Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Denier.

Tam talks about how the word "denier", as used in conjunction with Anthropgenic Global Warming (AGW), has become one of those words like "fascist" or "racist" that get tossed around so much it loses its meaning. Those that support hobbling American industry and society in a fool's errand to "do something" about AGW toss "denier" around casually, when they most often mean "you disagree with me, so here's an icky name for you".

Hey, whatever helps you sleep at night...

What I know is this: It's July 1st. It's been summer for two weeks now. It's currently 58ºF outside today, with rain and damp weather expected today and tomorrow and most likely for the foreseable future. We did not have a completely sunny day the entire month of June, and saw temperatures far below normal for the month.

I'm gonna need a helluva lot more proof that: a) AGW even exists; and b) AGW is something I should want to avoid...

That is all.
Posted by at
Labels: ,

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

I've been hearing from some more liberal friends that, especially because of this past year's weather (colder everywhere than usual), its not gonna be Global Warming anymore. The new term is "Global Climate Change". I guess they decided to change the name once they realized that the temperature, ya know, fluctuates.

July 1, 2009 at 1:34 PM
Bob S. said...

There are times I wish I could live up north again It's currently 58ºF outside

We had 3 days over 100 last week and the cold spell this week brought the temp down to 88.

Need to get rich so I can have summer homes up north and winter homes here in Texas.

July 1, 2009 at 1:50 PM
Bill said...

You keep running tidbits like this as though global climate change or warming or whatever else you care to call it means somehow that we will have heatwaves everywhere.

a very small degree of warming over the entire planet is not something you'd feel in any particular localle as drought or higher average temperatures. No serious climatologist has ever suggested that.

What it probably means short term are things like changes in the gulf stream pattern and sea temperatures rising in places like the southern Atlantic or Pacific which will result in lots of major abnormal weather patterns. Over the long term we're talking about melting of much of the polar ice, which will result in lots of loss of low-lying coastal areas.

There's a legitimate debnate as to whether reducing greenhouse emissions at this point will do any good, (as opposed to putting everything into the effort to develop carbon cleaning techniques such as Richard Branson is funding) and a much smaller debate as to how much of this is man-made.

It's not a left-right issue, it's a scientific issue. And there's a general consensus among climatologists on this stuff.

I'm frankly uninterested in the interpretations by political figures like Al Gore or Limbaugh or the rest of the political blatherers on this subject.

Jay, you KNOW how hard it is to get consensus on something in the hard sciences. That global warming is happening isn't subject to debate.

How hot it is in your backyard doesn't mean a damn thing and you know it.

July 1, 2009 at 2:46 PM
Jay G said...

Hence why the tags on this post were "Halfassed Humor" and "Serious Snark"...

July 1, 2009 at 2:57 PM
RW said...

Didn't you hear? It's no longer "denier", it's a Republican who is guilty of "treason against our planet". I read it in the NYT, so it must be true:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29krugman.html



Seems like it was just yesterday that we were continually being told that we were calling everyone on the left "unpatriotic", when no one could actually find an instance of it actually happening.

July 1, 2009 at 2:59 PM
Sigivald said...

I glanced at that first sentence, and thought "what does thread density have to do with it"?

July 1, 2009 at 2:59 PM
Atom Smasher said...

The term "denier" is silly and counterproductive because it implies there is some sort of "truth" to deny, and there is nothing of the sort. As wedded as Bill might be to science by consensus, that's just not how it's done. There is zero solid evidence that suggests that human industry has anything to do with global climate, and much good evidence that it is almost entirely driven by the Sun, at least in the medium-to-short term.

So Krugman and his panic, and Hansen and his falsified data, and Gore with his fear tactics, can each be safely ignored (or mocked). As the research continues and data are gathered we will move to a place, eventually, where we begin to understand how climate works and what its major drivers are. So far CO2, for instance, is indisputably not one of them.

July 1, 2009 at 6:21 PM
RW said...

It's not a left-right issue, it's a scientific issue. And there's a general consensus among climatologists on this stuff.

Science isn't based on consensus. Period, kaput, end of story.

Jay, you KNOW how hard it is to get consensus on something in the hard sciences.

The hard sciences require no consensus. By definition.

What you mean is "a bunch of scientists agree and I'm going to ignore the growing group of scientists who disagree" instead of 'science'.

In the early 70s the psychiatric experts held the consensus that homosexuality was a disorder and population experts held in the late 80s that the planet wouldn't be able to withstand an excess of 5 billion people.

Let's not forget that in the 70s we were told that we were heading for the next ice age.

If you're going to debate what the climatologists (which, almost completely work for their governments and almost completely are anti-conservative) put forth, that's fine. But, to call a conclusion/prediction of a group of climatologists - a group that predicted rising temperatures over the last 10 years, during which we've had decreasing temps - 'science' is offensive to those who understand what science is.

BTW, interesting that pretty much all of the climatologists who put forth the Gore-esque global warming turned climate change (when you to change the name of your movement because what you said didn't come true, it might be a bad sign) and who have also pontificated on various political issues are 100% on the left. One. Hundred. Percent.

It's almost like the media, where I'm told that they're not biased & only putting forth what their informed world view is, but it's such a goshdarn coincidence that it always lines up with the left wing political issues of the day.

A bunch of experts who follow the media agree. I guess you could call it a consensus. :)

July 1, 2009 at 9:43 PM
Atom Smasher said...

It's actually far simpler than the zealots want to admit. The question was asked: "Does human-produced CO2 affect global temperature positively?" Since over the last ten years we've *increased* the rate of CO2 emissions and the temperature has gone down, any reasonable scientist would consider the question answered.

And the answer is "No."

July 2, 2009 at 5:56 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)