has the final say what humans will experience. I’ve followed the Solar cycles since the 60s’, and the last 5 years, I’ve never seen such lack of Sunspot groupings for such a lengthy period and the so-called Solar Max is drawing close- is the Sun going to go through a ‘chilling out’ period for several cycles-astronomers and scientists really don’t know!!!!! Whatever happens, humans will have to adjust to changing conditions and move should the ocean levels rises or lowers. I’ve worked most of my career for the State of California, Treasury Dept., from my experience, to me,both the left and right are the same-their only thought is just to protect themselves, so trying to talk politics to me would be a waste because I fould the politicians only watches out for themselves.!!!!!!!
The “climate-gate” kerfuffle involves discussions on peer review of articles. It would suspect the community is facing a flood of articles of dubious scientific value which purport climate change is false. So a gate keeping standard was being discussed. This matter is being terribly misrepresented as if there is some conspiracy to keep a fraudulent science safe from critical review.
When it comes to politics, it is interesting that blog posts here on the LHC or quasar formation of galaxies and so forth do not draw the level of attention and rancor seen with climate change posts. Why is that? Frankly, I find the LHC and black hole posts more interesting. It is because this touches on a subject that has become political. Political ideology and economic concerns are driving these controversies. It is not really the science. So in the political spectrum is it the more liberal and environmentally concerned who are crying foul over climate science, or is it the conservative right winged politicos? The question is rhetorical and the answer obvious. Is this controversy emerging as a sort of media showcase of pseudo-science, similar to the claims of scientific creationism? Again the answer is fairly clear. This is remarkably similar to the religious case for creationism, for politics and economics are ultimately secular forms of religion that attract people with authoritarian personalities or true-believers. Of course the left or liberal wings of politics are capable of creating mischief when it comes to science and other matters. Yet that is not the problem we observe today.
Lawrence B. Crowell
Not yet anyway. Frankly, I think the Federal government has not represented it’s people in a long time. Both parties have been bought by Corporates.
“This matter is being terribly misrepresented as if there is some conspiracy to keep a fraudulent science safe from critical review.”
No doubt they didn’t think they were keeping a *fraudulent* science safe from review. Just “correct” science safe from review.
Destruction of raw data. Hiding their own doubts about their methodology from the public. Gatekeeping to prevent critical work from being published and then, LOL, pubicly declaring that non-published work is not to be taken seriously.
That’s how science is done, people!
One of the great prophets of recent times was Phillip K. Dick. He saw and wrote in his novels about our losing grip on reality and the dissolving away of our ability to think clearly through matters. This has become a growing problem since the 1970s, where information promoted in the world has been of an increasingly suspect nature. In particular this is seen in the promotion of celebrity news and with news outlets which substitute journalism with factoids and opinion. Again I have to include that pseudo-science canard called creationism, where the exponents of this insist it is some sort of viable alternate scientific paradigm of though. This has been brushed up in new forms, such as Intelligent Design. The result is that about half the American public really think there is some serious scientific debate over evolution vs creationism This is also seen in virtual reality web game sites, where many people live the majority of their lives in a sort of fantasy. Our ability to distinguish between reality and fiction is becoming muddled.
To consider global warming and climate change as some conspiracy requires one to think that somehow literally thousands of scientists are engaged in some program to deceive the world. Some right winged types have claimed there is a conspiracy to destroy capitalism or America. Of course this is ridiculous. Seriously, if we could keep growing an economy and there were no adverse effects to the natural world, who would really want to destroy that? After all in that world everyone would get rich — right? So nobody would decide to maniacally ruin that game. Of course that is the Ayn Rand view of the world: Capitalism is great and perfect and its detractors are all these evil shmucks who are hell bent on destroying it all. Of course anyone with a somewhat wider view of the world can see this is pure nonsense. The scientific community did not go out with some preconceived idea of destroying America and the drum up this whole idea of climate change. If you really believe that then you are clearly a lost character in one of PK Dick’s novels. The scientific community, or any subset thereof, stands to gain nothing by “destroying capitalsm.” At least I can’t see what would be gained by that. I can though see Exxon-Mobile wanting to keep their profits at a premium by disseminating false science on the issue of global warming.
Lawrence B. Crowell
Well, when it comes to the word “evil,” you used it, not me. As for oil companies, well those guys have a pretty grim track record, such as the Nigerian delta region — killings, murder and so forth. So would oil companies be willing to spend $100 million dollars to create false science to save billions in profits? Yeah, I can well imagine, and the Heartland Institute is an organization designed to do just that.
Secondly, I am not a socialist. Conversely, I am not a true believer in some idea that pure capitalism can ever work. It suffers from the same problem it had in the 16th century, where the distinction between a merchant and pirate was blurred. Think Bernie Madoff! I am just not a firm believer in any secular religion called economics — or politics.
LC
Crowell wrote: ” So would oil companies be willing to spend $100 million dollars to create false science…”
No they haven’t given near that much to sceptics. As stated earlier in this thread, oil companies have given more to the AGW side than the sceptic side (so they can curry favor for carbon credit trading schemes).
“Well, when it comes to the word “evil,” you used it, not me.”
You’re acting like a child. You most certainly did use it, placing the word in the mouths of conservatives.
As in: “Capitalism is great and perfect and its detractors are all these evil shmucks who are hell bent on destroying it all. ”
And now you whine about me putting the word in the mouths of liberals? Rank hypocrisy and just plain childishness.
You should be working with Phil Jones and Mann . They have an expert denial system in place, but it could use some tweeking from a pro.
“This matter is being terribly well represented but there is some conspiracy by the nutters to keep a real science safe from critical review.”
No doubt they didn’t think they were keeping a *actual* science safe from review. Just “correct” science safe from review.
Destruction of some mythical raw data. They were not hiding their own doubts about their methodology from the public. Gatekeeping to prevent critical work from being published is wrongly deduced and then, LOL, the idiot nitwits against science declared that published work is not to be taken seriously.
That’s how science is manipulated, by jackasses people!
My,my-what is suppose to be a thread covering Milankovitch cycling instead changed over to an ‘exchange of truths’ from 3 gentlemen who has the acute case of ‘middle aged PMS’ and. I don’t deny I also suffer from such medical bouts , but, I believe you gentleman should take your morning after pills Lol. Peace up, please!!!!!!
I have had a number of people I know look at this blog thread. I and a number of others have been curious about the process by which people seem to ardently hold onto ideas that are either false or preposterous. This is one of my primary interests in engaging in this thread. Jackson and Anaconda are frankly lunatics, and certainly in the case of Jackson this appears to merge into political demagoguery. He has taken on the personas of people such as O’Reilly and Lou Dobbs, where in reading his stuff I would imagine the auditory content to be similar — yelling.
From what I can tell the global warming skepticism is manufactured. As Carl Rove put it “We make our own reality,” and that about sums it up. Those who have the money to fabricate a false reality, or those who can profit from generating an artificial reality, can do so and muddle the public perception on things. This is a growing industry. I suspect that PK Dick’s view of the future may well become reality, in fact it is becoming reality. In it a fewer percentage of people have much understanding of the world, scientific or otherwise, and most people press on in their lives based on confused ideations. The net result is not so much what happened in Nazi Germany where you had a nation focused intently on a certain ideology, but rather a nation (or whole world) of people confused about a whole constellation of bogus information and ideas. In that way it becomes less and less possible to have a civic or national debate about matters in any realistic way. Under such conditions it becomes easy to govern the world in a veiled autocratic manner.
Anyway, this blog page has fallen off the first main page at UT. It is about time for my boot heals to be wandering on. There is nothing productive going on here. This is becoming a bit like being interviewed by O’Reilly — subjected to yelling.
Cheers LC
Calling your critic a lunatic. Great style, in fact a good imitation of Keith Olbermann, and Phil Jones, in fact.
I guess that is real science.
Repeat
The only thing that is dodgy here, is YOU.
Repeat again…
The only thing that is dodgy here, is YOU.
@ 2RU
Climate change is a natural part of what happens to the Earth. The CO2 is measured, and has shown an increase in many decades at almost a linear rate. The changes in CO2 is caused by Man, who is contributing ON TOP OF the natural changes by astronomical means. Ie. Obliquity of the ecliptic (polar tilt), mean distance for the sun, eccentricity of the earth’s output fro the sun, strength of the Earth’s magnetic field, etc.
Climate change is inevitable, regardless of what you or I think.
This issue is modification of the climate cab change significantly based on our knowledge of chaos theory. With or without influences by Man the climate can change within decades.With the addition of EXTRA CO2 by Man’s own activities, can make the chaotic system even more chaotic.
If we are going to continue as a species, humankind must learn how to react and modify the climatic conditions.
Climate change is more about trying to reduce the risk of extreme climate.
If you don’t like this agenda, then go live on Venus. It is a planet about the same size as Earth, has an atmosphere and a geology similar to that of Earth, whose environment has had a runaway greenhouse effect, and whose temperature is hotter than the average oven in your kitchen.
There is no “agenda”, and when it comes to following your path or science – well, I favour science. Who cares if I have to pay 20% more to do anything! At least I know humankind’s survival might be just that little bit better than to have done nothing.
In actually, the problem with climate change is with the industrialisation of the 1850s. What is worst is the “planned obsolescence” of what we manufacture that has cause the climate problem we have today.
Just think. if you could just change the tyres (tires) on your car some ten times longer than now, there would be no need to make such drastic changes in climate change policy. Why do tyres (tires) wear out so quickly, because corporations want to keep customers buying types so more can be bought.
I suggest you read Alvin Toffler. Don’t blame the scientist, blame the co-porations ad the industrial revolution.
As I said to Mike (jackass) Jackson
“Blindness is clearly no cover for absolute stupidity.”
In my opinion, you’re hitting the wrong target!!
OK, so the expected sea level rise is ~ 70 – 80 m.
But climate scientists predicts that the Milankovitch cycling will disappear if the CO2-eq level goes to high, and that the risks increase after 450 ppm CO2-eq. See Hansen et al 2008.
As current level is 385 ppm CO2-eq and rising quickly (as never before), and Earth has seen higher levels before, it is a very likely scenario. This forcing will overpower the lack of CO2 release ever since the Indian plate rent into the Asian 34 Ma, a plate that plowed carbonate rocks up for weathering. Effectively Earth will go back to a Cretaceous climate type, for good or worse.
[For worse, if one reflects on the amount of human suffering and death all the climate refugees will endure. UN estimates 10 % of the global population 2050, if the process continues unabated.
It is a moral problem.
The planet could care less; according to latest research after ~ 1 My newer extinction events will have seen the return of species diversity to superior levels, a form of positive culling. Our then ancestors (mammal species average lifetime is ~ 0.1 My AFAIU) will see the benefits of the new climate.]
This is conspiracy theory, which is always the least likely explanation for events. And indeed, you present no proof of criminality.
You started out with parading around the hacking of scientists emails, which ironically falsified any such hypothesis. There was, of course, only science as usual in those emails.
Now, as I said in my above comment, AGW presents a moral problem. Yes, we can do nothing today, and our descendant species will in all likelihood be the better for it. But meanwhile billions of people will have suffered and even died for our insensitive, I dare say immoral, lack of action.
Fascistic lunacy, a rare beast indeed.
Fascinating! Scary crackpottery, but fascinating.
@Torbjorn Larsson OM
How is “Cap and Trade” policy a conspiracy?
I guess Copenhagen doesn’t exist either, huh?
You guys that believe this junk science. CO2? C’mon! The same CO2 that plants breathe, is posing danger to the environment and climate? And that human beings are the cause?
I guess common sense these days is considered crackpottery, but fascination is good. It opens the locked mind. What’s going to be more fascinating is when this JUNK science these guys are advocating blows half of their faces off. As Governments of the world start waking up on how this science is a fraud the “criminality” will be loud and clear. The mathematics do not calculate no matter what how artistically you position the variables.
FOR ACCESS TO ALL LEAKED DATA ON CLIMATEGATE GO TO:
http://www.climate-gate.org/
Please go through ALL of it!
2ru press
Yet just another jackass to add to my list…
The only thing that is leaked here is your brain slowly turning to mushy jelly
How stupid are you?
I posted here links to desmogblog.org which exposes a lot this. My brief post got removed. There is something terribly pernicious going on these days. Nonsense is percolating further into popular conceptions of things. These run from creationism, moon hoax, alt-cosmology like EU, alt-physics with free energy or perpetual motion machine claims, and this includes AGW denialism.
As communication technology improves it appears that at large what is happening is not so much a real universal education, but more smoke screens and confusion. A society which is mis-informed and confused is really far more easily governed by totaliitarian means.
LC
@Hoar. Salacious B. Crumb
I provide proof, and that’s all you have to say? Didn’t John P Holdren get grilled in Congress for calling people names instead tackling the truth?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2oGIM9mXV4
You must think this is cute and funny. This junk science is being used in a false manner in order set policies that will harm and possibly kill people in the poorest countries of the world. While the policy makers rake up all the cash. All you’re doing sir is being a prostitute to a pimp you don’t even know. Either your a smart a hoar and your in on the take for millions of dollars or you must be the dumbest hoar on the planet. Stop giving your soul away for free. I fell sorry for you sir. How stupid your going to feel when the 2ruth opens the door to your locked mind. If I was you I would slow down and back up for second and watch how the 2ruth missiles come dropping down to shatter the bars of the imprisoned mind. You still have a chance to do RIGHT thing sir. Why don’t you stand by your tag “Hon.” and do exactly that. Because as of this moment you’re light years from being honorable.
2 ru_ The only thing needed to be deleted is YOU!!
You have an agenda, and you are prepared to lie, cheat, cover, deceive, fabricate, just to be heard. Let’s check at the chicken entrails has more real science than your attempt as being an auger…
Honourable I may or not be… ..but from your nonsensical clap-trap here… you are clearly a jackass. Scumbag is a better description for you…
“Cute and funny” is better than “Stupid and Misguided”, methinks!
The $145 Trillion Scam? COOKING THE BOOKS??!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7OY3tTChRE&NR=1
“Conspiracy theory” is the new code word for denial.
“Very rarely do you have a conspiracy where there’s actual evidence like this.”
@Hoar. Salacious B. Crumb
Your no longer creditable sir, so your no longer needed.
Begone BUBBLE-HEAD! We have no use for YOU here.
… and here I thought this was a science site, and about the astronomical causes of climate change (read the title again, jackass!) Yet you just happen to forget this, and go off in some totally irrelevant crapola.
If that isn’t having an agenda, I like to know what is?
Irrelevant, just like you, is what it is about.
Credibility has nothing to do with it…
Perhaps you missed it, so here it is again
@ 2RU
Climate change is a natural part of what happens to the Earth. The CO2 is measured, and has shown an increase in many decades at almost a linear rate. The changes in CO2 is caused by Man, who is contributing ON TOP OF the natural changes by astronomical means. Ie. Obliquity of the ecliptic (polar tilt), mean distance for the sun, eccentricity of the earth’s output fro the sun, strength of the Earth’s magnetic field, etc.
Climate change is inevitable, regardless of what you or I think.
This issue is modification of the climate cab change significantly based on our knowledge of chaos theory. With or without influences by Man the climate can change within decades.With the addition of EXTRA CO2 by Man’s own activities, can make the chaotic system even more chaotic.
If we are going to continue as a species, humankind must learn how to react and modify the climatic conditions.
Climate change is more about trying to reduce the risk of extreme climate.
If you don’t like this agenda, then go live on Venus. It is a planet about the same size as Earth, has an atmosphere and a geology similar to that of Earth, whose environment has had a runaway greenhouse effect, and whose temperature is hotter than the average oven in your kitchen.
There is no “agenda”, and when it comes to following your path or science – well, I favour science. Who cares if I have to pay 20% more to do anything! At least I know humankind’s survival might be just that little bit better than to have done nothing.
In actually, the problem with climate change is with the industrialisation of the 1850s. What is worst is the “planned obsolescence” of what we manufacture that has cause the climate problem we have today.
Just think. if you could just change the tyres (tires) on your car some ten times longer than now, there would be no need to make such drastic changes in climate change policy. Why do tyres (tires) wear out so quickly, because corporations want to keep customers buying types so more can be bought.
I suggest you read Alvin Toffler. Don’t blame the scientist, blame the co-porations ad the industrial revolution.
As I said to Mike (jackass) Jackson
“Blindness is clearly no cover for absolute stupidity.”
In my opinion, you’re hitting the wrong target!!
The $145 Trillion Scam? COOKING THE BOOKS??!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7OY3tTChRE&NR=1
“Conspiracy theory” is the new code word for denial.
“Very rarely do you have a conspiracy where there’s actual evidence like this.”
Ha Ha Ha, that cracks me up…
Youtube, and YOUR own conspiracy theory” !!
What a jackass!
2RU the great climatologist and expert on climate change…
He is the expert in all things and can see the whole fraud being placed on the human race. Don’t listen to those ho know what they might be talking about, 2RU wisdom is all pervading. No one can question him, nor even consider he might actually be totally wrong.
So let’s instead all hail the mighty jackass!
Pity they didn’t have RU-486 when 2RU was born. It might have done us all a favour! What a shame!
@Hoar. Salacious B. Crumb
Wow.. you like getting pimp smacked huh? I suppose you believe the polar bears are going extinct due to climate change huh?
More on the FRAUD! Roll the tape!
CLIMATE CHANGE FRAUD BREAKDOWN…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRomgCnKVRI
You like getting beat up, don’t you?
GO AWAY YOUR NOT NEEDED ANYMORE..
The only person we don’t need any more is you.
The truth of the matter is you don’t know what you are talking about.
Clearly you are delusional and your mind totally closed to ideas.
Such fixations, you poor jackass!
Fraud and your delusions. Really. You wouldn’t know the difference!
Climate change is one thing. Plain stupidity is another – and you have it in spades!
Again. He obviously missed it!
2RU the great climatologist and expert on climate change…
He is the expert in all things and can see the whole fraud being placed on the human race. Don’t listen to those ho know what they might be talking about, 2RU wisdom is all pervading. No one can question him, nor even consider he might actually be totally wrong.
So let’s instead all hail the mighty jackass!
Pity they didn’t have RU-486 when 2RU was born. It might have done us all a favour! What a shame!
….pimp smacked , prostitutes, pimps, polar bears, BUBBLE-HEAD etc, etc.
Oh dear! 2RU must have been abused as a child or has dangerous sexual frustrations? Poor guy!
Perhaps you missed it, so here it is again
@ 2RU
Climate change is a natural part of what happens to the Earth. The CO2 is measured, and has shown an increase in many decades at almost a linear rate. The changes in CO2 is caused by Man, who is contributing ON TOP OF the natural changes by astronomical means. Ie. Obliquity of the ecliptic (polar tilt), mean distance for the sun, eccentricity of the earth’s output fro the sun, strength of the Earth’s magnetic field, etc.
Climate change is inevitable, regardless of what you or I think.
This issue is modification of the climate cab change significantly based on our knowledge of chaos theory. With or without influences by Man the climate can change within decades.With the addition of EXTRA CO2 by Man’s own activities, can make the chaotic system even more chaotic.
If we are going to continue as a species, humankind must learn how to react and modify the climatic conditions.
Climate change is more about trying to reduce the risk of extreme climate.
If you don’t like this agenda, then go live on Venus. It is a planet about the same size as Earth, has an atmosphere and a geology similar to that of Earth, whose environment has had a runaway greenhouse effect, and whose temperature is hotter than the average oven in your kitchen.
There is no “agenda”, and when it comes to following your path or science – well, I favour science. Who cares if I have to pay 20% more to do anything! At least I know humankind’s survival might be just that little bit better than to have done nothing.
In actually, the problem with climate change is with the industrialisation of the 1850s. What is worst is the “planned obsolescence” of what we manufacture that has cause the climate problem we have today.
Just think. if you could just change the tyres (tires) on your car some ten times longer than now, there would be no need to make such drastic changes in climate change policy. Why do tyres (tires) wear out so quickly, because corporations want to keep customers buying types so more can be bought.
I suggest you read Alvin Toffler. Don’t blame the scientist, blame the co-porations ad the industrial revolution.
As I said to Mike (jackass) Jackson
“Blindness is clearly no cover for absolute stupidity.”
In my opinion, you’re hitting the wrong target!!
CLIMATE CHANGE is trillion dollar cash machine and Hoar. Salacious B. Crumb is not getting dollar of ANY OF IT!
Who’s the STUPID one now!
@2RU
Oh no. They are all going to get me !!!
Quick all hide under the bed. They might just go away!!
Oh woe is me!
Perhaps you missed it, yet again, so here it is again
@ 2RU
Climate change is a natural part of what happens to the Earth. The CO2 is measured, and has shown an increase in many decades at almost a linear rate. The changes in CO2 is caused by Man, who is contributing ON TOP OF the natural changes by astronomical means. Ie. Obliquity of the ecliptic (polar tilt), mean distance for the sun, eccentricity of the earth’s output fro the sun, strength of the Earth’s magnetic field, etc.
Climate change is inevitable, regardless of what you or I think.
This issue is modification of the climate cab change significantly based on our knowledge of chaos theory. With or without influences by Man the climate can change within decades.With the addition of EXTRA CO2 by Man’s own activities, can make the chaotic system even more chaotic.
If we are going to continue as a species, humankind must learn how to react and modify the climatic conditions.
Climate change is more about trying to reduce the risk of extreme climate.
If you don’t like this agenda, then go live on Venus. It is a planet about the same size as Earth, has an atmosphere and a geology similar to that of Earth, whose environment has had a runaway greenhouse effect, and whose temperature is hotter than the average oven in your kitchen.
There is no “agenda”, and when it comes to following your path or science – well, I favour science. Who cares if I have to pay 20% more to do anything! At least I know humankind’s survival might be just that little bit better than to have done nothing.
In actually, the problem with climate change is with the industrialisation of the 1850s. What is worst is the “planned obsolescence” of what we manufacture that has cause the climate problem we have today.
Just think. if you could just change the tyres (tires) on your car some ten times longer than now, there would be no need to make such drastic changes in climate change policy. Why do tyres (tires) wear out so quickly, because corporations want to keep customers buying types so more can be bought.
I suggest you read Alvin Toffler. Don’t blame the scientist, blame the co-porations ad the industrial revolution.
As I said to Mike (jackass) Jackson
“Blindness is clearly no cover for absolute stupidity.”
In my opinion, you’re hitting the wrong target!!
Common sense. ha! Clearly your an absolute genius!!
All hail the master!
…. and the jackass want to be “sensible”?
What a whack-job!
“Their coming to take me away, ha ha.”
Remember when you ran away
And I got on my knees and begged
You not to leave
Because I’d go berserk?
Well!
You left me anyhow and then
The days got worse and worse
And now you see I’ve gone
Completely out of my mind.
And
They’re coming to take me away, Ha-ha
They’re coming to take me away, Ho-ho
Hee-hee-haa-haa
To the funny farm
Where life is beautiful all the time
And I’ll be happy to see those
Nice young men in their clean white coats and
They’re coming to take me away, ha-ha!
You thought it was a joke
and so you laughed, you laughed,
when I had said that losing you
would make me flip my lid.
Right?
You know you laughed
I heard you laugh
You laughed, you laughed
and laughed and then you left but
Now you know I’m utterly mad
And
They’re coming to take me away, ha-ha,
They’re coming to take me away, ho-ho,
hee hee, haa haa
To the happy home
With trees and flowers and chirping birds
And basket-weavers who sit and smile
And twiddle their thumbs and toes
And they’re coming to take me away, ha-hahaha…
I cooked your food, I cleaned your house,
And this is how you pay me back for
All my kind, unselfish, loving deeds,
Hah?
Well you just wait, they’ll find you yet
And when they do they’ll put you in the ASPCA you mangy mutt!
And
They’re coming to take me away, Ha-ha
They’re coming to take me away, Ho-ho
Hee-hee-haa-haa
To the funny farm
Where life is beautiful all the time
And I’ll be happy to see those
Nice young men in their clean white coats and
They’re coming to take me away, ha-ha!
To the happy home
With trees and flowers and chirping birds
And basket-weavers who sit and smile
And twiddle their thumbs and toes
And they’re coming to take me away, ha-hahaha…
To the funny farm
Where life is beautiful all the time
And I’ll be happy to see those
Nice young men in their clean white coats and
They’re coming to take me away, ha-ha!
…sound familiar?
The fate of the world via youtube…
Now how totally looney tunes is that??
All this time, and he though he was the only one who was a looney tune.
Perhaps you missed it, yet again, so here it is again
@ 2RU
Climate change is a natural part of what happens to the Earth. The CO2 is measured, and has shown an increase in many decades at almost a linear rate. The changes in CO2 is caused by Man, who is contributing ON TOP OF the natural changes by astronomical means. Ie. Obliquity of the ecliptic (polar tilt), mean distance for the sun, eccentricity of the earth’s output fro the sun, strength of the Earth’s magnetic field, etc.
Climate change is inevitable, regardless of what you or I think.
This issue is modification of the climate cab change significantly based on our knowledge of chaos theory. With or without influences by Man the climate can change within decades.With the addition of EXTRA CO2 by Man’s own activities, can make the chaotic system even more chaotic.
If we are going to continue as a species, humankind must learn how to react and modify the climatic conditions.
Climate change is more about trying to reduce the risk of extreme climate.
If you don’t like this agenda, then go live on Venus. It is a planet about the same size as Earth, has an atmosphere and a geology similar to that of Earth, whose environment has had a runaway greenhouse effect, and whose temperature is hotter than the average oven in your kitchen.
There is no “agenda”, and when it comes to following your path or science – well, I favour science. Who cares if I have to pay 20% more to do anything! At least I know humankind’s survival might be just that little bit better than to have done nothing.
In actually, the problem with climate change is with the industrialisation of the 1850s. What is worst is the “planned obsolescence” of what we manufacture that has cause the climate problem we have today.
Just think. if you could just change the tyres (tires) on your car some ten times longer than now, there would be no need to make such drastic changes in climate change policy. Why do tyres (tires) wear out so quickly, because corporations want to keep customers buying types so more can be bought.
I suggest you read Alvin Toffler. Don’t blame the scientist, blame the co-porations ad the industrial revolution.
As I said to Mike (jackass) Jackson
“Blindness is clearly no cover for absolute stupidity.”
In my opinion, you’re hitting the wrong target!!
Must be something right here, or is this an illusion too…
..but of course some other jackass knows better..
I wonder what a total dumbo would conclude?
Certainly not RU-486 here, eh??
So What!!
Ba da da da da da
WIKIpedia is not right all time idiot.
2ru_press or RU-486 is not right all time idiot.
ONE WORD…
RU-486 GATE..
Take “RU-486gate” at Penn State. That’s what people are calling the controversy surrounding leaked E-mails among climate change researchers that climate change opponents say expose the researchers’ fstealing of data. One jackass known as RU-4886 (aka 2RU_press) is involved in the scandal.
The Penn State administration plans to investigate RU-486gate and determine if it needs to take further action, the Daily Collegian reports. A little more than a week ago, E-mails exchanged among an English university’s climate change researchers were legally obtained from a jackass and posted online, the report says.
Jackasses like RU-486 opponents say the E-mails indicate that researchers changed —including Penn State RU-486 —exaggerated or fabricated global warming data. And, according to the report, some E-mails indicate that the jackass in question may have contacted researchers and asked them to “Keep certain E-mails.” (in case he didn’t understand them)
Needless to say RU-486 is being investigated for FRAUD, and jackassery in the highest order.
“We’ll bury the criminal”, one authority said…
Penn State officials, who will openly discuss the matter, are investigating RU-486. If anything requires further inspection, the school will handle it, a spokesman tells the Daily Collegian. A panel will read every E-mail in the entire world and determine if climate change critics have any ground for their accusations, the report says.
“I would be disappointed if the university wasn’t doing all [it] can to get as much information as possible” about the controversy, Mann tells the Daily Collegian.
“However”, they said, “it might take several hundreds f billions of years to do. by then it won’t matter either way!”
A climate change fake has finally proved that climate change fakes are fake!
Looks like persistence is the ultimate reward…
2RU_press is in deep — maybe.
What intrigues me is extent to which these denialist folks will passionately argue their case, even if things really don’t look favorable for them. Believe me I wish this was not happening. For that matter if we could burn up more fossil fuels, and they were nearly eternally available and further there were none of these consequences I would be perfectly happy. But that does not appear to be what is happening.
I am not passionate about global warming either. This does appear to be happening, we will probably see more of it if there are no changes and we will face the consequences as a result. On an abstract level maybe we will just be one of many intelligent life species in the universe that snuff themselves out. In the end, nobody outside of ourselves really cares.
Philosophy is a subject where questions are posed that have can’t be answered, and religion is a subject where answers are posed which can’t be questioned. When ever people passionately argue for “the truth” and behave in unfortunate ways when challenged you have to suspect this is a case of religion — even if just secularized religion. The problem we face is that the political right has erected market economics as not just some presumed optimal system, but as something that is “the truth,” or a matter of natural law on a near equal status with Newton’s work. Global warming threatens this little belief system, for it tells us that ultimately, in the words of Ira Gershwin, “It ain’t necessarily so.”
Anyone who cares to read these blog entries with some unbiased assessment of who is behaving properly should conclude that the AGW deniers are “shouting” a whole lot. This is a funny trend, which has many examples in history, where people will passionately defend their viewpoints (even go on the attack), when it becomes clear at least in retrospect they were setting up a dress rehearsal for some impending disaster. To say that AGW is completely false is to say we need to do nothing about this. Yet I just heard a report that this decade, in spite of a slowing of the warming trend, is hotter than last decade, which was hotter than the one before. Are they seriously prepared to assert they are so right that we can ignore the prospect of methane hydrate melting, or permafrost melting which could in a few decades accelerate warming trends enormously? Are they so committed to the idea they have the truth they are will passionately argue we need not be concerned about potential ecosystem collapses because of rapid climate shifts — with impacts on agriculture? Do these people ever have second thoughts as they kneel down before a bronze statue of Milton Friedmann — even maybe just a little bit of doubt that they might not be as certain about things as their gurus tell them?
Lawrence B. Crowell
I agree. I was interested to see how far this guy would go – even with the most ridiculous and annoying attacks.
It is extraordinary to think that one’s mindset is so fixated that it cannot sort out things in degree and deal only in terms of absolutes, and worst, their absolutes! .
I presented a logical argument, and the only hole he found was;
Then his reply is;
It is an extraordinary omission. Clearly you don’t just need science to prove that. There is overwhelming evidence CO2 is rising AND burning, say coal, is adding to it. Also weather systems (and climate) are undeniably chaotic systems I.e. They cannot be predicted with certainty more than several days in advance.
..and yet the denier of climate changes says this view is “misguided.” If simple logical fails, then there is no chance that individual like this one can formulate an intelligent or contributory view. (it is exactly like a certain snake man I know)
Bizarre.
Yeah! AL GORE!
@2ri_press
Yeah! JACKASS!
The conservative mentality which transitions into right winged behavior is an example of the authoritarian personality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_personality
which was outlined by Theodor Ardorno. This study was completed in a review of the social psychology behind the Nazi government of Germany in 1950. John Dean has included these analyses in his “Conservatives Wtihout Conscience,” in looking at the GW Bush period.
Of course this does not necessarily imply conservativism, for it can work with extreme leftist political ideologies as well, as seen in the Soviet period of Russia, or Maoist China. Yet in the United States such socialist or Marxist trends have little broad social appeal. This personality type is also most often found in fundamentalist religion, where there is some belief in an absolute truth and an authoritarian structure which extends to a God. A property of such people is a tendency to align themselves with authorities, or to bring themselves in positions of authority, and most often with respect to some ideological or belief system that is upheld as some absolute truth or certaintude by authoritarian decree.
In the case of political conservativism, and this is largely seen in the Republican Party, there have been growing trends towards authoritarian personalities and social behavior. Eisenhower wrote a couple of letters warning of trends along these lines. In this there is a belief in the inherent and inerrant basis for the United States, economically, politically and militarily. The codification of our economic system into something quasi-religious has been an ongoing program. This is seen in the Ayn Rand trend which attempts to elevate capitalism along side physical laws as something engraved in the universe or reasoning, the Milty Friedmann idea that elevates the Bentham-Adam Smith ideology into something beyond question.
Environmental issues and global warming bring these ideas into question, which is why the right wing is on a battle horse over this. Much the same has been replayed in the past as well, such as the GOP fought hard against the test ban treaty of 1963, for this brought to question the righteousness of American military might. On other matters of science policy the GOP has been pretty consistently wrong as well, recall Reagan and the GOP with respect to AIDS, and the same President tore down alternative energy research in the early 1980s. GW Bush gave considerable nodding support for creationism in science. There is a consistent track record of authoritarian types screwing up science, such as Lysenkoism in Soviet Russia, and China had up to the 1980 a policy of refusing research on big bang cosmology — they feared theological interpretations. Unfortunately in the United States there is considerable political pressure, and PR-media campaigns, to effectively do the same with science here.
It is of course intellectually bad if authoritarians block research on big bang cosmology. Global warming does not IMO have nearly the fascinating implications that big bang cosmology does, but it does imply what sort of world our descendents might inherit through the rest of this century.
Lawrence B. Crowell
“The conservative mentality which transitions into right winged behavior is an example of the authoritarian personality”
The worlds worst authoritarians, at least in modern history have been “liberals transitioning into left wing behavior” as in Hitler himself (a National Socialist who leftwing historians are trying to sell as a conservative to the naive), Mao, Stalin, Castro, and on and on.
Conservatives believe in individualism, which liberals now decry as a form of racism, being locked in to Identity Politics. Liberals believe in Big Government and yet claim to be against authoritarianism. You can’t have it both ways… unless you are the type to describe proper science as requiring the “gatekeeping” of dissenting science.
Then it will work for you.
The individualism of conservatives is a sort of sick verion thereof. It is an argument by which society can be atomized further and further so people are unable to work in any organized fashion outside of corporate structures. Corporations are about as really individualistic as bee hives are — except for the elites at the top. It really is standard play with politics which trend to extremes, or a box of fools gold. It is the right winged version of the Maxrist nonsense about proletariate freedom. Two sides of the same diseased coin.
Lawrence B. Crowell
What bothers me about the debate of climate change is that entrenched positions have now been established and some of the more rabid supporters from the eco-warrior brigade are seriously considering, or at least voicing, that ANYONE who dares to question the evidence, the science or research will be prosecuted under the crimes against humanity laws at The Hague. Some of the class-war warriors here in Britain have called for the death penalty when, not if, the ‘deniers’ are tried. While these numpties represent only a small minority of the establishment they are extremely vocal and have a tendency to drown out any reasoned debate. Unfortunately most of the debate is carried out by laymen, politicians and civil servants who don’t really understand the science or even the possible problem. The biggest flies in the ointment on the scientific side are the climate modellers. Their predictions change every time they run a model which leads to the news media seizing every worst-case scenario resulting in headlines such as, “5 degree rise in temperatures predicted by scientists by 2030” [The Daily Mail 2007, I think] or “0.5C rise by 2100” [same paper 2008].
Suppose you worked on some scientific topic and you and colleagues have established something about the physical world. Then suddenly there came a growing chorus of voices in opposition to your work because it negates the existence of the tooth fairy. There is also a lot of corporate support for this from the greeting card industry which earns billions of dollars in tooth fairy related cards and trinkets. Then further you find this is reaching the halls of government, with MPs or Senators who are opposed to it. You might find yourself a little testy over this. The little heart felt letter
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/post.aspx?bid=354&bpid=24483
to the American physical society includes Roger Cohen, a former Manager and Strategic Planner for ExxonMobil. So you tend to go on the defensive at bit. Particularly for this subject which ultimately involves the sort of conditions we and future generation might face on the planet. I can’t defend entirely the actions of the CRU scientists, and in part because I don’t know all the details. The one thing is that the CRU can’t adulterate the date nor release it to the public because they are not proprietors of it.
For people not marinated in ideological persiflage and aware of what is going on in the scientific community, the conclusions about this are becoming well cemented. The debate is a matter of politics and ideological purity. Particularly in the United States capitalism has been elevated to the level of quasi-religious status, or for the so called “objectivists” of the Ayn Rand variety something of equal status to Newton’s laws. The problem is that global warming is a big fly in that ointment. In the United States over the last 30 years the ideology of capitalism has been increasingly elevated to near divine status, as the nation has also been through a largely conservative or right winged period. Further, the media system in this country is compelled to produce content that is more and more outrageous, which means increasingly prurient serial content, but also news programming which has become less about facts and serious journalism and more about extremist opinion and demagoguery. This serves to elevate the endorphin levels of viewers and listeners in the form of anger, which is every bit as addictive as a drug. This increases viewership and consequently market share of advertisers. The one little problem might that American society is becoming less hinged together as it flirts with some sort of mass hysteria or psychosis. Along with this is the matter of global warming, which is a favorite whipping boy of the media — particularly the cable news outlets which serve as right winged propaganda outlets. For anyone who is not influence or “addicted” by this sort of thing and who have some understanding of what is going on these can only be seen as appalling developments.
Lawrence B. Crowell
“Then suddenly there came a growing chorus of voices in opposition to your work because it negates the existence of the tooth fairy.”
That’s a perfect example of Lawrence Crowell’s mind at work. Just perfect. And I’m sure that there are many liberal-minded scientists who are grateful for his self-abasement, not wishing to attach themselves to such a ridiculous and silly analogy.
Alinsky would be proud of you. A scientist would be embarrassed for you.
Ha! The jackass returnth
Still trying to get the last word, eh?
At least Lawrence makes sense. All you do is criticise and say nothing at all.
Yet just another example of extremist stupidity!
I suppose M Jackson does have time between organizing tea parties, organizing militias and blogging elsewhere against climate legislation. This is an indication of how the American mindset is falling apart. People are losing a clear sense of things, as we see more conspiracy theories over swine flu, UFOs, 9/11 inside job conspiracies, death panels, and so forth —- and this absurd idea that thousands of scientists who work on climate science are wittingly or unwittingly a part of some grand conspiracy. This conspiracy is thought be some to be a grand scheme to smash out capitalism and raise the red flag of communism around the world. I know someone who thinks just this! Yet this crap works, and it gets people’s endorphin levels up as their anger addiction is stroked.
In the end the human race just might be 6.8 billion ground apes exponentially rampaging out of control. The more I hear these right wingnuts prate on the more it appears we are little more than a great bio-dysfunction.
If nothing else the United States is at best going to become a crone of a nation populated by cranky conservative curmudgeons.
LC
This is from Robert Parks of the American Physical Society.
WHAT’S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 11 Dec 09 Washington, DC
1. WARMER: THE TREND SHOWS NO SIGN OFF ENDING.
At the Copenhagen climate talks, Michel Jarraud, secretary general of the
international weather agency, told a news conference that the period from
2000 through 2009 will almost certainly be the warmest decade in the 150
years of modern record-keeping. And with just a few weeks remaining, 2009
will likely be the fifth warmest year on record. But what about those
hacked emails from the climate research unit at the University of East
Anglia? Jarraud replied that there is no evidence that independent
estimates showing a warming world are in doubt. The more interesting
question is who was behind the break-in and why? The use of dirty tricks to
cast doubt on the reality of global warming began with Kyoto.
2. KYOTO: THE PROTOCOL WAS ADOPTED 12 YEARS AGO TODAY.
It?s awkward that the United States, alone among major nations, declined to
ratify the Kyoto protocol calling for reduction of greenhouse gases.
Without the United States, which is responsible for 1/3 of the world’s
greenhouse emissions, the Kyoto accord was meaningless. To convince
Congress and the public that scientists have serious doubts about global
warming, a petition was launched. The only return address on a massive
mailing to academic scientists was a P.O. Box. The only name was Fred
Seitz. A famous condensed matter physicist in his earlier years, Seitz
headed the ultra-conservative George C. Marshall Institute in Washington.
Seitz was also a permanent paid consultant of the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
Company. Although he conducted no tobacco research, Seitz used his
scientific reputation to cast doubt on medical evidence showing that
secondhand smoke is dangerous. Now he was doing the same for global
warming. The petition mailing included a Wall Street Journal op-ed that
said we have an ethical responsibility to burn as much fossil fuel as
possible to get carbon out of the ground and into the air where it can
create life. According to NBC news correspondent Ian Williams this week,
the life C02 is helping to create in Malaysia includes the Aedes Aegypti
mosquito that multiplies more rapidly as the temperature rises. Aedes
transmits dengue fever.
To Lawrence Crowell @10:31 a.m11-12-09. Very good analysis of the mind-set in America [as we see it over here]. It is also coming to represent a growing body of opinion in government and amongst the movers & shakers in the economy etc. While I feel capitalism is generally ‘good thing’ the way it has become the new religion with all the baggage that entails is a very disturbing move as the past two years has shown only too clearly.