Political Animal

Blog

January 27, 2012 10:58 AM “Cui Bono” Indeed!

By Ed Kilgore

In a world full of doubt and contention, there are a few things, other than the proverbial items of death and taxes, you can count on to be completely reliable. And one of those is the ideological mendacity of the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal.

Today the Journal offers up a sort of climate-change deniers’ greatest-hits edition: a compilation of every data point and rhetorical tactic available to urge that this phenomenon does not exist and cannot in any event be addressed.

In these turgid lines can be found a treasure trove of prevarications. You’ve got your impressive-sounding list of scientists agreeing with the Journal (with no corresponding list of those who disagree; the newsprint or bandwith necessary to publish those would bankrupt even the WSJ). You’ve got your quote marks around the term global warming. You’ve got your allusions to the silly “Climategate” kerfuffle. And you’ve got your unsubstantiated allegations of “persecution” of the brave “heretics” who dare stand with poor, puny Industry against the awesome power of academics.

But best of all, this editorial asks a perfectly good question that it answers in an extraordinarily myopic way:

Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word “incontrovertible” from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question “cui bono?” Or the modern update, “Follow the money.”
Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.

Gee, you’d think in all this tough-minded truth-telling about those with a financial stake in the climate change debate the Journal might have noted in passing that the most powerful economic interests on the planet have an interest in doing nothing about it.

But then that’s the Journal’s core constituency, and I suppose it is predictable its editors remain willing to threaten the credibility of its usually solid news-gathering operation to tell those who would melt the ice caps without a moment’s hesitation exactly what they want to hear.

Ed Kilgore is a contributing writer to the Washington Monthly. He is managing editor for The Democratic Strategist and a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute. Find him on Twitter: @ed_kilgore.

Comments

  • Josef K on January 27, 2012 11:38 AM:

    I agree with Egon Spengler: print is dead.

  • CKDexter Haven on January 27, 2012 11:42 AM:

    I'm thinking de-caf.

  • Mimikatz on January 27, 2012 11:46 AM:

    For some it is simple greed, but for all of the deniers to a varying degree there is the fairly simple point that if we are indeed facing increased warming, with even half the catastrophic consequences actual climate scientists are predicting, then we will indeed need to scale back or at least drastically change both production and consumption, and it will require a great deal of planning and regulation. It can't be overemphasized that to many deniers these kinds of consequences seem more terrifying than the heat waves and frigid winters, desertification, water and food shortages, rising sea levels etc that scientists predict. So the planet can't possibly be warming, because if it is, the future is too frightening to contemplate. Not because of ecological changes but because of political and economic changes an adequate response would require. In addition, I think they just can't face they might be wrong, kind of like their views on the Iraq War.

  • stormskies on January 27, 2012 11:48 AM:

    It is just like David Frum said about Fox propaganda: "an alternative information system". Which of course means an information system that nothing more than a set of interlocking delusions that whey wish to 'believe' is reality, but, in reality, are nothing but delusions.

    Yet these delusions are so interlocking that they do not allow for any actual facts called reality to penetrate those 'alternate information systems'.

    For all those Repiglicans who need to 'believe' in these delusions considered to be reality their psychological stability is dependent on those delusive beliefs.

    Given that in our country 20% of our population 'believes' that the Sun actually revolves around the Earth, and another 50% 'believes' that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old in which human co-mingled with the Dinosaurs, those that peddle these delusions have a willing and utterly ignorant vast amount of our fellow citizens to make them 'believe' in whatever propaganda they need to peddle.

    This is the true tragedy of our country: an extremely stupid population of people.

  • c u n d gulag on January 27, 2012 11:50 AM:

    stormskies,
    More like "an alternative universe."

  • Al B Tross on January 27, 2012 11:53 AM:

    Capitalism knows no morality.
    That is all they care about, is wealth and money. The essence of what evil looks like, a faceless, soulless machine that consumes living, organic things and turns them into numbers, for evil men that only care about numbers, wealth and power.
    These folk know their time on this planet is limited, and they want what they want when they want it, and don't care whats left over.
    To them the only good science is that which makes them the most money, the fastest. The only art that is viable is commercial art, and empathy is for losers.

    Them speaking about science is like the Pope telling us about childbirth.

  • TCinLA on January 27, 2012 11:59 AM:

    In other news, sun continues to rise in the east.

    I have been dealing with this question for going on 40 years now. Back in 2009, while cleaning out the garage, I ran across "The Limits To Growth," published by the Club of Rome and used as a textbook in my graduate degree in environmental management (after using the degree for its intended purpose for 10 years, I was so tired of batting my head against the brick wall that I went off to Los Angeles and became a writer). At the time, back in the mid-70s, the book was attacked by the predecessors of the morons at the WSJ editorial page as being "communist," "Marxist," "dead wrong," etc., etc., for all its predictions of what would happen about the issues if nothing was done. They made very specific prognostications of what things would be like in 30 years, i.e, around 2002-2005. So I re-read the book in 2009, with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight and knowledge of the outcomes, and guess what? EVERY ONE OF THEIR PREDICTIONS WAS RIGHT. And what that means is, we are Truly Fucked, and it's probably too late to even avoid the worst case scenario.

    All of which makes me realize I am glad that this past week I figured out I really did have to find a new home for the new kittens because I cannot for sure tell them I can care for them all their lives, since that is about a 15 year committment, and six generations of TCinLA male history says I only have around 14 left. To which I now say Thank Goodness. I won't be around to suffer through the world the Wall Street Journal and the rest of the scum have created.

    But the good news is, in about a century, the Earth won't have to put up with the failed evolutionary experiment in biological intelligence that can foresee the consequences of its actions and modify its behavior subsequently. The cancer on the planet that is Homo Sap will be gone. Good riddance! We may all be fine folks individually, but in total we are the biggest problem the planet has ever seen.

  • RepublicanPointOfView on January 27, 2012 12:02 PM:

    Why is there so much passion about global warming...

    There is absolutely no need for passion about Climate Change if you don't give a shit about your children or grandchildren or the future of this planet!

    What is so damn hard to understand???
    - More is never enough!
    - I've got mine, f*ck you!

  • kindness on January 27, 2012 12:04 PM:

    The WSJ's news division stopped being credible when Rupert Murdoch bought them. Now they are just another propaganda organ for the Republican Party.

  • CJ on January 27, 2012 12:04 PM:

    I suspect that the editors of the Wall Street Journal are well aware that they're selling snake-oil. They're also well aware that their customers are the same people who are easily able, albeit unintentionally, to forget that Canada is a foreign county. ("We need to build the Keystone pipeline to reduce our dependence on foreign oil!")

    Despite their faux disdain for science, the GOP elite have mastered the science of manipulation.

    Language: A Key Mechanism of Control: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4443.htm

  • Grumpy on January 27, 2012 12:05 PM:

    "Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them."

    To the extent that Lysenko was leeching off the Motherland, the fact that his science was disastrously wrong is beside the point. He could've leeched with entirely scrupulous science.

    By the same token, climate scientists would tap a richer vein by taking cash from energy companies to aver that global warming doesn't exist.

  • jeanne marie on January 27, 2012 12:05 PM:

    Them speaking about science is like the Pope telling us about childbirth.

    Heh

  • SadOldVet on January 27, 2012 12:06 PM:

    When Rupert Murdoch took over control of the Wall Street Journal, the first and most easily visible change was the complete elimination of a daily front page column listing the lastest criminal activities that had been brought to light regarding corporations.

  • Trollhattan on January 27, 2012 12:08 PM:

    Wow. It's 1995 forever in the WSJ boardroom.

    Follow the damn money, indeed. If they had a shred of honesty (hardy-har-har) they'd recognize that "following the money" quickly leads to the hard reality that the forces arrayed against doing anything to advance beyond a carbon-fuel based economy have many, many orders of magnitude more money and power. Good old Freudian projection saves the day--they KNOW Global Warming Conspirators are only in it to line their pockets.

    QED

  • DAY on January 27, 2012 12:10 PM:

    It's a bit like most Organized Religions; there are monumental amounts of money being generated in perpetuating unfounded tenets.

  • Rick Massimo on January 27, 2012 12:11 PM:

    Yeah, I tried this on my Fox News-watching co-worker once. He was completely comfortable explaining that scientists were wiling to peddle false science for the $50,000 grants while the billionaires of the oil business aren't denying science out of self-interest because they already have billions.

  • g on January 27, 2012 12:16 PM:

    Surely the oil and coal companies are simply standing on principle.

  • Bernard HP Gilroy on January 27, 2012 12:25 PM:

    I think the truly amazing thing is that, the WSJ is probably not (intentionally) ignoring the multi-billion dollar pull of entrenched interests. They simply don't see it.

  • Texas Aggie on January 27, 2012 12:36 PM:

    Whenever you ask one of the deniers, who is going on about how the government scientists just want someone to fund them, which pays better, the government or EXXON, they don't even begin to comprehend what you are asking. They look at you with a blank expression on their faces as if the question has no meaning. There has got to be some sort of mental deficiency in these people in that their brains just do not do logical thinking.

  • samsa on January 27, 2012 12:40 PM:

    Yesterday in the debate at one point Santorum mentioned something about the 'climate change hoax' with great nonchalance. No one challenged him on that.

    Our elites are stupid.

  • golack on January 27, 2012 12:56 PM:

    So who funds the "deniers?"

    There's always a difference between science and policy. Wired.com had a nice piece on Spock as a scientist a few days ago--basically present the data and different scenarios with probabilities and best guesses (though he always resisted guessing, Kirk would get it out of him).

    In many ways we're seeing the tobacco-cancer playbook being brought to bear. Muddy the waters by attacking the science and turn it into a he said-she said issue. There truly is a lot more we need to understand about a system as complex as climate--but any understanding is moot if a given snow storm in DC means all climate change is a hoax. (Note, flowers are coming up and trees are starting to bud out in Chicago--in Jan...so if the deniers followed their own logic, they must be wrong).

    The sad thing is that proper scientific skepticism about a given test/analysis/model/experiment is twisted into denying global warming, which can tie up all involved in the policy controversy--detracting from the science.

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 1:25 PM:

    The list at the end is NOT impressive. I'm fairly certain that Lindzen is the only climate scientist and researcher. And his assertions have been debunked for a very long time. You can find a summary here:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Lindzen_Illusions.htm

    and there are many articles exposing him.

    If you have time to read anything on climate change, I heartily recommend, Merchants of Doubt by Oreskes and Conway. There is no doubt what is going on with the deniers, and this book deals the final blow. For me, I'm just hoping that the hell these people profess to believe in really does exist. That'll be where these people end up. Otherwise, they'll just have to endure the hatred of all the generations that come after they're gone. I wouldn't want my name alongside these hideous people.

  • Perspecticus on January 27, 2012 1:33 PM:

    This January off the coast of Cape Cod we have had approximately 5 days where the temperature has fallen below 40 deg. F. Meanwhile, today's 53 degrees is another of at least a dozen days over 45. In January. In New England.

    I am also quite fond of noting that the same people who plaster our news and print media with "where's your global warming now?" questions everytime we see a freak snowstorm in late-April are nowhere to be heard from when we experience consistent temperatures in the high 40's throughout January in Massachusetts.

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 1:39 PM:

    @golack: It's not just a replay of tobacco. It's a replay of the tobacco, acid rain, and ozone layer depletion tactics on global warming. There's even been a revisionist attack on Rachel Carson and the history of DDT. This is a sick, sick operation, and it's all detailed in "Merchants of Doubt." I highly, highly recommend it.

  • rrk1 on January 27, 2012 2:02 PM:

    Not only is climate change denial the triumph of a profitable industry dedicated to purveying doubt, it gives the anti-intellectual and anti-science Right a cudgel to whip up its base.

    This tactic, of denying the obvious and putting one's head in the sand, is a replay of how the NRC treats potentially devastating accidents at nuclear power plants. When the consequences of a possible nuclear accident are so dire, so unthinkable and the only solution is to either shut the plant down, or not build it at all, the NRC has a simple (and repeated) solution: declare the accident scenario impossible.

    Meltdowns are considered impossible (Three Mile Island?), Fukishima was impossible (four meltdowns simultaneously). And climate change is no different. The global consequences of a major shift in climate and sea level rise are so far-reaching and devastating that the only way to cope is to deny it will happen, or, in this case, is happening. Despite the obvious and overwhelming evidence.

    The hacks on the WSJ editorial board are perfect examples of the adage (I can't remember who said it), "It is difficult to make a man understand something when his paycheck depends on him not understanding it."

  • Jim Treacher on January 27, 2012 2:03 PM:

    How can they call themselves scientists when they disagree with ED KILGORE?

  • low-tech cyclist on January 27, 2012 2:06 PM:

    Why is there so much passion about global warming[?]

    Because I've got a 4 year old son who may live to see the opening years of the 22nd century.

    I won't live to see the worst of it, but he will.

  • Trollhattan on January 27, 2012 2:28 PM:

    Oooh, congrats Mr. Kilgore! You seem to have attracted one of li'l Tucker's winged monkeys in a mere couple of days.

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 2:41 PM:

    @Jim Treacher: It's not Ed Kilgore they're disagreeing with. It's the thousands of scientists who do the research and science on climate change they're disagreeing. So people who don't do climate research feel competent and certain enough to charge the people who do the research as in-it-for-the-money. Sure, that's what they went into science for.

    But I guess there's nothing to really get worried about. If we mess up, then future generations can just move to another planet, right?

    Dumb mass.

  • Bloix on January 27, 2012 2:41 PM:

    I used to say to our audiences: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

    Upton Sinclair, I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked (1935), ISBN 0-520-08198-6; repr. University of California Press, 1994, p. 109.

  • Auntie Lib on January 27, 2012 2:59 PM:

    Don't recall ever reading a 'pro-global warming' article that referenced the opposing side's view.

    Get over it - go WSJ

  • noncarb on January 27, 2012 3:07 PM:

    Right you are. Most of the 'pro-global warming' articles I've read refer to the evidence.

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 3:10 PM:

    @Auntie Lib,

    There isn't an opposing view. It's science. Truth is one-sided. The science is settled. The "other side" has hypotheses. It hasn't provided any evidence for alternative hypotheses. It hasn'thad peers accept any alternative hypotheses. The "opposing side" has nothing. Nada. Zilch. And everytime they throw shit up against the wall, it gets debunked. EVERY. TIME.

    Anybody that knows anything about science knows that. Apparently you're ignorant. And in that case, your opinion doesn't matter. Just like the deniers should have no say. But we know who they're working for, don't we?

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 3:11 PM:

    Oops... My last message at 3:10 pm should be:

    The "other side" has NO hypotheses.

  • Rick B on January 27, 2012 3:12 PM:

    @Perspecticus

    My brother-in-law has hunted white-wing doves in Texas for fifty years. They used to be found only near the Rio Grande River. Now they can be found all the way into Oklahoma.

    The white-wing dove is NOT a cold weather bird. This is not a set of measurements which can be questioned. This is hunters telling us where the game has moved and why. This is global warming at work.

  • Jim Treacher on January 27, 2012 3:37 PM:

    @Trollhattan Hello. How are you today?

  • Auntie Lib on January 27, 2012 3:46 PM:

    Whew - The vitriol that emanates from the above responses suggests many of the espousers of ''global warming science" are running scared. Hope they keep running to the apocalypse.

  • I heart global warming on January 27, 2012 3:47 PM:

    I love global warming. It's been an amazing, sunny winter in Michigan. None of you have the first clue what you're talking about; only the ability to regurgitate a message of nonsense that borders on hysterical.

    Get in your Prius or Subaru or whatever it is you drive that created pollution in it's manufacture and enjoy the scenery. It's a beautiful world we live in and it's pompous to think that we will somehow kill the earth.

  • Gandalf on January 27, 2012 3:50 PM:

    I Heart -and you know what your talking about Bwahahahahah!!

  • Renaissance Nerd on January 27, 2012 3:52 PM:

    The real reason for all the passion over Coming Ice Age I mean coming Mass Famine I mean Global Warming I mean Climate Change I mean Climate Chaos is that it gives haters justification for their hatreds. They pretend that hate is bad, but they hate so hard they need a good reason, so presto! 'Deniers,' y'know, like 'Holocaust Deniers!' That's so Nazi, and it's ok to hate Nazis. Except Greenies are really brown-shirts in disguise. If ever an environmentalist proposed a solution other than WORLD FASCISM NOW! I might listen. Until then, I'll go on disbelieving the fairy tale of CO2 being the only positive feedback/perpetual motion engine in existence.

  • William on January 27, 2012 3:56 PM:

    For one: We don't have enough data to make predictions about the "end of the world as we know it." Let be honest here, climate science is in its infancy and they are still trying to work out their models. It damn hard to model the climate....so many variables in an open system.

    So for ANYONE, especially political hacks like Kilgore and his merry band are suspect. I WILL MAKE A FACTUAL STATEMENT, we still don't have a working model that can predict the future climate and WHY it is changing. We only have CRUDE theories and explanations.

    I tell you what, when I see Kilgore and his follower actual start living like it matters....then I will take notice give some of the Greens my attention.

  • Richard on January 27, 2012 4:16 PM:

    As a physicist, it is upsetting to me the way "climate change" (yes I use it in quotes as well) is used to justify levying taxes and spending government money to help out donors. Climate change is a fact, yes, but only insofar as the climate is always changing, and anyone claiming that man is the definitely the cause has their head you know where. To say that the temperature right now, is ideal, is simply not scientific. What's your metric? If your metric is biodiversity, then warmer is better. Check the fossil record during an ice age and compare to the time of the dinosaurs. Even if, and it's a pretty big if, polar bears were to go extinct, they would be replaced with 10s or 100s of other species as a result of more hospitable ecosystems being opened up on the planet.
    For the moment, let's assume that humans are the ONLY thing causing the warming of the earth. Again, I invite you to check the ice age history. Since mankind has begun to till the Earth, we have been at the (relative) cusp of the next ice age. It very well could be the fact that mankind's activities are the ONLY thing keeping the next ice age at bay.
    Sadly, the only real justification that I can think of that would happen as a result of a rising global temperature, would be that when sea levels rose, cities that were on the coast would be affected. So what? Think of the jobs that would be created by the infrastructure projects of dealing with that. People might even be able to work again.
    Climate change "enthusiasts", if you will, are engaged in what can only be called a cult. They ignore that mankind is a creature of Earth, and as such is entitled to carve his niche in the world. The polar bear doesn't give a rat's about you and would gladly bite your head off if offered.

  • jb on January 27, 2012 4:24 PM:

    The WSJ article included remarkably little science. We were assured that many real scientists disagree with global warming and many more secretly agree. An assertion with no facts. We were assured that the globe is not warming. An assertion with no facts. But CO2 is traps heat - a fact. We pump billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year -- a fact. Air and ocean temperatures ares rising across the globe - a fact. A connection? - reasonable speculation.

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 4:24 PM:

    Again, deniers: There is no "other side." The science is settled. Finished. Done. Over with. If you don't know that, you don't know the science. It's that simple. There is no scientific debate. None. There is no hoax. None. It is not Kilgore's opinion that you are at odds with. It is scientists and scientific research over over 50 years. Are you people really this ignorant about science? Seriously? Your Fox education is a danger to the world.

    The so-called significant scientists are not significant. Period. Understand it. They ARE NOT significant. Only Lindzen is a climate researcher. He has been repeated debunked. HARD. (I gave you one link above. There are many, many others if you really cared to find out. I suspect you don't.) They did not write the OPINION piece. They have not written a scientific article. Period.

    All you have to do to understand why your Fox education has lead you to drink of ignorance is read this book: "Merchants of Doubt" by Oreskes and Conway.

    Do it. For those that come after you.

    Dumb masses.

  • Gandalf on January 27, 2012 4:28 PM:

    So just exactly who opened the doors to the asylum and let the global warming deniers have access to computers. Or is it some kind of subhuman troll club that got wind of an article by Kilgore that they had to stampede with aflurry of bull shit.

  • Gandalf on January 27, 2012 4:29 PM:

    So just exactly who opened the doors to the asylum and let the global warming deniers have access to computers. Or is it some kind of subhuman troll club that got wind of an article by Kilgore that they had to stampede with aflurry of bull shit.

  • JR on January 27, 2012 4:30 PM:

    One word for you ---- CERN. They have done more to debunk the AGW thesis with one experiment, in the face of severe opposition from the kind of folks posting here, and have reinjected science into the conversation. And btw all the folks saying the science is settled don't understand science. End of sentence.

  • Sara B on January 27, 2012 4:35 PM:

    Kilgore's rant could have made the same point with fewer words: "The science is settled."

    And to those who question him: "Shut up, he explained."

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 4:38 PM:

    @Ray: It is a testament to your ignorance that you claim it isn't happening. No recognition of temperatures over land and ocean, at the sea surface, and in the troposphere. No recognition of ocean heat content and sea levels having risen. No recognition of humidity in the active weather layer of the atmosphere closest to Earth having risen. No recognition of ocean acidity. No recognition of the decrease in Arctic sea ice, in the decrease of glaciers worldwide, and in the Spring snow cover in the Northern hemisphere. No recognition of the fact that 9 warmest years since 1880 have been in the last decade. No recognition of the extreme weather conditions that have increased in the last 5 years.

    You do not know what you are talking about. You are simply an ignoramus.

    @ Everybody else: The reason there's been a deluge of ignorant wingnuts is very much because of this issue. They've heard through the fright-wing echo chamber that Kilgore put something up against their deniers, and they're out to attack. Too bad. They're just scientific ignoramuses whose political ideology is more important to them than anything else in their (alternate) universe they mentally inhabit. It's sad, really.

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 4:40 PM:

    @Sara: Get that George Will shit outta here.

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 4:42 PM:

    @Kizar Sozay on January 27, 2012 4:33 PM:

    You want to talk the science? I haven't seen it yet from the wingnut side. So go ahead. Git ya some of that.

  • AndrewBW on January 27, 2012 4:45 PM:

    "[T]he ideological mendacity of the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal."

    Well put!

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 4:45 PM:

    C'mon wingnuts. Talk science! Everything that any one of you ignoramuses has put up in your pathetic efforts has been debunked and laughed for years. Dig in, wingnuts. Let's see it.

  • K2KR on January 27, 2012 4:53 PM:

    What we actually know is that the climate has ALWAYS been changing, it's never constant.

    It is the climate change people (believers) that deny this fact, this scientific fact.

    The level headed people recognize that ice ages come and go, weather patterns change year to year, decade to decade, century to century, etc.

    In the dark ages man thought the universe revolved around Earth. Then we found that the Earth revolved around the Sun. Now the climate change people believe that the Earth revolves around man. Wrong.

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 4:56 PM:

    Unbelievable stupidity. The idiot calling himself "David" says "well known that it is not being caused by a greenhouse effect. Hence not by man made CO2." Is that so? Really? How do you know that? Where did that come from? Educate everybody here. Give us the science of it. Git ya some of that!

    Here's what's going to happen. He can't. Because there is NO science that says the warming is not caused by greenhouse gases. There has been shit thrown against the wall claiming it's not the greenhouse effect. It has been debunked.

    Sad act, "David."

    C'mon wingnuts. Let's see the science supporting your assertions.

  • T-Rex on January 27, 2012 5:03 PM:

    I'll tell you a few people who have a strong economic interest in DOING something about global warming, rather than denying it:

    Farmers. They see the changes in climate as it affects the fertility of the soil, the growing cycles, and the proliferation of pests like rodents who thrive when winters get shorter and milder.

    Ranchers. Because of the above-mentioned population explosion of rodents, coyotes and other predators are eating very well and their populations are booming.

    Ski-resort operators. No explanation necessary.

    Now, if those groups could do some concerted lobbying, they might get the attention of their legislators.

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 5:07 PM:

    @K2KR;

    "What we actually know is that the climate has ALWAYS been changing, it's never constant. It is the climate change people (believers) that deny this fact, this scientific fact."

    So climate researchers don't know about ice ages, and Milankovitch cycles? You're an idiot.


    - "The level headed people recognize that ice ages come and go, weather patterns change year to year, decade to decade, century to century, etc."

    You think the climate scientists don't know that? Again, you're an ignoramus?

    "In the dark ages man thought the universe revolved around Earth. Then we found that the Earth revolved around the Sun. Now the climate change people believe that the Earth revolves around man. Wrong."

    Now you're a historian of science. And climate researchers think the Earth revolves around man. You just embarrass yourself.

    So far, no science.

    @Green:
    - Gore got Kilanmanjaro wrong. He got a few other insignificant things wrong, too. Doesn't matter. He got 95% of it right. You've got nothing right.

    - Glaciers: Because of extra humidity in the air, some glaciers have increased. Worldwide however, glacier hass has been decreasing verysignificantly for 50 years. You're wrong.

    - the Arctic remains in a death spiral. Where have you been?

    - Let's see your audit of the IPCC.

    - You are wrong about Antarctic ice. Antarctic sea ice has increased because of humidity and ocean cycles. Antarctic land ice, has decreased. Even the previously thought unmeltable eastern land ice is now decreasing. This is warming. And you are wrong.

    So far, no science wingnuts.

  • Max17 on January 27, 2012 5:30 PM:

    Wow. There is actually at least one libloon on the planet that thinks oil companies have more economic power than governments. Stupidity is on parade and Ed Kilgore is the drum major!

  • Neo on January 27, 2012 5:46 PM:

    Can anybody cite the definitive peer-reviewed study that incontrovertibly ties man to current climate warming ?

  • #ClosedMindedTwits on January 27, 2012 5:55 PM:

    Humans are responsible for 3.0% of the 0.04% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Where is the irrefutable science that proves 0.0012% of the atmosphere is causing global warming and not solar output variability, volcanic eruptions, orbital variability, natural CO2 output, etc?

    And why, Washington Monthly, do you feel the need to keep censoring such a basic question?

  • skarphace on January 27, 2012 5:59 PM:

    The conversation needs to be shifted because, unfortunately, science has been used for political purposes and therefore is no longer seen as objective.

    Those who want to promote a larger investment into alternative fuel sources need to approach it from a different angle. Forget about the argument of whether or not global warming is a myth.

    Instead, we should focus on facts that cannot be denied: there is a limited amount of fossil fuels. Eventually, we fossil fuels will become scarce and the faster we use them up the sooner we must rely on alternative fuel sources.

    If we do not have an affordable and reliable system set up to supply these fuel sources to consumers on that day then the average person will not be able to afford their own transportation.

    Therefore, high gas prices are not the problem. High gas prices are the solution. High gas prices creates public pressure to pursue investments in alternative fuel sources which will be necessary for the future.

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 6:00 PM:

    @Neo: The consensus doesn't come from one peer-reviewed study, bonehead. It comes from thousands and thousands of them. Demanding one shows what a scientific ignoramus you are.

    @Max17: In your haste to make an insult, you forgot something: an argument to make your case. Thats standard MO for a wingnut.

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 6:04 PM:

    @TheClosedMindedTwit: You apparently haven't been exposed to the science. Here ya go:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

    Touche, wingnut.

    (As for the WM censoring, they weren't. They just had a bunch of wingnuts like yourself bombarding, and didn't have but one moderator. I was upset the comments on this thread was shut off because I like exposing you idiots.)

  • #ClosedMindedTwits on January 27, 2012 6:11 PM:

    @DisgustedWithItAll: What you've linked to is a page about artificial forcing, which merely begs the question. Where is the science that shows that 0.0012 of the atmosphere is causing global warming and not any of the other variables?

    And yes, I am being censored. Three of my previous posts making the same point have been removed, along with another that demonstrated that Kilgore doesn't know the difference between something written by the WSJ editorial board and something the WSJ printed that was written by someone else.

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 6:16 PM:

    @Twit: I'm sorry you weren't please with my response to you throwing shit up against the wall. Here's a pretty good history of that science. Plenty of links and direct peer-reviewed articles for you to improve on your Fox education:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1213

    Enjoy

    Captcha: fword. Indeed!!

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 6:21 PM:

    It's not clear that hatchet job in the WSJ was written by the "scientists." It says they signed it. So what? As I told you above, there's only one climate scientist in the bunch. Like your boys like to boast proudly there's 30,000 "scientists" in the Oregon petition. Yeah, with Bachelors of Mathematics, and other such irrelevant credentials. Brag about that garbage in the WSJ, but it just exposes your ignorance about the situation.

  • #ClosedMindedTwits on January 27, 2012 6:29 PM:

    Right, and therefore the lack of global warming over the last decade is also explained by human activity. That's not a scientific argument. It's a correlation. There's no mechanism to explain how 0.0012% of the atmosphere is responsible for global warming to the exclusion of all others.

    As for the Kilgore smear, it was an op-ed submitted to the WSJ. By your idiotic interpretation, if the New York Times prints an op-ed that Ahmadinejad signed but probably didn't write, then the Times editors are theocratic fascists. You are a bright one.

  • Charlie on January 27, 2012 6:29 PM:

    Well Ed, you blog is the typical stellar defense of the global warming crowd... Rather than try to refute the assertions in the Journal article all you do is bash them and imply they are stupid because they disagree with your views. A temper tantrum would be more productive and intelligent than you blog.

  • Jeffry on January 27, 2012 6:31 PM:

    Let's face it, "global warming" errr...."climate change" is the Cardiff Giant of our times.

    As long as scientists, nay, entire universities, can get a meal ticket from scaring the public with their fake computer programs, this phenomenon will continue.

    But don't expect even a Democratic congress to pass anti-CO2 legislation, they didn't when they had full majorities.

    In their hearts even they don't believe it.

  • chi res on January 27, 2012 6:32 PM:

    HEY, you republican idiots!

    Why the hell do you think Newtron wants to build a COLONY ON THE MOON???

    And don't think he has ANY interest in taking morons like you!

  • SD on January 27, 2012 6:50 PM:

    TCinLA - "Limits to Growth" predicted we'd run out of oil by 1992. How'd that work out?

  • Bruce Abbott on January 27, 2012 6:50 PM:

    where to begin? No mention of James Croll or Militin Malenkovic? Nothing about the effect of orbital mechanics on Earth's climate? Nothing about Plate Techtonics, and the fact that the planet currently has both a polar continent and a landlocked polar ocean, either of which will allow an Ice Age? No mention of three million years of freeze-thaw cycles, with 100,000 years of ice and approximately 10,000-year interglacials? No mention that the current interglacial (encompasing the entirety of human recorded history) is about 11,000 years old? No mention of the roll that cosmic rays have on high-cloud formation (high-altitude clouds reflect solar radiation before it can heat the planet)? We may be turning up the thermostat just in time. Kilgore, you are a perfect example of what is wrong with todays Democratic Party; power above all, motive justifies means, the hell with any intelligent discussion of the problems. Good lord willing, you'll all get your heads handed to you in the next election so the party can be salvaged. My brother is a life-long Democrat, and he is just as disgusted with you as I am...

  • IndianaAlex on January 27, 2012 6:52 PM:

    If the science weren't so settled I may be inclined to notice not only the unseasonably warm winter, but also the significance of this happening while the sun is in a very active phase. It's very odd as it seems "the decline" happend during a very quiet solar period.

  • Danram on January 27, 2012 6:54 PM:

    Here are some facts:

    150 years ago at the start of the industrial age, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were about 300 parts per million.

    Today, they are 380 parts per million.

    That's an increase of 80 parts per million.

    80 divided by 1,000,000 equals 0.00008

    Converting that to percentage terms, we come out with 0.008%.

    That's 8/1000ths of 1 percent, gang.

    So mankind, at his fossil fuel burning worst, has, over the course of 150 years, only succeeded in altering the composition of the planet's atmosphere by 8/1000ths of 1 percent.

    Anyone who would seriously believe that such an infinitessimally small change in the composition of the atmosphere could, in and of itself, cause the planet to warm is truly a fool.

  • el zorro on January 27, 2012 6:56 PM:

    I read the WSJ article and thought it was pretty good. "There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy." it says. THat sounds reasonable to me. I was bracing for a strong rebuttal here, but all i got from Mr. Kilgore was, "Hey, What about Big Oil? Huh?" Talk about "Greatest Hits," that one's a green "Golden Oldie."

  • Bruce Abbott on January 27, 2012 7:03 PM:

    By the way, chi res, I read an interesting comment by a guy the other day... "Mankind faces two choices; emigration or extinction." The fellow that said that doesn't get out much; has a lot of time on his hands to think about such things. His name is Stephen Hawking. That moon base may come in handy...

  • PEA on January 27, 2012 7:04 PM:

    TCinLA, all too true. (with sad inflection)

    TRex, yes, and winemakers here on the west coast -- where some are worried that their particular varieties of grapes might not produce so well as the climate changes...

    Plus, virtually any time the Rs open their mouths to accuse Dems/liberals/progressives of something, it is really the truth about THEMSELVES, which they wish to hide ("don't look at that man behind the curtain").

    By the way, for the Rs who are just so sure man has nothing to do with climate change and therefore don't want to worry about it (hmm, so even if it were changing regardless of whether man has influenced it, you still don't care to prepare for what's coming?? great logic), I suggest you invest heavily in low-lying islands in the South Pacific or beachfront in south FL, etc.

    Amazing to me that so many people who vote Rep are so afraid of so many things that aren't really happening or have a very low probability of happening, but not climate change, something we see happening right now.

    Ed, you really got some people's attention with this post, didn't you? Welcome.

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 7:11 PM:

    @Twit: I'm so sorry you still aren't pleased even though your complaint was answered. So now you've got another piece of shit to throw against the wall that's already been debunked by true climate scientists. Please enjoy this:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

    As for the WSJ article, I don't give a damn who wrote it. Only one of them is a climate scientist. And he HAS BEEN DEBUNKED repeatedly. Once again, here it is:

    http://sks.to/lindzen

    Happy to be of help. Dumb mass.

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 7:17 PM:

    @ the functionally uneducated Bruce Abbot:

    "where to begin? No mention of James Croll or Militin Malenkovic? Nothing about the effect of orbital mechanics on Earth's climate? Nothing about Plate Techtonics, and the fact that the planet currently has both a polar continent and a landlocked polar ocean, either of which will allow an Ice Age? No mention of three million years of freeze-thaw cycles, with 100,000 years of ice and approximately 10,000-year interglacials? No mention that the current interglacial (encompasing the entirety of human recorded history) is about 11,000 years old? No mention of the roll that cosmic rays have on high-cloud formation (high-altitude clouds reflect solar radiation before it can heat the planet)? We may be turning up the thermostat just in time. Kilgore, you are a perfect example of what is wrong with todays Democratic Party; power above all, motive justifies means, the hell with any intelligent discussion of the problems. Good lord willing, you'll all get your heads handed to you in the next election so the party can be salvaged. My brother is a life-long Democrat, and he is just as disgusted with you as I am..."

    Just what do you want to say about the effects of geologic ages, Milankovic cycles, plate tectonics, etc.? Make your scientific claim and show evidence that you're on to something.

    Maybe I can get you started with cloud nucleation. For you viewing pleasure, please read:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/cern-cloud-proves-cosmic-rays-causing-global-warming-basic.htm

    and

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/cern-cloud-proves-cosmic-rays-causing-global-warming-intermediate.htm

    Take your time. It'll be a tough slog for you.

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 7:24 PM:

    @Danram on January 27, 2012 6:54 PM:

    I guess your dumb mass is next to be exposed for ignorance. Please read to upgrade your Fox education:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm

    Here are some facts:

    150 years ago at the start of the industrial age, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were about 300 parts per million.

    Today, they are 380 parts per million.

    That's an increase of 80 parts per million.

    80 divided by 1,000,000 equals 0.00008

    Converting that to percentage terms, we come out with 0.008%.

    That's 8/1000ths of 1 percent, gang.

    So mankind, at his fossil fuel burning worst, has, over the course of 150 years, only succeeded in altering the composition of the planet's atmosphere by 8/1000ths of 1 percent.

    Anyone who would seriously believe that such an infinitessimally small change in the composition of the atmosphere could, in and of itself, cause the planet to warm is truly a fool."

    YOU are the fool. Thanks for stopping by and proving it.

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 7:28 PM:

    @common sense: It truly is a shame that your Ivy league engineering education left you so clueless as to the nature of science. I bet it cost a lot to be uneducated to the extent you are. Might want to read up on what science is, how it requires consensus, when it is considered settled, etc.

    Thanks for stopping by and letting us know an Ivy league engineer is uneducated.

  • Anonymous on January 27, 2012 7:30 PM:

    @tpaine: "First, no change in the temperature of the earth's atmosphere above and second, no change in deep sea. In short, even if we are generating more CO, it's a good thing not a bad thing.
    I'm actually vastly more concerned about what Mother Nature can do to me - earthquates, tornados, tidal waves, etc. - than what I can do to Her.
    She's a LOT bigger than our little species."

    That is just beyond dumb. I don't have the patience for that much stupidity.

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 7:35 PM:

    @Ken on January 27, 2012 7:07 PM:

    Ken said (and I'm not lying. He really said it!)

    "I've been following this global warming issue for decades. No more or less skeptical than I needed to be. I remember the coming ice age from 30 odd years ago. I don't claim to be a scientist but I do know human nature. The big scare didn't work. No one is buying it anymore. It didn't take long for the zealots to reply with the normal name calling and claims about how virtually all intelligent people believe in man-caused climate change. You can tell they are intelligent because they believe in it. And on and on with the circular logic.

    This post will be removed very quickly, but what appeared in the WSJ today is just the beginning. The emperor really has no clothes. I think of few scientist theories as thoroughly dis-proven as the claims of the climate alarmists.

    The earth is in fact cooling (at least for the moment).

    Deal with it."

    Oh Ken, Ken, Ken. Too bad the media in the 70's had you fooled and ignorant about what the scientists were saying. Just like the media has you fooled that there is some scientific debate. There isn't. This might be a shocker for you:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-1970s-science-said-about-global-cooling.html

    As for your claim it's cooling. Nope. Got that wrong, too. Here's something to educate yourself with:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm

    Glad to be of help. No go away, wingnut.

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 7:50 PM:

    @Randy Mott on January 27, 2012 7:31 PM:

    Randy said: "Historical data over geological time periods conclusively illustrate that greenhouse gases levels do not precede temperature changes. In fact, temperature goes up and 900 years later, GHG levels rise. You can be arrogant in your rhetoric but it does not change the facts.
    Randy Mott
    President of renewable energy company
    "

    I don't care if you're President of the Universe. You're ignorant. Try educating yourself about that wrong statement:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/soares-correlation-co2-temperature.htm

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-early-20th-century.htm


    I have more for you Randy, but the editor won't let me put it in one post. I'll be back.

  • Anonymous on January 27, 2012 7:52 PM:

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 7:55 PM:

    More for Randy, big shot President:

    Randy said: "90% of the UN model's temperature rise comes from assumptions about water vapor that contradict recent empirical studies of the relationship of water vapor to GHG levels."

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-warming-35-percent.htm

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-warming-35-percent.htm

    Randy said: "But facts which you will never address, read or understand."

    Do you understand now, Randy? Good luck with that energy company. I hope you're better at owning that than you are knowledgeable about climate change.

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 7:59 PM:

    @Treacher,

    I couldn't care less about you. You've made no contribution or assertions of worth. You just seem to be loitering on a message board to take up for The Team you identify with. Your time would be better spent trying to educate yourself. Take care.

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 8:00 PM:

    @Bruce:

    I'm sorry but I don't have time to give you a course in the Philosophy of Science. But please to understand, it's not like a mathematical proof. OK? And thanks again for letting everybody know the sorry state of education of Ivy League engineers.

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 8:03 PM:

    @Zeitgeist: How can I help you? Do you have a complaint about the bad science of the "Warmers?" Let's have it. I'm sure you'll turn out to be a top climate researcher who just can't get published because of the conspiracy. What can I do for you?

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 8:06 PM:

    @Skookum: No Skook, it's not with the absolutists on both sides. There is only one scientific side. The problem is that the science has been turned into an manufactured, artificial political debate and manipulated by the denier/confusionists to fool the public that there's a scientific debate. That's the problem. The science is settled. Done. Finished.

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 8:26 PM:

    @FreedomFan on January 27, 2012 7:52 PM:

    Freedom!! said:
    "Your vapid rebuttal however, is desperately goofy."

    Congratulations on loving freedom, Fan! As for Kilgore's "rebuttal," I think you misread his intentions. All Ed was doing was alerting people that the WSJ had, yet again, published a bunch of shit purporting to make some significant statement against the consensus of global warming. It's a role the WSJ has played willingly throughout many of the manufactured, political debates on scientific consensus. You should remember they did the same for the tobacco companies for 50 years, for CFC manufacturers during the ozone hole depletion "debate," and for the big energy companies during the acid rain "debate." And for the last 20+ years they've been dutifully playing the same role for all the vested interests against the FACT of anthropogenic global warming.

    Don't let anybody take that freedom of yours away.

    Glad to be of help.

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 8:29 PM:

    @mickey_mouse:

    "Oh yeah, the hacked emails from the University of East Anglia never existed and Al Gore isn't an opportunist capitalist
    looking to cash in and 2/3 of these AGW scientists are real scientists."

    This should give you something to think about hacked e-mails:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm

    On Al Gore: Let's assume he is what you say: an opportunist capitalist. So what?

    As for your comment on "2/3...," I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm sure you don't either.

  • Mithrandir on January 27, 2012 8:31 PM:

    Ken,

    "I've been following this global warming issue for decades. No more or less skeptical than I needed to be. I remember the coming ice age from 30 odd years ago."

    Then you were following the media, not the science.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/1970s_papers.gif

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 8:33 PM:

    @Bruce: I'm sorry to hear the engineering didn't work out. Don't be bitter at engineers. That just ends up hurting you. As for consensus, I suggest you become the Wegener of AGW! Debunk it all, Big Boy. Go git ya some of that!! You got work to do. Unfortunately, you'll have to start from scratch because all the shit that's been thrown at AGW has been debunked. That includes Lindzen who signed that thing in the WSJ today.

    You got any science to question, or do you just want to waste time?

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 8:38 PM:

    @Zeit...

    I'm sorry you're unhappy. Unfortunately, it made you forget to make any scientific assertions or questions in your last post. I don't know Ed Kilgore. You might be every bit as credentialed as Al Gore. He's not credentialed. The fact of AGW doesn't ride on whether Al Gore was correct about Kilamanjaro or polar bears. I'm sorry I have to break that to you so harshly. But Al Gore was 95% correct. The stuff he was wrong on was insignificant. I'm sure you want to invalidate AGW on that. Too bad it doesn't work that way. And though you might have the same credentials as Al Gore, you clearly are just wrong, unlike him.

    Take care.

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 8:40 PM:

    @Hoosier Boy:

    Who declared anything over because of a web site. It's the arguments that count. Do you have any? I'll bet you don't. You're just a troll sent over from the fright-wing echo chamber because somebody had the audacity to scoff the WSJ. You don't count for anything.

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 8:47 PM:

    @Culton:

    The clueless Dan wrote:
    "Just remember mooks like Kilgore was pushing global cooling before they jumped on the global warming, now changed to "climate change" because man made warming has been totally discredited. "

    Wrong. That's already been addressed.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-1970s-science-said-about-global-cooling.html

    As for your "war," I'd like you to show me where it has been discredited. Go ahead. Give it your best shot showing the "alarmists" lost.

    (Everybody wait for Dan's proof. This is going to be lead cinch pipe good!!)

  • Doug on January 27, 2012 8:55 PM:

    Where do all these climate change deniers get the false idea that climate change is being caused SOLELY by humans? Another Exxon-sponsored Fox in-depth report?
    Not a single study that I've read ever suggested that climate change is totally due to human activity. What humans ARE doing is increasing the amount of CO2 well BEYOND what could be considered, by ANY metrics, as "normal" amounts.
    Nor have scientists claimed that those "normal" amounts wouldn't STILL produce devastating climate change effects. On a world with a human population of a couple of hundred millions, those effects would be less dire if only because of the ability of the human populations to move FROM areas adversely affected and INTO areas less, or not at all, affected. What is occurring now is more rapid and extreme BECAUSE of the input of CO2 caused by human activity and its' effects will be on a world of 6-7 BILLION people. WHERE are they going to move?
    Of course, when people are dead-set on being shown up as stupid, incapable of rational thought or just plain mendacious...

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 8:57 PM:

    @Zeit:

    All that writing you just did, and all that effort and frankly you just wasted your time. The models aren't needed for the science. OK? Get it. Not needed.

    As for East Anglia, that's been handled already. But I'll point you to it again:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm

    You're going to get anywhere taking people's words out of context, Programmer Boy. Their science still had to stand up to scrutiny. Especially the hockey stick. And the hockey stick is still in good shape.

    Take care. Try not to have to write in binary. I prefer base pi myself.

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 8:59 PM:

    @Doug: it IS being mostly caused by humans. Here's a little bit of a literature review on that:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1213

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 9:00 PM:

    @851: In your great haste to say something, you forgot to say something.

  • John B. on January 27, 2012 9:04 PM:

    Kindess says, above: "The WSJ's news division stopped being credible when Rupert Murdoch bought them. Now they are just another propaganda organ for the Republican Party."

    As the old man at this table, I can verify the WSJ editorial page has not been worthy of a bird cage bottom in at least forty-five years.

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 9:09 PM:

    @Zeit: I'm sorry, Zeit, but "Wow" and "laughing" doesn't form an argument for you. Neither do insults. Did you even read the page? Did you read the study it referenced? It's all about facts, logic, and reason. It might be too tedious for a faith-based and ideological driven wingnut to take to heart, but that's the way it has to be done. Now go do your homework. Remember, you can't debunk something by "Wow," "LOL"ing, or insults. Off you go.

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 9:13 PM:

    @Bruce the Failed Engineer: I'm sorry Bruce, all the geologic time, Medieval Warming period, etc. has been answered in previous links I've posted. I'm not going to take the time to post them again if you're just going to refuse to do your homework.

    You don't have any facts about some phantom "conspiracy." Now go do your homework or flunk out again.

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 9:17 PM:

    @Zeit: What are your blah'ing about now? She's the climate scientist that wrote a chapter for Gingrich's new book that Top Climate Researcher Rush Limbaugh nixed by decree.

    As for her being an evangelical Christian, there's been stranger things I guess.

    Now tell me just what it is you find so incredible that you think you've got something to crow about. Let's have it.

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 9:21 PM:

    @Denier: I would respond to you but you don't make a lick of sense.

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 9:31 PM:

    @Programmer of Big Stuff Boy:

    Belittling something is not valid argument. Do you have any substantive challenge against any argument on your newfound favorite web site? Or do you simply have that garbage you just posted? I suggest you see if you can challenge anything they say. (To do so, just register, go to a topic you think you know something about, and tell them why you're right, and they're wrong. It's very easy. Please sign up as Zeitgeist because I want to observe you expose them as frauds and you as a towering climate science intellect.) Please save the world from the scourge that is the climate science community.

    Or shut up.

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 9:48 PM:

    @Boy:
    You have not made any relevant assertion. Just like a bit head. What do you have that invalidates AGW? It's that simple. Complaining about re-engineered or re-factored old code that used to crash isn't going to make you a hero for the deniers.

    One more time: What do you have that you think invalidates the SCIENCE of AGW?

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 9:50 PM:

    @Mr(Un)Reasonable: You are wrong. There has been warming in the last 10 years. That's been covered. If you're going to get to class late, you're going to be required to review the notes before you're allowed to contribute. Otherwise, you're wasting everybody's time.

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 9:51 PM:

    @70: You just think it feels like the Inquisition because you don't have any scientific knowledge to answer with. Any questions?

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 9:53 PM:

    @valwayne: And why is it you took the time to post absolutely nothing? You wingnuts are getting dumber.

  • Texas Aggie on January 27, 2012 9:55 PM:

    It seems that word got around to one of the denier web sites and they came out in force to play the tobacco game of making fun of reality, just like the very same people did when the Surgeon General's report first came out. I do not understand why people with eyes and ears and a brain can deny what is happening all around them, especially when what is happening affects them adversely. I guess Upton Sinclair had it right, and these guys are heavily invested in keeping the same game going.

    I wish one of them would come up with an explanation of why they reject reality.

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 9:59 PM:

    @Texas Aggie: I've been holding down the fort. They're all pathetic. Not a damned one of them know a thing about climate science or climate change. They're all just spouting the same old garbage that's been debunked for years. Sad, really when you consider so many people are that ignorant.

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 10:01 PM:

    @Henry FitzMarkus: You do realize you spent a lot of time saying absolutely nothing, right?

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 10:02 PM:

    @Rocket: No, you can't explain it if that's what you think. Because you DON'T understand it. Now go back to the WSJ, determine what those authors have done in climate science and get back to us. OK?

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 10:10 PM:

    @Boy:

    OK, congratulations, free thinker. You got you a hypothesis. (I know all about the post 9/11 phenomenon you mention.) Now just go do the research to provide the evidence, write it all up, and convince the world. While you're at it, perfect that Perpetual Motion machine, too.

    I suggest you get over to the Cult site and tell them your hypothesis. Provide the logical and preliminary theory and let's see how it goes. Good luck Bit Head.

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 10:14 PM:

    @Spinward: Good lord, you wingnuts are getting dumber by the minute. It would benefit you if you actually knew something, or considered whether or not your hare-brained ideas had already been answered. Try to help yourself and read this:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 10:29 PM:

    @Henry FitzMarkus: Lost to what? That rambling, kooky, nonsense you've been putting up. I don't think so. If you want to disprove the greenhouse effect you've got a lot of work to do. Many have tried. ALL have failed. But good luck. And don't forget your medication; you're going to need it.

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 10:31 PM:

    @Mr(Un)Reasonable: No, you haven't done your homework. 1998 was a special year to choose for you deniers. That's a no-no. This no-warming-in-the-last-10-years has been debunked repeatedly. Now go do your homework. I've put the links to de-Foxify your brainwashing already. Run along.

  • Rockyspoon on January 27, 2012 10:36 PM:

    I read a lot of stuff about climate and I have never read anything written by a "climate change denier" (not even the WSJ article). As a geologist I can tell you first hand the earth's climate has been changing for billions of years and will continue to change for as long as the Earth exists and everybody believes this to be true (even your so-called "deniers"), but more to the point, the adversarial view holds that man isn't the cause of the vast majority of Earth's current warming and hence there's little or nothing man can do to control the weather, er, the climate. (Besides, aren't climate and weather completely different--that's a dig at those on both sides of the argument that use weather to bolster their cases whenever it's convenient to their causes.)

    And no, a bunch of Republicans aren't running around denying science--I'm very familiar with dozens of Republicans that are also scientists (even though I personally claim to be an Independent). But what really bothers me is the horrible science practiced by "The Team" in supporting "The Cause", and the vast majority of commenters here are neither scientists, engineers, or have any training in any profession even remotely related to climate. Geologists are notorious for being critical of "climatologists" because as geologists, we study all of Earth's history and see how it is derived, how it has changed radically, and how it impacts the formation of rocks and soils in their various forms, etc. etc. Earth's climate has been so much worse in the past and so different than what it currently is that nobody can say "the science is settled". Nor can I agree that any of the "climatologists" as they like to call themselves are real scientists.

    For example, Michael Mann acts like a fugitive rather than a serious scientist.

    Phil Jones behaves the same, along with most other players on "The Team".

    Soon all 220,000 emails from which the small set comprising Climategate I and Climategate II will be released and we'll finally get to the bottom of all this. And until then, if the Earth is in such a bad fix regarding the future, the likes of Mann, Jones, et al would owe it to humanity to open all their information for review and evaluation. And since these people are screaming we're all about to be destroyed by some catastrophic episode, it's up to them to do so.

  • Anonymous on January 27, 2012 10:40 PM:

    The presiding Justice in this case is the reasoning of man.
    It is a fundamental practice of man, that we fail. We once conceived a Sun around a flat Earth. Each generation enters the revolving door of ignorance.

    What man on Earth has never been mistaken? Not I, not you. Yet each generation of man, believes anew. It is a bias, of the overarching preservation of dignity, that we can omit no wrong.

    Our planet, a moon of the Sun, has exists in a bath of space, its atmosphere and oceans are the gifts that gave us life.

    Why do men around me, fear the Earth, that created them? Is it the fundamental fragility of man and our inability to control the Universe that leads to thoughts, so fearful, we close our minds and hide in caves.

    The first law of science, related the energy in mass. Our ancestors told us it was so, by observational reasoning. Like a rebellious teenager we have rejected this fundamental nature of our universe. It is so, we cannot add more energy to Earth, a script, derived before the evolution of man.

    Greenhouse, used in cold Europe for the enhancement of biological life. Why wouldnít a man, think a analogy, could correlate to the creation of life on Earth, with the atmosphere as itís vessel? It is a belief without truth.

    The enclosure of Earth is itís atmosphere. The whole of the atmosphere is a window of safety, it protects us from the damaging rays of the Sun.

    Radiation cannot enter the mass of Earth, radiation cannot enter the Oceans, radiation cannot enter the Atmosphere. It is the enhancement under pressure of the of the kinetic energy of the Sun that gives us warmth.
    Our Atmosphere cannot create radiation, it cannot cannot create kinetic energy, it cannot add extra heat to itself. We are bathed in the temperature of space, it attracts our destiny, Cold.

    The truth of this reasoning, cannot be judged. But they, the gods in white coats, claim deity and cannot be wrong.

    It is the inconvenient truth, of the certainty of man to err.

    Markus Fitzhenry

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 10:42 PM:

    @Rockyspoon: Good grief. That rambling cry for help sure must have taken a while to compose. Do you also have a hypothesis to debunk AGW? Do you also not know the truth about Climate-gate? Do you also not understand the Republican party is anti-science, faith-based idiots. I doubt you have anything with science. You just don't seem smart enough. But then, maybe you got yourself a B.A. or B.S. degree and can't stop patting yourself on the back. So, let's hear it if you've got an anti-AGW hypothesis. Get it out there, genius.

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 10:47 PM:

    @Henry FitzMarkus: So?

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 10:49 PM:

    When is this shit going to stop?

    @themistocles: You're just flat wrong.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant.htm

    Crawl back in your wingnut hole.

  • DisgustedWithItAll on January 27, 2012 10:53 PM:

    I think it might be times for the mods to cut the comments off. It's just the same nonsense from the wingnuts over and over.