Sunday, February 26, 2006

Science? You can't handle the Science!

The climate is aware of the swamp in which the Myron Ebell swims. We've wasted time reading certain blog postings, that at least have links to the claims they are referencing, usually four year old articles by the BBC with quotes taken out of context. This reality-challenged ruminant is obviously aware of all the pages of scary global warming reports he had to skim through to find a quote like:
Dr Ian Joughin, of the American space agency's (Nasa) Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and Slawed Tulaczyk, of the University of California at Santa Cruz, say they have found "strong evidence" that the ice sheet in the Ross Sea area is growing, by 26.8 gigatons per year.
while ignoring the following paragraphs in the same report:
He said the research only covered a relatively small area, over a short period of time and it was possible that what they were detecting was a minor fluctuation.

He pointed out that there were other areas in West Antarctica where the ice was thinning significantly, such as the Pine Island Glacier and the Thwaites Glacier.
It doesn't seem to matter how many times you use the word "Global" to these brain-suicides, they still point at the next snowflake to fall from the sky, even if it's the last snowflake in the world, and rant that it disproves everything.

Apparently, there hasn't been enough scientific research done yet to be convincing, although some might argue that there has already been too much because bad apples get published that Myron and his friends to keep citing and lying are representative. Actually, it's obvious not enough has been published to fit their views, otherwise why would they need to cite a pulp science fiction novel:
"In his latest best seller State of Fear, Michael Crichton does a devastating expose of the way ecological groups have tweaked data and facts to create mass hysteria. He points out that we know astonishingly little about the environment. All sides make exaggerated claims."
It wouldn't surprise us if the readers of Mr "libertarianleanings"
Blogger never followed his links. They all point to senile mugshots of Ronald Reagan, for all they care. This blogger did at least point to one of his earlier posts where he took the scientists to task for their funny numbers:
Do the arithmetic. Carbon dioxide concentration comes out to be .03723% of the troposphere, while methane represents .0001843%. The combined estimated increase in these two gases represents .0093413% of the total atmosphere... We're being asked to conclude that these trace gases in Earth's atmospheric blanket have some magical impact on its insulating qualities, while nitrogen, which makes up 78% of the atmosphere, and oxygen, which makes up 21% of the atmosphere have little bearing. Does this make any sense? Take a good look at the wording in this paragraph [from a scientific article]...

"Despite their relative scarcity, the most important trace gases in the Earth's atmosphere are the greenhouse gases... Despite being present in only 370 parts per million by volume of air, carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases help to keep the Earth 33°C warmer than it would otherwise be without an atmosphere."

Notice the part about how the "greenhouse gases help to keep the Earth 33°C warmer than it would otherwise be without an atmosphere." They know they're pushing a load of crap.
And with that, he decided the earth was flat. While he is not in danger of falling off the planet, he does still have to live on it, and going around deluding himself and others about what is going on now because it would otherwise involve choosing how to change his life today, rather than being forced to change it later by far more painful future events is a remarkably stupid game plan. This libertarianism thought pattern has always been nihilist.

By the way, the average temperature of the moon is -46 degrees C. Would you like to buy it? It's yours. Now go and live on it.


Anonymous Tom Bowler said...

Thanks for linking my posts, but I think your misunderstand my position. I'm not trying to make the case that there is no global warming. What I dispute is the supposed cause. The case for blaming greenhouse gases is based on a measured increase in the presence of CO2 and methane, and a rise in average temperature that occurred presumably around the same time. That doesn't prove cause and effect. Do greenhouse gases explain why the glaciers that covered New England during the Ice Age finally retreated?

Global Warming may be a scientific fact, but linking it to greenhouse gases is a political movement. "Scientists" were trying to make the case that CO2 was the cause of global cooling back in the 70s. Fortunately there were able to make the quick switch from cooling when it became apparent things were warming up. The "greenhouse effect" was born, thus keeping the "Global -insert phenomenon of choice here-" movement alive.

And it's all to make sure nobody takes more than their fair share. Won't the world be a wonderful place when nobody is allowed to drive those nasty SUVs or turn up their thermostat more than should be allowed. Hey, did you ever consider that there might be more CO2 around because there are more people breathing out? I wonder if we can do something about that.

Anyway, thanks again for the link.

1:47 PM, February 28, 2006 Permanent link to this entry  
Blogger goatchurch said...

The Global cooling myth is a fairy tale based on a couple of speculative articles about ice ages in 1975 which deceitful people like you put into the mouths of those who never mentioned it. There has never been a claim that CO2 could cause global cooling; you make yourself look stupid by writing that. For details, check the Global Cooling wikipedia story. If you know of any further contemporary citations to this irrelevant story, please add them.

This same type of bull came from Myron Ebell last year when he wrote articles decrying how environmentalists were blaming the Indian Ocean Tsunami on Global Warming. No such claims were made. He imagined them and then lied that they were real.

Global Warming is happening. The sun is not getting hotter. The earth is not moving closer to the sun. The mystery has been answered by our climate models which prove that the observed change in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere numerically predicts it. That change in concentration is exactly consistent with the amount of fossilized carbon that has been newly released into the environment. It does not come from human respiration. The cause and effect is as clear as the moon causing tides -- a phenomenon that flat-earthers also did not have mind to consider.

Those are the facts, my friend. It is utterly irrelevant whether you do or do not like the consequences, and whether it contradicts your personal simplistic fundamentalist socio-economic belief system. When you, like Myron, now have to cling to a ridiculous conspiracy theory expounded in a science fiction novel and nowhere else about how Greenpeace can make scientists across the world fake their data in a consistent manner, then I'm sorry for your pathetic waste of an education. At least Myron gets paid to play stupid.

5:56 AM, March 01, 2006 Permanent link to this entry  
Anonymous Tom Bowler said...

Gee, why so angry Goat? Is it that people may not behave the way you'd like? Or maybe you're a bit disgruntled that folks don't immediately recognize you for the towering intellect that you are.

I think it will get worse before it gets better. You certainly won't win converts among us stupid deceitful people, but with the disparaging tone of your posts, you won't win anyone else over either.

9:35 AM, March 01, 2006 Permanent link to this entry  
Blogger goatchurch said...

And your point is what, exactly?

Are you suggesting you respond to kinder words, or do you ignore evidence no matter how it is presented?

1:22 PM, March 01, 2006 Permanent link to this entry  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Comrade Goatchurch

Would you be so kind as to explain, in words that a simple intellect such as my own would understand, why it is the source of all evil for me to travel ten miles to work in my dinky little car (56 miles per gallon, no it's not an American vehicle), yet your holiday in China was totally benign. Did you walk or cycle to China? I can't imagine you would use an airplane.

Also, Comrade Goatchurch, may I be be permitted to warm my house a little this winter. I am sure you will be celebrating the recent increases in the cost of domestic heat and power across Europe and the increased economy (I think the term used by the BBC was 'fuel poverty') this will lead to, particularly amoung the old and poor.

Are you angry because no-one listens to you, or because your cave is cold?

1:37 PM, March 01, 2006 Permanent link to this entry  
Blogger goatchurch said...

Let's just double-check where you guys are coming from on this. Consider the following questions:

Q1. The severity of global warming is determined by--

(a) what I feel is within my level of comfort;

(b) what an environmentalist clearly implies by the nature of the way he lives, if I assume for the sake of argument he is not an ordinary hypocrite;

(c) geophysical, thermodynamic and meteorological parameters, such as the radiative forcing of gasses such as CO2, which can be measured, and then modelled to predict the likely outcome; or

(d) you're a Commie rat.

Q2. If a team of astronomers was to predict that a large meteor that can be seen with a telescope is likely to strike the Earth on April 14, 2048 and obliterate all human life, would you--

(a) count on it missing the Earth by a few thousands of miles;

(b) look for a scandal in those astronomers' personal lives you could use to assassinate their characters, and accuse them of getting the law of gravity wrong;

(c) check if any of the other teams are getting the same results and, if they are, assume it's true and talk about doing something about it; or

(d) I'm just not going to answer these trick questions which you are insulting me with.

And some quick true or false statements to round it off:

(I) Nothing we say, do, drive, own, heat our houses with, or harrangue each other about makes the slightest difference to the facts, although it can change our perception of them.

(II) It is reasonable to report a scientific article by taking the sentences we like out of context, even though in so doing we contradict the conclusions.

(III) Shit happens, but it goes away if we ignore it.

(IV) Before the widespread use of fossil fuels since 1800, humans lived in caves and didn't know how to burn wood.

2:22 AM, March 02, 2006 Permanent link to this entry  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Goat, you're wasting your time, though it's wasted on a good cause. Uncontrolled capitalism has the same intellect as cancer. Both are parasitic, and always destroys the host.One has only to look at the last two presidential elections to realize how seriously Americans regard global warming. Americans believe in the tangilbe, like WalMart.

10:35 PM, December 29, 2006 Permanent link to this entry  

Post a Comment

<< Home