Sucking the life out of a climate change victim
The point is that people who claim that the weather or climate was better or more stable in the past, have absolutely no clue what they are talking about. Their belief system is based on superstition, incredibly bad science, and ignorance.
Even worse are people who think they can make the climate “better.” You would have to be psychotic, delusional, or both to maintain a belief system like that.
Al was auditioning for a remake of the “The Man Trap” where the Enterprise visits planet M-113. Al would be playing the role of the salt creature.
“Even worse are people who think they can make the climate “better.””
Is it any wonder that so many of these people are socialists? They not only want a utopian society, they want a utopian climate too.
At first glance I thought he was inflating his “Doll”!
lol I’ll pay that one
Steve
who are these people who think that the climate was stable or better in the past?
You must be referring to the literal Christians who believe in the garden of Eden. Or maybe Plato? Yeah he was a superstition twit. But he could stick away a half a pint of whiskey every day.
And you must be referring to Dyson about making the weather better. But I think you are being a little harsh on him. He is a true visionary, and in spite of his excesses he is a truly brilliant scientist.
Ground control to Major Tom
Really… I see no sarc tags,,,,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCtselIX4yg
That photo made me lose my appetite. Not kidding.
You got off lightly, it made me lose my lunch!
Probably because I Mistook Tipper for Hilary.
Arrghh! Now I’m gonna throw up.
Probably because I Mistook Tipper for Hilary….
Ewwwwwww!
@Tony: How do you get Plato and Dyson out of this?
When one is full of sh.., anything is possible. So please no open ended questions to Hansen’s shitbul.
Watching that ‘kiss’ was the moment when I knew, beyond any shadow of doubt, that Gore was a mega-phoney who would do anything to ‘win.’
In case anyone doesn’t recall, that face sucking display was a response to all the comments that Gore was a dull emotionless wooden puppet… and it was supposed to show us what a real emotional person he really was.
Yep, I remember that whole phony episode.
Gore had this woman, dark haired, can’t remember her name, a real strange flighty type who advised him on being a man. She was well-known on TV political talk shows, a liberal naturally.
Her job was to make a man out of the phony. Advised him on how to wear his hair like Reagan. Supposedly dreamed up the constant sweaty armpit stains.
Gore was a chip off the old block of Clinton anyway, a fraud of equal caliber. And both of them were simple re-incarnations of the original fraudster, JFK.
If America is going to survive, we will need much more information on political candidates than we now have. They hide all their records even before they get elected. The taxpayer financed staff and supposedly impartial media run interference 24-7-365.
The precedents set by these previous frauds paved the way for the Manchurian we have today.
Just remembered her name … Naomi Wolf
Only fools wouldn’t follow this guy as he is a guru when it comes to calamity change.
http://videos.videopress.com/IWYdo6hM/bill-mckibben-on-solar-and-grid-alternatives_std.original.jpg
He knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that there has never been nor will there ever be calamity change as long as CO2 was/is under 350 ppm. There was never any extreme weather until CO2 exceeded 350 ppm. It was the hubris of man and his selfish desire to seek a life beyond that of a cave dweller that has brought us to the brink of cataclismic doom with CO2 at 393 ppm. But we can turn it around by living in tents, eating tree bark and forgoing modern stuff like heat and clothing (60’s Woodstock flashback) and then we could all save the planet and we could all look as good as the guy in the link above doing it.
I though you were referring to Euell Gibbons!
350 Bill is crazier!
P.J.
Just off the top of my head. Don;t know much about Plato, but that he and others believed in a mythological golden age when everything was just grand, and then things fell apart. Glad you understoof about the literal Christians.
It is hard not to find Dyson devising all sorts of schemes for making just about everything, including the weather, better. The Dyson Sphere is quite famous, and he has little concerns about global warming. if it is turns out to be a problem, we will just invent technologies that counter it. easy as pie. Genetically designed silicon trees that trap energy, and other ones that sequester excess CO2
The entire religion is based on the idea that the climate was stable below 350 ppm.
Steve,
Well you need to let these people know about the ice ages and other periods when the climate changed.
I am of course referring to Christians and Plato, since i think even evil AL has heard of the ice ages.
But I think you might be misunderstanding something. the scientists I have read say that the climate will be less stable to some degree now but more so to a larger extent in the future. I don’t recall any scientist saying that hurricanes,. droughts, famines, and extreme heat have never happened in the past. And then they say it will get more stable a few hundred or thousand years in the future. It is only the christians and other believers in religious myths that seem to hold the views you are ascribing to AL and his minions.
But go on and go after those this crazy christians. I can understand your frustration with those irrational and unscientific beliefs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFYaXucXOCQ
Steve,
Oh and I won’t tell Dyson you think he is a nutjob. Though he is plenty used to it I am sure.
You are mental.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4_9kDO3q0w&feature=fvwp&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grbSQ6O6kbs&feature=related
Steven – you forgot the political aspect. Inevitably the warmists end up advocating dictatorship and the rule of the iron fist. Much is being said and done about skeptics being conservative old white males when in truth the issues is that AGW believers are basically politically inept, divisive by nature and dangerous
“Inevitably the warmists end up advocating dictatorship and the rule of the iron fist.”
Exactly! Hence, my comment above:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/08/14/whats-the-point/#comment-79275
Show me a warmist, and I’ll show you a moonbat.
I missed all of the Christians “literal” or otherwise enforcing their worldwide regimen including burdensome taxes, liberty limiting restraints on people’s economic and general behaviour through the power of law in an attempt to literally regulate the climate.
TD, Don’t bore everyone with something the Catholic Church may have done centuries ago.
I give you: http://www.350.org/en/understanding-350
I won’t live to see it, but historians will probably be dumbfounded as to how a society with access to the most information in history could be so ignorant.
By adjusting history to fit an agenda you can shape the course of the future. By claiming climate is an average of historical events on a global level you can destroy the important regional weather extremes. Then you just need to over emphasize any current local events.
If you make a lie big enough and repeat it often enough you get people to start believing the lie. The IPCC has been at this for 23 years with a primary goal of manufacturing a justification for their very existence. Climatologists have been doing that for even longer!
Well for a start Tony we could look at what Pachauri says. ( OK I know he is only a railway engineer).
“Based on observation, we know that there will be more floods, more drought, more heat waves and more extreme precipitation events. These things are happening,”
http://zeenews.india.com/news/eco-news/act-now-on-climate-no-need-to-wait-pachauri_720906.html
OK Tony I know Pachauri is as crooked and as inscientific as Gore. After he seems to think that SUV’s are responsible for earthquakes and tsunamis.
Given that human actions are increasingly interfering with the delicate balance of nature, natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes and tsunamis will occur more frequently, said Dr Rajendra K Pachauri, director general of TERI, and the chief of the inter-governmental panel on Climate Change.
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-03-14/coimbatore/28687815_1_harmony-green-drive-renewable-energy-sources
I have a problem every time I see some charlatan claiming Nature is in a Delicate Balance or has ever been.
Advances in human life styles are because of improvements made to adapt to the “Extremes” that nature gives us. Humans are the delicate part of the equation, certainly not nature. Nature has done just fine for billions of years and more than 95% of all species that were formed on this globe during that time have gone extinct. Human’s piddling contribution to the cycle of existence of the biosphere will probably not even be measurable a million years from now.
If nature was in such a delicate balance humans would not have needed to advance beyond “hunter gather stage. Natural variation on a regional basis was the leading cause of war
So Tony Duncan & Ill Wind Blowing are “both” pathologically obsessed with Christians.
Boy, I’m sure that’s pure coincidence.
The Christian bashing is patently offensive.
If Tony really does not know that claiming that the Earth’s climate was stable
and comfortable for humans prior to 1880, is in fact a cornerstone of the belief system that says that modern human activities, resulting in elevated CO2 in the atmosphere, created the conditions often described as global warming, then truly he has missed an awful lot of this debate.
Reminds me of one poor soul I tried to enlighten, who was completely unfazed by the famous Dr. David Viner “snow quotes” because he did not understand who Dr. Viner was and even when told, was unfamiliar with CRU Hadley and would not believe me when I told him of the significance , in his belief system, of CRU-Hadley.
This ( if they wish to constantly compare the validity of their beliefs with Christianity) is like a Christian who knows not of St. Paul , and has not heard of the Vatican.
Andy Revkin admitted that skeptics know more about the AGW issue than the true believers. He caught a lot of heat from his fellow warmists and had to immediately retract the statement. As far as TD is concerned in classic moonbat fasion he’ll say anything before he’ll concede any point.
Jimash,
I was ONLY referring to the few tens of millions of Christians who believe in aliteral interpretation of the Bible and the idea a time of innocence in the land of eden when there was a”stable” idyllic climate”. I am NOT bashing christians, just those who are so propagandized by religious fanatics that they re incapable of accepting the most basic reality in deference to bizarre myths..
As for Viner, his comments were both foolish and wrong. yet they are not part of the real science that he is part of.
Your attempts to change the subject get lamer and lamer by the day.
“I was ONLY referring to the few tens of millions of Christians who believe in aliteral interpretation of the Bible and the idea a time of innocence in the land of eden when there was a”stable” idyllic climate””
Tony, please to pare us hateful misinterpretations of Bible or readers thereof.
” I am NOT bashing christians, just those who are so propagandized by religious fanatics that they re incapable of accepting the most basic reality in deference to bizarre myths..”
Again, I am not going to explain or interpret the Bible for you. Spare me the bashing of literalists who are fewer than portrayed.
“As for Viner, his comments were both foolish and wrong. yet they are not part of the real science that he is part of.
”
Sure they are. He was a bigwig in it. Global warming was supposed to be dry, winter and summer, so he said that stuff because as such a bigwig he knew the implications of the science that he was doing didn’t he ?
And he has not admittd his wrongness but still bears those ideas even as he ascends to new levels of soul crushing power in the government. Be very afraid.
Typos
Pare= SPARE
Admittd =Admitted
Tony, please don’t speak for a group of people about things you clearly don’t understand. It isn’t acceptable to state that you’re only bashing Christians who believe the Word of God is Truth. Is that anything like only being partially racist?
What you are doing is unnecessary, and only furthers the cause of confusion. Your statements neither further the cause of climate alarmism nor skepticism.
I’m a Christian, and here’s what I believe. I believe in an Omnipotent God. Look up the word. To call anything a myth that was written in the Book, simply because it goes beyond our ability to comprehend, means that one doesn’t believe in an Omnipotent God. Now, I’m going out on a limb here and stating that most Christians, in fact, all the Christians I know, believe in an Omnipotent God.
As to the post, Steve has shown that climate wasn’t all that grand in the not so distant past. Yes, I’m sure big Al and others have heard about the Ice age and past hurricanes. Oddly, all quantitative analysis I’ve ever seen shows that as the earth warms, the climate becomes more stable. You’ve seen the hurricane numbers and the ACE values. You’ve seen the tornado numbers. You know, or at least you should know the earth is getting calmer. But, heat waves, droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes is something that we’ll all live with. But, only because of the original sin. 🙂
Now, stop with your asinine comments that insult only people that consider you a brother, and say something substantive.
SUYTS,
I have no problem with someone believing in an omnipotent God. As LONG as you don’t impose that God to explain natural processes. if you DO, then I consider your belief to be superstition, of the kind Steve is likely referring to in his post. Again I don’t have any problem with believing the Bible is the word of God. But anyone who believes everything in the bible is literally exactly what is written, and that there are no mistakes in it are superstitious. the Bible was written by human beings with limited knowledge and understanding. Unfortunately there is a strong strain in the US that uses a literal interpretation in order to undermine actual science, as in the case of evolution.
If you have evidence that shows the climate will get increasingly calmer and MORE stable with increasing temperature, you should publish it or point to the published literature that shows that.
What I am saying is substantive relative to the content of this post. the post is frivolously inaccurate in that it has no relation to what climate scientists actually believe, while pretending that it does.
So it has no relation to what climate scientists actually believe, But you will believe what they believe. Got it.
The current IPCC reports and many of the model projections are based on a relatively stable climate before 1950. Most of the Paleo data is based on relative stable climate before 1950. Mann, Jones, Briffa, Osborne, the entire team have spent years collecting information and manipulating it to prove relative stable climate for the last 2000 tears until industrialization and the major increase is after 1950 which was masked by pollutants until the air was cleared in the early 80s.
It is all BS, but that is what I have been contradicting for years. Depending on the smoothing Al-Gore-Rhythm you use you can get any results you desire. Historic surface and sea surface temperatures are worse than anecdotal and have been tortured so much they are fantasies and worthless.
Climatology is based on the GIGO principle and is worse than putting lipstick on a pig!
Mike,
Are you aware of ANY scientist that would dispute ANY of the natural disasters that Steve so monotonously displays on his blog? Any scientist who says that hurricanes , tornados, storms, heat and cold waves, droughts, and floods hardly ever occurred before the CO2 level went over 350ppm?
Do you know any climate scientist who has disputed the numerous instances of local and regional cultures and civilizations being devastated or even destroyed by changes in climate in the past? There are many many cases of such that have been well documented. The ones that come to Mind are Anastazi, and Maya, as well as more ancient Indian and Mesopotamian cultures, and of course the desertification of the Sahara. Have climate scientists developed alternative theories attacking the accepted scientific explanation in order to protect their shibboleth? No , of course not, because no climate scientists argue that there has been no climate variability and periods of extremes at various times in the past.
What you wrote above is totally inconsistent with established history accepted by most scientists INCLUDING climate scientists. Biologists whose basis for science is predicated on changes in climate impacting selection factors, and causing changes in environments that can drive evolution. Paleontologists and ecologists, biologists and climate scientists are all in general agreement about the vast changes in climate in the past, including changes since the ice ages. The only factor that climate scientists have been saying has been stable is CO2%, which has been between about 230 and 300 ppm for the last 8-10,000 years (you certainly know the figures better than I do. And they have said that the variables that effect global temperature have been within a certain ranges
Now you CAN argue that the effects of Climate change NOW are exaggerations. I have seen instances of that, and heartily disapprove when I do see it.
Being as CO2 concentration is the highest in hundreds of thousands of years and will almost certainly increase at LEAST another 20% in the relatively near future and that this change is as rapid or more so than during the huge climate changes of transition from the ice ages, these same scientists are saying that in the relatively near future the climate will be substantially LESS stable than it has been and that temperatures are going to be much higher than even the (gasp) MWP! Whether you disagree with this or not, it is ridiculous to say that climate scientists do not believe that there have been many serious extreme weather and climate events in the past.
Steve specifically says “people who claim that the weather or climate was better or more stable in the past, have absolutely no clue what they are talking about. Their belief system is based on superstition, incredibly bad science, and ignorance.” As I have shown above this characterization does not apply to climate scientists, except for possibly the immediate present and the future. Wheare as it DOES fit christians ( and fundamentals of many religions, including islam, and native american genesis myths, and likely many others) who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, which is a superstition, and who accept bad science, and are ignorant of real science, such as evolution.
Steve specifically says “Even worse are people who think they can make the climate “better.” You would have to be psychotic, delusional, or both to maintain a belief system like that.” that is why I brought in Freeman Dyson, who very explicitly says we can make the climate better in the not distant future. In fact that is one of his major arguments against current action against. CO2. Even if it DOES cause significant changes in global temp, we can just develop technologies to sequester CO2 and other actions to stop that. Many environmentalists are OPPOSED to geo engineering, and want to cut CO2 emissions so that we don’t have to try massive experiments that geo engineering would entail. in fact almost all environmentalists consider the huge increase in CO2 emissions to BE a huge experiment with unknown potentially catastrophic consequences.
I have read MANY people talk about the great beneifts that will happen because of increased CO2.don;t they qualify as people who think we can make the climate better?
” As I have shown above this characterization does not apply to climate scientists, except for possibly the immediate present and the future. Wheare as it DOES fit christians ( and fundamentals of many religions, including islam, and native american genesis myths, and likely many others) who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, which is a superstition, and who accept bad science, and are ignorant of real science, such as evolution.”
Reading your stuff Tony, one has to wonder what you thought the controversy over the “Hockey stick” was all about anyway .
Don’t you get it at all ?
You crack me up. If alarmists were knowledgeable about the past, they wouldn’t have the idiotic, misinformed superstitious beliefs they have now.
You think that typing lots of ASCII characters on your keyboard can mask their stupidity?
Jimash,
The hockey stick, even if is was a premeditated evil fraud said nothing about climate and weather specifics. ALL it showed was global temperature.
And no. I don’t get it. I am a skeptic, so i don’t just believe something, which is false, just because Steve says it is so.
Especially when Steve and others don’t actually respond to what I write which specifically contradicts the assertions. (see Steve’s content free response above)
You aren’t a skeptic. You cling to every excuse for an AGW lifeline that pops into your field of view. Are you getting paid?
TonyD:
There is nothing coming that somewhere on the globe it has not happened before!
The IPCC in their reports conveniently disregard extreme weather events in the past and we are even seeing current researcher saying “Worst Since” and pick an appropriate date, such as when a certain type of record was started. We have been bombarded with worst drought in recorded history with a minor foot note that history started 12 years ago. We are experiencing the worst ice melt in recorded history when the ice loss is manly due to transport from cold regions and sublimation. Dry winds in the Arctic region deplete ice when the temperatures are well below freezing.
Most of these news articles are provided because of the experts claiming unprecedented conditions which is not the case at all.
Tell Ms Hayhoe that she tends to exaggerate her claims as do the wonderful folks at NSIDC who claim history started in 1979 while there is evidence of more extreme ice loss during the Holocene Optimum.
CO2 has little to nothing to do with climate but does enhance growth in vegetation both on land and in the sea. People that promote the positive effects of Increased CO2 are not discussing climate in that situation. There is the issue that the Optimum Periods were overall better for humanity than the current climate conditions so warming would be more beneficial than the climate remaining static.
James Hansen is doing his Job which has been to provide justification to continue funding a project that became obsolete in the mid 70s when they decided it was not feasible the send people to Mars and Venus. You should appreciate Hansen’s work because he has been orchestrating climate Circus Acts to justify his job. He brings funding to NASA! Sort of like a trained monkey!
Sounds like a true ass clown, but Tony Dumpcan says, but I am a skeptic, I am a skeptic, I am a skeptic. Just not so with AGW, he’s a believer.
No, you don’t get it Tony. And I don’t see how you don’t get it .
Nothing to do with Steve at all.
You got a blind spot so I will lay it out for you. (in my lazy, half-assed way)
It wasn’t just the misrepresentation of the current temperature ( and really even the concept of a global average temperature is flawed )
but the homogenization and adjustment of the past, such that the MWP and LIA simply disappeared into a more or less straight line, comprising the handle of the hockey stick , and
imparting the message that the climate , as represented by the global temperature average,
was stable and reliable for the past 1200 years or so, when we know for a fact and proven again and again that it was not so.
That you accept, even insist that the climate has in fact fluctuated over time, and deny that any climate scientists or advocates have inferred, implied , or directly stated that prior to 1880 ( or whatever date they are using today) that the climate as represented by the temperature,
was stable before that point, is insane. They did. Your protestations of their integrity and attempts to flog the christians to deflect attention away from your willful long-winded ignorance, are really annoying.
Jimash,
when you say the “climate as represented by the temperature average was stable before that point” is EXACTLY my point, Weather and climate events are not determined solely by average temperature, so the argument that scientists fraudulently presenting a picture of s stable average temperature has nothing to do with the fact that all climate scientists are well aware of past past weather and climate related disasters, and that there is no disagreement between climate scientists, biologists, anthroplogists, or even (gasp ) geologists, about this.
Funny, I seem to be repeating myself here.
As for the Second pat of the post. You have not made it clear whether you think Steve is wrong or Dyson is psychotic and/or delusional.
Tony, I’m starting to think that you are just scum.
Again with the idiotic sophistry.
Tony…… you are arguing against historically established facts.
“…..blather….blather….and more blather…. who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, which is a superstition, and who accept bad science, and are ignorant of real science, such as evolution.”……. So, creationists are ignorant of real science…..such as evolution. How do you reconcile that with the contributions of many great scientists …… who also happened to believe the book of Genesis? What of Newton? While I can’t tell you his specific interpretation of Genesis, I can tell you volumes of his contribution to real science and his disregard for the evolutionary theory. How do you reconcile any of this? Climatologists don’t think it was a calmer nicer climate before 350ppm? Cool, you need to share that with a bunch of pinheads at 350.org and tell Mike Mann to fix his graph. You should also explain to the people that just got impoverished by their electric bill that it wasn’t the sophistry and advocacy of the scientists that prohibited the construction of energy generation plants. It would also be nice if you’d send a note to the IPCC and tell them they need to be a bit more clear as to their meaning the next time some asshole interprets it to mean we’re all going to die if we emit more CO2….. that certainly is the message taken from that work of lunacy.
Tony, in case you haven’t noticed, most of us don’t give a flying fu….. rat’s ass about what people believe or don’t believe. What we care about is the inanity that follows. If what you say is true, then surely you can be an advocate, as I am, for ignoring those imbecilic morons. Because the way you’re characterizing those people, they don’t really believe much of anything different than you or I as far as climate goes, only they believe in actions to be taken against something they don’t really articulate or state. That’s beautiful……add the EPA as a group we need to give a heads up to. The scientists really didn’t mean for you to stop producing energy!!!!
SUYTS,
One thing I appreciate about you is that you don’t GARA about what people believe.
However, you are completely misinterpreting my explanation about what climate scientists believe. Andthey do believe something very different from you. they believe that the unprecedented increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, is already having a detectable effect on weather and climate and that in the not distant future it will have an extreme effect on the climate with numerous consequences for humanity. That is totally consistant with the fact that they believe that there have been disastrous climate events in the past. They’re view is that in the FUTURE there will be more extreme events because of the level and rate of change. And they POINT to past instances of extreme changes causing extreme consequences. You can argue that all you want, but you CAN’T say that they know nothing about real history regarding weather and climate. Temperature proxies and models about temp say absolutely nothing about local or regional climate effects regardless of CO2 level. You know that Steve knows, it and so do most people.
Your bringing up Newton is totally irrelevant. I assume you realize Newton died long before there was a scientific theory of evolution. One does not need to magically know the ultimate truth of all scientific knowledge in order to make great discoveries in science. Newton, as far as I know made no great discoveries about either historical facts of the bible or about biological facts relevant to the Bible. Interestingly he and Liebnitz and others created the framework that allowed the determinist theory of the world to challenge the concepts of creationism espoused by the Church at the time. it was called the enlightenment after all. And Newton himself held beliefs that I am pretty sure Steve would consider superstitious and ignorant.
the rest of you comment is also irrelevant to this issue in any way. Mann’s graph, people electric bill, etc, the effects of emitting more CO2 are the issue regarding those points, not the ridiculous characterization of scientists beliefs about the past.
🙄
I wonder why it is so very important for this “Tony Duncan” (as he styles himself) to evangelize us non-believers.
I’m glad he’s not somehow obsessed with religion, that Tony Duncan, him. His continual and monotonous evangelization would probably be offensive if it were someone else.
He is an entertainer and he is attempting to impersonate a comedian! Some of us just play along for the entertainment value!
No, he seems to be obsessed with Hansen and anything Steven says that contradicts his AGW beliefs.
I am a sadist and enjoy trying to trip his trigger! ( Smiley with horns)
It’s almost like Steven Goddard is somehow incongruously important to Tony Duncan’s world view.
you mean like this Mike. 😈
Stark,
How am I evangelizing you? Where am I saying anything that supports alarmist positions? I am just pointing out assertions that are obviously wrong, and no one offers any content that contradicts that conclusion
Again 🙄
Tony Duncan says:
August 15, 2011 at 3:24 am
SUYTS,
I have no problem with someone believing in an omnipotent God. As LONG as you don’t impose that God to explain natural processes.
=======================================================
Tony, you really must stop. When our founding fathers, and many others of that same generation wrote the word Nature, do you not understand what they were writing and speaking about? So, their knowledge was based on superstition? Or is it that you believe a believer can only contribute to science outside the realm of climate and evolution? Are you familiar with what Genesis actually states? BTW, even though I think there is some validity in micro evolution, the current evolutionary theory is flawed beyond redemption. …… billions and billions of random genetic mutations…….phhhhtttt. You should really reason things out before you expose those views.
I know I am a random genetic mutation! 8) 😉
SUYTS,
The founding fathers were in great majority influenced by my above mentioned enlightenment writers. Since they had no knowledge of evolution there was no way they could have included that in any of their actions. So technically their beleifs were based on superstition When one ascribes an effect to a nonscientific source, and then later a scientific knowledge explicates the reality, the previous belief has to be considered superstition or at best innacurate belief. I think it is quite possible for people to contribute to any field regardless of their beliefs. Believing in superstitions will likely make it harder to contribute valid useful knowledge. Pretty mush that is the history of science.
Are you know saying that evolutionary theory is completely wrong, except for small micro evolution that cannot lead to speciation? If you are contending that there is some sort of magical creation that happens directed by god outside the realm of science then I believe you are believing a superstition,
TonyD:
Technically your beliefs are based on superstition! Technically ALL beliefs are based on Superstition!
If “IT” can not be verified by real world observations then “IT” is based on Superstition! Climatology is not real science as it is practiced today but a Superstition because the GHG proposition and the AGW proposition can NOT be verified by real worl observations. Climatology is a What If game. Many of the current fields of so called scientific research are what if games and the entire environmental movement is a what if game.
There are a number of terms that have been coined to describe this illusion, Pseudo Science, Cargo Cult Science (That fits some of the researchers), Pathological Science( that fits the IPCC process and the so called “science” political agenda groups).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xseg9DyBC40&feature=related
Mike,
you are right technically ALL beliefs are based on superstition. Until we have complete scientific knowledge of everything, we are doomed to live in a world where science is meaningless. Yes, climatology and evolution and numerous other sciences are based on historical factors and cannot be double blind tested. But many many elements of those sciences can be, your assertions of superstition are just that.
Funny how that has nothing to do with this post.
Do let’s have a poll. Is steve wrong or is Dyson delusional/psychotic? that question seems to have less room for obfuscation.
I am always fascianted by how my rather clear and specific responses can be so distorted. i am of course used to it, but it still fascinates me.
Steve made a post where he makes an asseriton. the assertion is clearly wrong.
I typically make a sarcastic comment that applies his assertion to people whom it actually DOES describe.
then all manner of responses that are irrelevant to anything I have said sprout and grow.
Very simply. Climate scientists do not believe that weather and climate has ever been idyllic or wonderful. they are ALL aware of the numerous huge and devastating disasters of the past caused by isolated weather events and by longer term climactic effects.. No one believes CO2 concentrations need to be at any level in order for catastrophic weather events to happen. As far as for attacking Christians, I just picked the first and most prominent group that has a strong element that denies science on the basis of superstition. i know the majority of Christians do accept science, but the prevalence of the belief that evolution is not real and that all species came about as specific acts of magical creation is often maintained by literalists who believe in the numerous other myths, including the Garden of Eden. This certainly qualifies as superstition, bad science and ignorance.
The idea that because I point out Steve’s irrational statements makes me an AGW apologist is meaningless. I have repeatedly on numerous posts asked people to supply anything I have said that supports alarmist positions. As of yet no one has provided any, unless my belief that CO2 does have a greenhouse effect of some degree means I am an alarmist. In which case so is every climate scientist, including all your favorites.
i notice only one person has said a thing about Dyson. I had some long ridiculous arguments about Dyson in the past, as he is a skeptic about ACC, but I don’t see anyone coming out and defending him as not being “psychotic, delusional, or both to maintain a belief system like that.” Dyson is the poster child for someone who believes we can make climate better. So either Steve’s statement is wrong on the face of it, or a darling of the anti global warming blogosphere has been outed as crazy.
Of course I pretty mush said all of this in my previous posts, and no one has provided any content that offers any reason to think anything else. But of course there will be a flurry more that find novel ways of ignoring or distorting and of course just ad hominem
‘
‘
Spoken like a true AGW believer. 😆
What a buffoon. No scientist with a solid knowledge of the past gives an FF about this global warming BS, which is why geologists generally think it is a joke.
As someone whose background is rooted in geology I must emphatically agree. We don’t look an interglacial in the mouth.
Tony,
Nobody bothers to care what Tony Duncan thinks about James Dyson. He makes vacuum cleaners.
Also, the fact that Tony Duncan is convinced that everyone else subscribes to a cult of personality over scientists and philosophers tells us more about Tony Duncan than any 3000 word screed on someone else’s weblog ever could.
Nobody bothers to notice what Tony Duncan think about Freeman Dyson, either.
Stark,
but what do YOU think about Dyson? is he delusiona/ psychotic, or is Steve wrong?
I’m sorry that you feel that way, Tony. Where does Steven Goddard mention Dyson, again?
Stark,
Wow, you are right. Steve didn’t mention ANY individual in the post. Obviously then, it can refer to nobody. WHAT was I thinking?
August 15, 2011 at 3:24 am
SUYTS,
[already addressed in another comment] ……………..
If you have evidence that shows the climate will get increasingly calmer and MORE stable with increasing temperature, you should publish it or point to the published literature that shows that.
=====================================================
No, what you should do, is demand that other prove their posit. Should you take on faith that the climate will be more unstable if we warm a bit, or if we emit more CO2? I’ve given you examples….. information you already know, or should know. The onus isn’t upon me or anyone else to prove an unprovable. The onus is upon the people with such a fantastic imagination that their science controverts things already established. …… Mike Mann and his evaporation of the LIA and MWP….for instance. The climate is getting more extreme? Prove it! It isn’t for me to disprove a fallacious concept. It is for the people advocating the fallacies to show how it isn’t fallacious. They won’t, they haven’t, they can’t. Yet, we’ve people like you that lend them validity. Why?
Tony, I’ll make a deal with you. You give me the equivalent to Dr. Mann’s grant for the hockey stick, and I’ll take the time off of work and do the study and submit and publish the science that shows how FOS they are. BTW, I’m working on a sea-level paper as we speak, in my off time. It disgusts me that I believe its required. Damnitt!!!!! I’ve already bought and paid for the work!!! Everyone of those SOBs need to be made to reimburse this nation for their tripe. If there is any justice in this world, we’ll see them suffer as they’ve seen the people of this nation suffer because of their advocacy.
SUYTS,
that all sounds great. it has nothing to do with this post.
Hmm….. Tony, I was quoting you in my response. I’m very sure my response to your quote was pertinent to your statement. Now, whether your statement was pertinent to the post, that’s a different story……… But,….:-)
Let’s see, Steve does a thread about how people believe things were better back when………. you seem to take exception….. either it wasn’t better back then(its difficult to discern your position through your bigotry) or they don’t believe it was….. (they being climatologists) I state there is plenty of evidence showing things are less volatile now as opposed to then. You say I should publish (prove) it. …………….Nothing to do with this post? No, it has everything to do with this post…… except for your maniacal dispersions towards Christians.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXWbMu4PtpE
SUYTS,
Yes you were addressing me in the response. That particular point has nothing to do with this post, not that it doesn’t have merit to consider. Since I have to respond to so many different comments on my comment, I do occasionally follow people on tangents.
SUYTS, the thing I take exception with Steve’s post is the ludicrous assertion that climate scientists ignore that past climate and weather has been disastrous. You and I and Steve and Mike all know that climate scientists are very well versed in the fact that there have been constant numerous and devastating weather and climate effects in the past. We have all read numerous papers that discuss these disasters. Steve has ben posting hundreds of past disasters to support his assertions that climate scientists are unaware of the TRUE past. These are meaningless as no scientist I know of disputes any of it. I wonder what your reaction would be if Joe Romm started posting hundreds of links that showed really nice weather all over the world in all parts of the globe for hundreds of years into the past. and then said that “The point is that people who claim that the weather or climate was WORSE or LESS stable in the past, have absolutely no clue what they are talking about. Their belief system is based on superstition, incredibly bad science, and ignorance.” I am not guessing you would say. Gosh he is right. All those nice days he has documented in the past and those BAD people DENY it!
as for your contention of increasing calmness, I do not know anything about that.IF you know of research that indicates that I am certainly open to it. There is no onus on me to prove or believe anything, if you think it is important and want to share that with me, i am all for it. I am not sure how that counts for bigotry.
And what is your take on Dyson? Psychotic/delusional or not?
No, you are though.
Tony, I haven’t researched Dyson’s views enough to make a determination……. so, I’ll have to withhold judgment.
As to the research, start with Dr. Ryan Maue. http://coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/2011GL047711-pip.pdf
Look at table 2.
Tony, it isn’t that the alarmists deny the existence of these events, it is that they ignore them. While they are aware, they disregard. As far as who has what onus, the onus of proof is the ones asserting our climate is changing for the worse. And, I endorse Steve’s continual posting of such events until the day comes that some alarmist climatologist either acknowledges they can’t show it or prove that the climate is getting more volatile. What’s ludicrous is that we’re disrupting the world’s socio-economic state without insisting on proof.
Tony, its not they don’t admit that bad weather happened in the past, its that they are constantly preaching that it will get worse and be mor frequent because CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere at 1.5 ppm/year. They do this at every opportunity in order to scare people into some sort of action.
They keep saying the current weather is unusual or unprecedented, which it clearly is not.
Glacoerman,
That makes perfect sense. I don’t argue with your statement at all, and I imagine most climate scientists would agree with it as well. I was waiting for someone to say that. So that means we can end this thread, right? ( I am willing to give up the Dyson angle now as well). I have a warm feeling in my heart now.
Tonyd.
Looks like you may have earned a week at the villa in Greece. George is happy with your efforts.
Glacierman (spelled it right this time)
He may be old but he is gentle.
i know the majority of Christians do accept science, but the prevalence of the belief that evolution is not real and that all species came about as specific acts of magical creation is often maintained by literalists who believe in the numerous other myths, including the Garden of Eden. This certainly qualifies as superstition, bad science and ignorance.
=================================================================
Really? I assert it is the height of ignorance to simplify the discussion as such. And, as I stated earlier, current evolutionary theory defies logic and knowledge. You can call it what you will, but science isn’t part of it. So, the Big Bang doesn’t qualify as some magical myth of creation? Explain. Tony, the Book of Genesis doesn’t specifically state what God did to make such things occur. Any literalist worth their salt would tell you this. I believe you’re engaging in a stereo-typing that doesn’t reflect reality. You are making sweeping over-generalizations which is reflecting poorly upon yourself.
Tony, I’m prepared to discuss evolutionary theory with you. I’m also willing to discuss the evolution of the evolutionary theory and how today’s differs from the original and intermediate thoughts. I’m also prepared and willing to discuss the micro and macro thoughts of evolutionary theory and the differences thereof, and how it applies to both traditional Christian concepts and the secular beliefs of today. If you want to, feel free to make a posit that does something different than inferring literal translationists are somehow unscientific and superstitious without proof of their superstition and unscientific mannerisms. You can do it here or go to my blog, make a comment, and I’ll start a new thread for you.
SUYTS
In blog comments it is not really possible to do anything but simplify an issue like this.
there is a difference between the big bang theory and the attitudes of Christians toward Genesis. The big bang theory has elements, numerous ones that are based on well established laws of science and empirical data. the book of Genesis is based on the likely oral history that was then written down by human beings at a time when there was no scientific understanding of basic physical processes or much of any science at all. That does not mean the Bible or book of genesis is wrong. it does mean that one cannot use it as a source for a scientific understanding of the world.
You seem to use the word “literal” in a different way than I do. By literal i mean taking the words of the Bible and asserting that they mean exactly what the current meaning of the words are. I have known Christians who believed that was the case. I am quite confident that there are many millions of people who do think this way, and who are therefore wrong about issues that relate to science when they find it to be in conflict with the Bible. Your use fo the phrase, “literalist worth they’re salt” sounds to me like people who in fact are interpreting the Bible and not taking it literally.
I would love to have a conversation on evolution and this issue with you on your site, where we could likely make more progress than here! Not something I can do right away, but I am much more familiar with evolutionary theory than climate theory, and have my own very strong feelings about the problems with the theory.