4. “DENIER” This slur is used to shame or silence global-warming skeptics and other heretics who question conventional wisdom. It has an ugly provenance, too, coming from “Holocaust denier,” a description applied to those best described as neo-Nazis or lunatics (or both). But skepticism is not a sin. The famed Chicago City News Bureau popularized a journalistic bromide: “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.” It means get a second source, be careful, and don’t just repeat what you hear. Words to live by. (By the way, my Twain reference comes from “Life on the Mississippi,” Chapter 6.)
Link to all 15
Maybe you thought of one that is not listed?
64 comments:
How about Hillary Clinton: I'll never be hungry again!
Or, Impeach Obama.
"I fought for ..."
You didn't FIGHT for anything. You blabbed on about something.
A mildly amusing listicle by Cannon, but I'm confused by item 8 - "Party of Reagan."
I understand but do not agree with the sentence inferring that Reagan was more pro-immigration and anti-war than some Republicans credit, but the last statement on McDaniel and "Reagan Democrats" baffles me.
If he is saying that the crossover Democrats who voted for Cochran in the runoff were Reagan Democrats then he probably shouldn't write anything else about Mississippi politics. Ever.
Perhaps I misunderstand. ARM is here. Maybe he can explain it to me.
"Let me be clear".....signal that bull feces is about to be thrown around.
There's nothing to silence when it comes to people who think their inability to understand the earth's climate systems is itself a sensible policy to pursue.
If you're gonna deny it, you're gonna own your denial.
"If you're gonna deny it, you're gonna own your denial."
Lol. They deny their denial.
Go ahead, R & B, help me to "understand the earth's climate systems"
"A politician you can have a beer with."
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
"I'll be honest with you" is another of those signals, as DBQ said, "that bull feces is about to be thrown around".
How about "suck my dick" in response to people who think not pursuing an obvious bogus policy about climate change intended to bilk low information Party cock suckers along with everybody else means ignorance about climate.
And "fuck you ignorant moron" to those who don't know jack shit about how real science is conducted free of Party interference.
Not sure you can be helped on that one, Allen.
But the alternative's an interesting one. Imagine you take ice out of the freezer, watch a cube melt, watch the level of water around it rise, and claim that an increase in temperature wasn't responsible.
Imagine that the carbon-rich Venusian atmosphere is is hotter than Mercury's, a planet even closer to the sun.
Denying away the obvious conclusions of these observations is the solemn burden of denialism and its practitioners.
As a student of science, I must allow that perhaps they must be the smart ones and I'm the one who just doesn't understand.
But I just wish they'd give me a good explanation or reason for that possibility. And not one revolving around economics or politics.
How about "suck my dick" in response to people who think not pursuing an obvious bogus policy about climate change intended to bilk low information Party cock suckers along with everybody else means ignorance about climate.
And "fuck you ignorant moron" to those who don't know jack shit about how real science is conducted free of Party interference.
How about this being a sound explanation for why grown-ups don't take you seriously.
A mind as fixated with that many copious vulgarisms* and stupid insults in two sentences is one that is screaming to the reader its lack of capacity for objective, rational thought, and its shrieking fright at considering the possibility that it could be wrong.
*Four, at last count, including two references to sucking and penises. Apparently "navel gazing" would be too high a reference point for someone aiming that far down into his pants while seeking an explanation for why ice would melt.
Chip's thesis on the alternative explanation for melting ice and rising water levels is being awaited by the most brilliant, unbought-and-pai-for minds that science has ever produced. Lol.
I've taken ice out of the freezer, but instead of watching it melt (which would make no fucking sense), I've put ice in drinks then peed in the water and it didn't noticeably make the water level rise.
That's Science 101.
"The science is settled."
On my ass.
The science is twisted and manipulated for political reasons and the answers to global climate change are always political. (and involve political and governmental graft)
Funny that.
And April Apple's tinfoil hat has a confederate flag painted on it. Lol.
And Ritmo's KKK tattoo is starting to wear off - it's so old. Better re-ink baby.
Oh April! You're so cute when you scream "racist!" ;-)
Yes you are, Babe. Though I never realized the KKK's political ideas were even that sophisticated.
Denying one's denialism has a neat ring to it. It kind of reminds me of when an SNL comedian made fun of Jesse Jackson's response to a charge from long ago that I now forget, by claiming, "Not only do I deny the allegation, I deny the alligator!"
btw - My tin foil hat has a SMOD target on it.
...and a propeller.
I don't deny climate change, but how can you tell with NOAA and NASA in collusion? It comes across as grifters wanting their cut of 'a sucker born every minute.'
Propellers are playful and fun, but SMOD targets are serious stuff. Just make sure not to mow down all the images in white coats - some are friendly!
Zero Sum Game.
Crisis.
Focus Group.
Literally.
Polarizing
I don't deny climate change, but how can you tell with NOAA and NASA in collusion? It comes across as grifters wanting their cut of 'a sucker born every minute.'
I don't see how easily it follows to knock NASA as an unserious and bungling organization. Sure, their demonstrations aren't as inspiring as an initial moon landing might have been, but to have pulled off not only that but all the amazing advances we're getting out of Hubble seem like scientifically very respectable accomplishments. I mean, if you can't respect an organization capable of pulling off the first moon landing… Geez. I guess I just don't know what to say.
And to believe that that many available shots by that many scientists and on-the-ground observers of northern ice (the majority of it) over time has been manipulated that much, to the point that I'm not even aware it's been seriously contested, is such a burden on our powers of reason that I don't know what to say. It almost makes me wonder if someone claiming as much would also likely believe that the earth-rise shot from space was a fake. I mean, someone coming up with that many acrobatic alternative explanations to the more credible prevailing ones, you really have to wonder what it is that they would, based on humanity's powers of observation, believe.
I am tired of hearing about amnesty for illegals.
They don't give a shit about our laws. Never did. Never will.
As a case in point there is the first Dominican woman elected to the Assembly in New York State.She just plead guilty to paying $8,000 for a sham marriage so she could stay in the US. Now she is an elected representative. This is the plan. Flood the zone. Put in people to get more and more free stuff and choke the life out of the taxpayers.
Amnesty. That is something I am tired of hearing about.
Ritmo, I will not look for it now, but there was evidence that NASA conspired with NOAA to send false data about surface temps.
I think we have to check all of the Dominicans papers.
Starting with Big Papi. Just sayn'
Ok but that sounds like the Stephen Goddard stuff where he couldn't show that it was conspiratorial-political instead of just discarded data made unreliable by different times of day or off-standard readings, etc. Just so you know, scientists don't always look at all data and routinely have to throw out stuff that's determined to be lower quality based on a faulty source, metrics that are questionable or not standardized, etc. In short, the same way "skeptics" would do to the data that they find reason to deem unreliable. But it's usually not controversial - even if in this case a blogger found some notoriety in excitedly insisting (with no basis for explaining why) that it somehow must have been.
Ooh. Ooh. A solemn burden to bear.
1. "Imagine you take ice out of the freezer, watch a cube melt, watch the level of water around it rise, and claim that an increase in temperature wasn't responsible."
If by "level of water around it" you mean the water in Allen's highball glass, well, it wouldn't rise at all so there's no responsibility to claim.
2. "Imagine that the carbon-rich Venusian atmosphere is is hotter than Mercury's, a planet even closer to the sun."
A better point here given that it wasn't disproven by Archimedes like the first one. But with Venus's atmosphere at 95% CO2 compared to Earth's .04% and it's atmospheric density at the surface 92 times Earth's and the fact that Mercury doesn't have an atmosphere there's no valid conclusion to be drawn outside of Ritmo's Imaginationland.
That's not to say that Ritmo's Imaginationland wouldn't be an interesting place to visit.
Deportation's cool but it's no fun unless you can also do it to an American every now and then. Like Jesse Jackson. Come on, that would be hilarious if we could deport him. Or Senator McCain or Lindsay Graham. I'm just trying to think of who would be the funniest American to see carted away in chains while screaming their innocence and loyalty. Maybe a New York mayor.
I think you are exactly right.
But if we deport De Blasio to Cuba you are just going to make him come in his pants.
I don't see what Americans have to do with it. Here is an illegal immigrant who lied to become a resident and was elected to the legislature. Don't you see anything wrong with that?
Ritmo The Science Guy said…
Imagine you take ice out of the freezer, watch a cube melt, watch the level of water around it rise
You don't specify where you're putting the imaginary ice cube, but if you're imagining putting it in a glass of water then Archimedes and this video say you're wrong.
OTOH, that doesn't mean that melting freshwater-ice won't raise ocean levels.
However the precedent is set. You can't be an elected official if you have a sham marriage.
So both Hillary and Lindsey Graham are out.
(Let's be bi-partisan about this shall we?)
Someone needs spend some time over at "what's up with that".
And I knew better too... "watts".
Chip Ahoy, it is like you channeled some Jeff Goldstein!
Troop, Lindsay Graham never married and has no children.
It just rained. I'm not sure about what "understand the earth's climate systems" that describes what just happened.
How long will it be before the global warming zealots like Al Gore and Bill McKribben [I refer to them as hobbyists] are exposed as frauds by the majority of the public?
ISIS because AGW - how annoying is that?
Imagine you take ice out of the freezer, watch a cube melt, watch the level of water around it rise, and claim that an increase in temperature wasn't responsible.
Imagine that you have a cube of ice floating in the water in a glass. The cube of ice melts. Does the water level in the glass go up?
I heard the recent Goddard stuff, but the claim I'm thinking of was made, maybe, five years ago.
In less than 5 years, the global warmists will deny they ever argued that AGW was their cause.
I really don't see how all these pleas for 2,500 year-dead Greek guys to intervene will save denialism. For one thing, the melting of glaciers generally and ice caps in particular are evidence of the overall warming effect. So to use that as a way to bolster denialism is absurd, and precisely the point I was making.
Second, someone had better tell Archimedes that not all stored ice around the world is in the form of icebergs with 90% of its mass hidden beneath the surface. There's something called Greenland. I also recall massive glaciers resting above Baffin Island and polar parts of Canada. There are the Himalayas. Glaciers in parts of Canada even further south. In short, a whole lot of ice not tied to oceanic sites that are going away, into the ocean, becoming salinated (not good when drinkability is desired), etc. So just keep that in mind when you feel the need to appeal to old dead Greek guys to prove to all the scientists (and just generally rational people) making use of all their knowledge since and then to guide their decisions today. But who knows, maybe Archimedes was also opposed to temperature observations. Where's Zeus when you need him? Did he also make that pact with Noah that that Republican legislator mentioned about sparing the planet whatever humans inflict on it, too? Zeus? Apollo? We need all the gods and religion we can get when it comes to saving The Great Cause of Denialism.
From Patrick Moore, a Canadian that helped found Greenpeace:
1. The concentration of CO2 in the global atmosphere is lower today, even including human emissions, than it has been during most of the existence of life on Earth.
2. The global climate has been much warmer than it is today during most of the existence of life on Earth. Today we are in an interglacial period of the Pleistocene Ice Age that began 2.5 million years ago and has not ended.
3. There was an Ice Age 450 million years ago when CO2 was about 10 times higher than it is today.
4. Humans evolved in the tropics near the equator. We are a tropical species and can only survive in colder climates due to fire, clothing and shelter.
5. CO2 is the most important food for all life on earth. All green plants use CO2 to produce the sugars that provide energy for their growth and our growth. Without CO2 in the atmosphere carbon-based life could never have evolved.
6. The optimum CO2 level for most plants is about 1600 parts per million, four times higher than the level today. This is why greenhouse growers purposely inject the CO2-rich exhaust from their gas and wood-fired heaters into the greenhouse, resulting in a 40-80 per cent increase in growth.
7. If human emissions of CO2 do end up causing significant warming (which is not certain) it may be possible to grow food crops in northern Canada and Russia, vast areas that are now too cold for agriculture.
8. Whether increased CO2 levels cause significant warming or not, the increased CO2 levels themselves will result in considerable increases in the growth rate of plants, including our food crops and forests.
9. There has been no further global warming for nearly 18 years during which time about 25 per cent of all the CO2 ever emitted by humans has been added to the atmosphere. How long will it remain flat and will it next go up or back down? Now we are out of the realm of facts and back into the game of predictions.
Poor Ritmo, now commenting at the level of Crack, rejecting a cornerstone of hydrostatics bc it was discovered by a Dead White Guy.
Your initial comment used a particularly muddled way of practicing extreme condescension toward Allen S, and it bit you in the ass. But your tender ego won't allow you to simply cop to poor writing, you have to double down on it, by analogizing a real scientist to fictional gods, bc … Greece!
As for your fixation on Venus, you can stop worrying. It's Helios you should fear:
He foresees an eventual human exodus from Earth because our sun is slowly but surely radiating more heat into space. That natural amplification of the brightness of the sun, by about 1 percent every 110 million years, is gradually cranking up Earth’s thermostat….
The temperature increase caused by humans burning fossil fuels will pose major problems for the planet in decades to come but even worst-case scenarios get nowhere near the temperature increase caused by the ultimate intensification of the sun, Wolf said.
Get a grip, Chip. For someone admitting that a significant problem with libertarian vote-getting and social understanding might result from their being disproportionately autistically inclined, erroneous accusations of condescension, anti-Greek"ism" and confusing science with religion is not doing you any favors. I simply state why hydrostatics is not the issue, and topped that off with a humorous pique of entreaty to whatever gods the "New Climate Denial" movement would accept.
For the record, Greek mythology is as enlightening and interesting to me as Greek contributions to science, or any contributions to science. Western civilization, (of which I'm a fan, don't know if you are or not?) started more or less with the Greeks. Their mythology is edifying, but still just mythology. And if you want to appeal to their sciences for modern applications in which those sciences don't apply (I apologize if it continues to escape you that land-based ice does not displace water), I simply ask that perhaps you could appropriate their gods, also. For denialism is, after all, a theological phenomenon.
I simply state why hydrostatics is not the issue
No, you simply continued your tendency to never admit any deficiency of any kind.
If you don't think that your puerile comment to Allen S would naturally be interpreted to refer to rising ocean levels due to melting polar ice, then you really don't understand clear writing at all. You're one of the last people on this blog who should be lecturing about how to communicate.
But let's hear more about how Earth is going to become Venus bc of fossil fuels. That's hilarious.
Venus became the Venus it is today because of fossil fuels. So it's the relevant point to teaching why CO2 in the atmosphere is a crucial component of temperature regulation, or when excessive, dysregulation. For people not understanding and always denying that science, it's an important point to make.
My response to Allen (and why are you getting so defensive about him in the first place? Are you some type of feelings moderator all of a sudden?) was no more puerile than his half-serious request of me. Nor did I ever mention "sea ice" when talking about rising levels; they were separate points. But people will imagine it. I did mention polar ice when asking why it would melt so much more copiously if no warming is occurring, however, which no one answered. So as usual, a denialist/sympathizer is either confusing points or failing to acknowledge one. You are imagining that I causally linked melting polar ice to rising sea levels. But I didn't. I mentioned both because they're both obviously correlated to an underly cause of rising temps (the cause of both), not because the majority of the rise would result from the majority of the melted sea ice. Some effects have the same cause.
Seriously. If that doesn't answer your question or mollify your annoyance, who knows what would? I think you're just trying to get a righteous kick off of feeling annoyed. And apparently sometimes extended, complex communication is necessary when so many wrong assumptions are made. I checked my comments. I never pulled an anti-Archimedes. People assumed I did, and now I'm the bad communicator.
Well, I guess that's better than the others admitting that they're just bad readers and bad listeners.
Any other sins of science and civilized discourse you'd like to lecture me about today?
And why are you getting so grumpy with me so often lately?
And why are you getting so grumpy with me so often lately?
Because of stuff like this:
You are imagining that I causally linked melting polar ice to rising sea levels.
In fact, my initial comment stated explicitly that you weren't necessarily doing that. I wrote:
You don't specify where you're putting the imaginary ice cube
I actually edited out of my comment the possibility that you imagined putting the ice cube on a countertop, because I thought that was too silly a thought experiment to represent any substantive point you could possibly have been trying to make. So, my bad for overestimating you initially.
Note also that my initial comment both acknowledged the Archimedian point and linked to an explanation of why that didn't mean that melting, floating ice wouldn't raise sea levels.
As for where people got the crazy idea that you were talking about ice in water, there's your comment to the other Chip, posted immediately after your comment to Allen:
Chip's thesis on the alternative explanation for melting ice and rising water levels is being awaited by the most brilliant, unbought-and-pai-for minds that science has ever produced.
Yeah, totally a mystery why anyone thought of Archimedes after reading that.
Finally, I'll answer this question:
why are you getting so defensive about [Allen S] in the first place? Are you some type of feelings moderator all of a sudden?
Nope. Just a guy who likes accuracy. For me, it's almost never about personalities. I think I've probably agreed and disagreed w. a wider range of people here than almost anyone else.
I actually edited out of my comment the possibility that you imagined putting the ice cube on a countertop, because I thought that was too silly a thought experiment to represent any substantive point you could possibly have been trying to make. So, my bad for overestimating you initially.
Please tell me when it is that scientists decide upon the usefulness of an experiment out of concerns for "silliness". I mean, I thought aesthetes were more interested in the arts. The sciences, OTOH, are generally for questions to be answered without prejudice or bias - let alone concern for social reaction, and simply based on logic and applied fact alone. But perhaps I misunderstand your interest in a novel field that I never realized existed: "Artistically/socially correct science."
Note also that my initial comment both acknowledged the Archimedian point and linked to an explanation of why that didn't mean that melting, floating ice wouldn't raise sea levels.
Yes, you made your point. It was your point against their own inane objections, but not against any point of my own. I kind of appreciated that, but then, that would be scorekeeping. It's good that you recognize points matter more than persons in this sort of a discussion - I just didn't realize you felt I or anyone else was giving you insufficient recognition for that.
As for where people got the crazy idea that you were talking about ice in water, there's your comment to the other Chip, posted immediately after your comment to Allen:
Chip's thesis on the alternative explanation for melting ice and rising water levels is being awaited by the most brilliant, unbought-and-pai-for minds that science has ever produced.
Again, same point. If you melt a land-based glacier (they exist, Chip - and their contributions aren't negligible) or an ice cube on a dry surface, you'll collect a raised level of water. But again, they were also separate points. Higher temps both melt glaciers and raise water levels. So really, you're just arguing against my recognition of that indisputable fact.
Yeah, totally a mystery why anyone thought of Archimedes after reading that.
Actually, no. It's because people wanted to assume I was falling into some "trap" they'd imagined they'd set by having a prefabricated talking point on AGW that I actually, wasn't making. But I can see why that would disappoint someone. I mean, when someone's so set on thinking they're right, of course the people who disagree with them could ONLY be making the point they already had an explanation for proving wrong! No other possibilities could exist.
You need to use your imagination more. Explore the possibility that someone might not be what you need to assume them to be in order for you to strengthen the points that are important to you and Team Denial.
I mean, that would be the scientific thing to do. (And the pro-social thing to do).
;-)
But if instead, score-mending is more the objective, by all means, I welcome you clarifying that.
Thanks.
And Chip, to make this simple, since the original point was my own, what is your explanation for exacerbated melting of glacial and polar ice, as well as for increased water levels? I mean, the crowd here has been clinging to the contention that temps are cooling. Is that your contention? Because if so, I'd like to know how a cooling planet melts glaciers at greater rates and raises water levels. Please let me know. As a man of science (but not silliness), surely you have an explanation. Why would people here (including you?) embrace the idea that the earth's been cooling over the last decade while if anything we've lost much more planetary ice? What's the explanation here? It's all I was asking.
Have at it!
Post a Comment