Climate Change Deniers Beware: Facts Ahead
By
The AC-T’s Joel Burgess lets us know about three upcoming events to arm you with all the facts you need to do combat with the idiots who choose stupidity over science.
“Jan. 15
The myth of the 1970’s global cooling scientific consensus: the evolution of integrated climate change science by Thomas C. Peterson, PhD, NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, lead author on the Nobel Peace Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
February 12
The state of our climate: an overview of the latest research findings and projections of climate change by Anne Waple, PhD from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.
April 15
What does climate change mean for the future? Challenges to our water systems and infrastructures. Panel discussion of leading experts focused on environmental issues surrounding climate change. Followed by a meet-the-presenters reception at the Colburn Earth Science Museum
For more information contact Paul Roelle, president Asheville Chapter of the American Meteorological Society at 271-4250, ext. 1009. The events are co-sponsored by the meteorological society chapter and the Colburn museum.
Scrutiny Hooligans would like to extend a special invitation to all of our elected officials and those seeking office in 2008.
33 Comments
December 23rd, 2007 at 12:17 pm
“… the idiots who choose stupidity over science …”
we talking about Al Gore, right?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
December 23rd, 2007 at 8:46 pm
TP,
Please tell me you’ll go to the first event. Step out of your denier box into a room of people who love science more than political dogma.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
December 23rd, 2007 at 11:25 pm
I love science but there is not yet a consensus among scientists as to global warming… in millions of years of Earth’s history there have been dramatic cyclic changes… these will continue for some time to come … by the way, the sun will be going out in about 20 billion years.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
December 23rd, 2007 at 11:50 pm
Awfully fatalistic of you, Ralph.
No consensus, eh? Well how about we just play it conservatively then? Let’s clean up our air, water, food, and energy production. These are virtuous ends that we can all agree on.
You can continue to doubt, and the rest of us can know that you’re part of the solution to a problem you don’t believe exists.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
December 24th, 2007 at 6:53 am
I am certainly for cleaning up air, water, food, energy production, and political blogs.
But too many Al Gorites take his word as gospel… but science is still out on global warming. You can find credible scientists who support either side.
For example there was this article that came out Dec. 21 on money.cnn.com:
“Climate Change: A Senate minority report lists 400 reputable scientists who think the only melting ice we should really fear was in the cocktail glasses of attendees at the recent global warming conference in Bali. …”
see entire article at:
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/newstex/IBD-0001-21855031.htm
However, my real position is if we’re not in trouble yet, at the rate we’re going we eventually will be. Yet the true answer is not conservation — which simply divides less and less resources among more and more people — it’s to use technology to actually SOLVE the underlying problems. These include energy (we need cheap solar, fusion, zero point… SOME new and abundant source), living room (practical space travel on interplanetary and interstellar levels to colonize new worlds), and far greater scientific and technological education.
The great failure of both progressives and conservatives in not only global warming but things in general is that far too much effort is put into maintaining the status quo and tweaking the other party’s tail feathers instead of true PROGRESS.
But, hey, Merry Christmas, Gordon and all!
Rate this comment:
0 
0
December 24th, 2007 at 9:22 am
When 95% of scientists agree, I really start paying attention, Ralph, and it baffles me when folks would prefer to tempt fate than simply say, “You know, almost all of those scientists agree about this global warming thing. Maybe I ought to give it as much creedence as round-earth theory or evolution…”
Intelligent people who deny global climate change and man’s part in it? To me it’s something like driving down the road, having a bird fly through the windshield of the car and then have a long conversation over whether to slow down, take a different route, get a new windshield, or pretend nothing happened.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
December 24th, 2007 at 10:02 am
Hey Gordon,
I think one of the many reasons why some folks are so adamantly skeptical concerning Global Warming is because it’s forced down their throats. I’m a lifelong environmentalist, but even I see how some folks over hype it to the point of absurdity.
Case in point: I was watching a great documentary about Glacier National Park last night. During a discussion about the receding glaciers, the narrator mentioned how one massive glacier had lost over half it’s ice between 1915 and 1935. In the very next sentence, he went on to state that Global Warming is very evident in the declining state of the glaciers. So, global warming started before the second World War? That’s the kind of messy statements I’m talking about.
In addition, it also fuels nonsensical arguments about how to move away from petroleum. I’m most disgusted by the ethanol debate which some actually argue as a viable and more environmentally friendly alternative to petrol. It is anything but.
Overall, if people could be bothered to look at the facts, ethanol is actually worse (or at least as bad) for our environment and our economy.
That’s my .02.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
December 24th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Gordon, I doubt 95% of scientists agree whether the sky is blue, much less on global warming.
Actually, scientifically speaking, the sky is NOT blue. What happens is that when sunlight hits the atmosphere it collides with oxygen and nitrogen molecules and is scattered. The top end of the spectrum — blue and violet — is scattered at a faster speed. Our eyes being predisposed toward blue, perchive the sky as being blue.
But, I agree with Bobaloo … some folk in the Church of Al Gore have taken on global warming in religious fervor and accept certain theories as gospel when, indeed, they are not. Not yet. But you certainly are being very annoying about it.
Do you want me to explain why the sky is black at night?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
December 24th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
And not to ignore your bird metaphor. … here’s my bird story:
I was driving back up from the Kingdom of Madison a couple of months ago, approaching Weaverville on the four-lane. On the other side of the road, a mother wild turkey was crossing the oncoming lanes with several of her brood in tow. This would have been okay if the oncoming drivers had simply slowed a bit but instead the mama turkey panicked. Did you know it’s a scientific fact turkeys CAN fly? (The classic WKRP episode not withstanding.) … so mama launches into the air and intersects my SUV at 70 miles per hour PLUS whatever speed she had achieved. Tremendous impact! I am all over the road before gathering control back up. So get over and stop. Blood all over the side of the car but the only damage (aside from that to the turkey) was that my driver’s side mirror was rather neatly removed (still, that was $300 in damage). The little turkeys became orphans.
It is my THEORY that this entire unfortunate incidence was caused by a combination of global warming (resulting in the turkey receiving more lift in the hot, dense atmosphere than she had anticipated) and the sky being blue (blinding her to my oncoming wall of steel).
I am currently awaiting Al Gore’s take.
Merry Christmas.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
December 24th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
I’m going to be very gracious with this –
If you’re wrong and if we can do something to alter the course we’re on, then your wrongness inhibits the chance we have.
If the vast majority of scientists are wrong, and I’m wrong too, then the worst that will have happened is that we will have improved our air, water, energy production, etc.
Global warming deniers would, it seems, rather be right than simply do the right thing.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
December 24th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Two words for folks that deny Global Warming: peer review. The data that support our position are peer reviewed and the data that support your position is not.
And I’m not talking a vast majority vs. a slim minority. There are NO peer reviewed data that deny that global warming exists, is exacerbated by humans and is potentially catastrophic.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
December 24th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Be as gracious as you like, Gordon… if you read what I wrote it says that I did not disagree with the possibility of ecological damage to the planet (i.e. I said “…my real position is if we’re not in trouble yet, at the rate we’re going we eventually will be….”). What I disagree with is your solution.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
December 24th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
And although you did not ask, I will tell you why the sky is black — it’s due to lack of light, which also very well describes climate science today also.
Merry Christmas, peace and joy, good tidings to all.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
December 24th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
And although you did not ask, I will tell you why the sky is black — it’s due to lack of light, which also very well describes climate science today.
Merry Christmas, peace and joy, good tidings to all.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
December 25th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
OOOH, BUSTED!
The ‘credible scientists’ that Ralph refers to have been thoroughly debunked already. Most weren’t even climatologists. Of the few that were, they merely disagreed on the specific timing and specific degree of global warming, not its existence, our contribution, or that it is potentially catastrophic. And of course, the paper was not peer-reviewed.
More at C&L
Rate this comment:
0 
0
December 25th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
whoops, link didn’t work.
C&L
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/12/24/dont-believe-inhofes-hype/
Rate this comment:
0 
0
December 25th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
David, there is no consensus among scientists on global warming. There is, however, consensus among progressives who have taken this issue up with religious fervor.
I do not deny global warming but I do doubt that it is as Al Gore says it is.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
December 26th, 2007 at 12:45 am
Ralph Roberts said
That is simply a desperate and pathetic lie. You are a desperate and pathetic liar. Go back to the little kids table little boy. The grown-ups are trying to have an adult conversation here.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
December 26th, 2007 at 7:02 am
“desperate and pathetic lie” …
you are kidding right?
no one is that uncivil, even a progressive, during the Holiday Season … especially over something so minor as mere politics.
there are far too many in both the conservative and progressive camps who — upon meeting someone who honestly does not agree with them — get all red in the face and begin spewing insults.
doesn’t work, David, does not work. … you step over a line there that is hard to get back across and which damages only yourself.
but… wishing you all the best in the coming year, nonetheless.
–Ralph
Rate this comment:
0 
0
December 26th, 2007 at 9:14 am
Ralph,
There are a lot of Christians who call themselves scientists that espouse Bible-literal creationism. This means “there’s no consensus” regarding whether a man in space created everything six thousand years ago or whether something else happened.
The “no consensus” argument and the right’s bizarre focus on Al Gore rather than the problem of global warming both fail to address anything substantive or helpful. You can joke about Al all you want but there is some urgency to reversing the trend we’ve created.
You may not think we created it. That’s your prerogative, but for God’s sake please quit trying to prevent sensible people from cleaning up our air, water, and energy.
You’ve managed to do a lot of denying in this thread, but you haven’t stated what you believe is the truth. Please go ahead and do so. Then I can stop making wild private assumption about how silly you are!
Rate this comment:
0 
0
December 26th, 2007 at 9:38 am
But Gordon, I quite explicitly stated my position earlier in this thread and even said it WAS my position:
“…my real position is if we’re not in trouble yet, at the rate we’re going we eventually will be. Yet the true answer is not conservation — which simply divides less and less resources among more and more people — it’s to use technology to actually SOLVE the underlying problems. These include energy (we need cheap solar, fusion, zero point… SOME new and abundant source), living room (practical space travel on interplanetary and interstellar levels to colonize new worlds), and far greater scientific and technological education. …”
Is the basic logic of my position something you disagree with? Why?
Do you think I’m silly because I ignore the cantankerous cant of both right and left to form my own opinions — based on wide reading from many sources of opposing viewpoints?
Do you think that I deserve comments such as “desperate and pathetic lie” accorded to my honest opinions?
And, if you read and think about my position, do you believe it’s so far removed from yours, once the progressive jargon is removed from yours?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
December 26th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Ralph,
You see, there is this thing called ‘accountability’ (you might remember that word. You Republicans ran on it in 2000). When you say something that is untrue over and over, that is what we grown-ups call a lie. And we grown-ups admonish you for it for your own good. I know it hurts now, but someday you will realize that I’m just showing tough love.
Its important that you understand, that while you have a right to your feelings and opinions, you do not have a right to your own facts. There is consensus on global warming. That is not an opinion. That is a fact. You are not a victim for being scolded when you spread misinformation.
Do you understand now? Good. Lets hug it out.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
December 26th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Who ever said I was a Republican? Never have been. Never been a Democrat either.
Read what I said above to Gordon and tell me you disagree with it.
And speaking of accountability, explain why you used the term “desperate and pathetic lie…” That is hardly a sign of polite and learned discourse.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
December 26th, 2007 at 11:40 am
Ralph,
I apologize. I had you confused with a Republican blogger that intentionally lies.
But there is consensus on global warming. It exists, it is exacerbated by humans and the results are likely catastrophic.
Anything to the contrary is not true.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
December 26th, 2007 at 11:57 am
apology accepted
as to global warming and viable solutions, read what I wrote above.
I have great faith in the triumph of humanity (despite itself).
Rate this comment:
0 
0
December 26th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Yeah, technology is great and is the ultimate solution. But how sure are you that we are going to get that technology in place before we cause irreversible changes in our weather system?
There is no planet B. There is not much time either.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
December 26th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
then we should hurry.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
December 26th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
I have been thinking about this for quite some time and I do not understand why people keep saying “we must save our environment” – the environment will be fine, just us humans may disappear which taking into account the history of violence we inflict upon others is a good thing.
There is nothing in any philosophy or religion that says we got to be around forever. So I say enjoy it while it last.
Ah, and before you give me the “what about your children childrens children” I say past my grand children I really do not care. Does anyone really?
And if humans are supposed to stick around I am sure that evolution will take care of that.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
December 26th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Ralph,
I’d forgotten about your earlier comment, ensconced as it was in atmospheric meanderings.
Massive government investment in alternatives is overdue. Massive conservation is also overdue. Just as there is no one alternative energy to feed our enormous energy consumption, there is no reason to do away with conservation efforts.
Al Gore’s been talking about this problem for the entirety of his public life. Remember Earth In The Balance? That was published in 1987 I think. Folks like Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Malkin, and Coulter like to attack Al Gore personally rather than honestly address the issue at hand. This may have something to do with my reaction when you referred to him as an “idiot”.
If you want to begin a conversation about global warming by calling Al Gore an idiot, don’t be surprised when folks think you’re just another right-wing hater. I will stand by my assertion that those who deny the presence of global warming are idiotic, because their ignorance is part of a massive problem that will require everyone’s help to solve.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
December 26th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Gordon, Al Gore (Jr.) IS an idiot … Want proof? Hey, he let BUSH of all people outmanuever him big time.
I did, however, once meet Senator Al Gore, Sr. and liked him very much. I am sorry his son did not turn out so well.
That aside, yes we have enviromental problems and yes they need to be solved.
I agree with the basic premise and that we should be actively and with vigorously seeking solutions. But neither major political party is the answer; too many egos and personal agendas going on.
What I’m disagreeing with here is the ongoing Church of Gore political process that turns so many of us off. Not what we need to bring, yes, consensus.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
December 26th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
What Church of Gore? This sounds suspiciously like the invented War on Christmas. It sounds like you want to attack a guy who’s working his ass off to solve the problem. It sounds petty, misguided, and ridiculous.
Please find me evidence of the Church of Gore. Winning an Oscar and a Nobel in the same year doesn’t constitute deification, simply recognition of decades of hard work. He’s leading on the issue because he can. I for one salute him for doing more than any other person about this global problem.
Tomorrow – walk down the street and ask people if they believe global warming exists and if humans contribute to it. Then tell me whether there’s not already a consensus among the populace. It’s the politicians that are behind the curve, and Al Gore has been working harder than anyone else to get the information to the people.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
December 26th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Let’s be a bit more precise, please Gordon. Al Gore did not win an Oscar, Davis Guggenheim did — look it up.
Gore won 1/2 of the Nobel Peace prize, the other 1/2 going to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
As to walking down the street, most of the folks I’ve talked to in the last year or so either believe global warming is not true or simply do not care. The only ones who are really excited are you progressives.
But, as I’ve already said, we obviously need to do something but it needs to be by scientists and engineers. Both Democrats and Republicans have proved inept at it. One of these is Al Gore. Don’t put your hope on him.
And while we’re at it, name me one presidential candidate of either party who truly gives a durn about global warming (and don’t say ‘Ron Paul’ — I might strain a stomach muscle laughing).
I really do think we the people ought to give both parties an ultimatum — give us some decent candidates or we’ll just leave Bush in until you do.
Think that would work?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Thanks David for help making the distinction between real science published in peer reviewed journals, and pseudo science funded by big oil and pushed out into the press.
Here’s a good link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26065-2004Dec25.html
Rate this comment:
0 
0