Friday, February 12, 2010

The Right's Inability to Grasp Climate Change May Be Funny, But It's Also Very Dangerous.

The Right's Inability to Grasp Climate Change May Be Funny, But It's Also Very Dangerous

The so-called Snowpocalypse has brought out the funny bone in the right-wing media, but their inability to correctly draw causal connections is very dangerous.


Anonymous said...

What, no one on the Left has an inability to grasp climate change? I see a lot of "working" people (the ones with unions stickers on their big 4x4 trucks) who I am sure would tell you to "stuff your global warming up your ***". To me this post shows that climate change is more of a political issue than a scientific one. Blaming it all on right wing, Tea Party types, etc. That's the problem with the left, they have no clue how their base thinks, or rather they assume that they do the thinking for their base. Poor Al Gore, might not live long enough to be the first "green" billionaire, what with the way the climate change cabal has screwed up the PR.

Mpeterson said...

Sorry Anony, but as someone who spends time around the scientific community you'll have to pardon my incredulity. Temperature doesn't bend to ideology -- not yet anyway.

But if you mean to say that Rahm Emanuel's recent comment is also applicable to the Political Left on the issue of global warming, you couldn't be more right.

Kevin Scheunemann said...


Did we ever settle on your "faith" on NASA to get the science right?

If you did admit to the NASA faith on getting the global warming data right, did I ever forward the overwhelming litany of things NASA has gotten wrong in the past?

Does the historical litany (comedy of errors) support your faith in NASA to get this right?

Thus, should we all be reorganizing or lives around your unfounded faith in NASA?

Mpeterson said...

Do you mean the whole "using science instead of superstition to land men on the moon" thing?

I guess I'd ask you whether the financial mechanisms you use to keep track of your business expenses are grounded in religious faith or in science -- oh wait. I get it now.

Could it be that because *your* economic worldview depends on a religious convictions, you assume everyone else in all other areas of human endeavor operate the same way?

Now you make sense.

So you must pray a lot over ice cream sales, eh? :^)

Kevin Scheunemann said...


Pray over ice cream sales?

Should I address my prayer to the Christian God or the global warming gods?

In all seriousness, you just can't get over the idea there needs to be a "threshold faith event" when it comes to NASA's analysis of the climate data.

At some point, you have to believe and have faith those NASA scientists got it right.

Given the scandal of all the climatetologists at the UN, and various other so-called higher learning institutions, NASA cannot provide the science with certainty, a leap of "faith" is required to complete the global warming cosmology.

This is an old fashion snake oil con for funding. What I find hard to believe is some in academia still fall for the same old economic con, dressed up in a different package.

Mpeterson said...

Your comment would only make sense if the phrase "threshold event" made any sense and had there actually been a scandal regarding the IPCC scientists.

Since neither of these are meaningful statements, I'm afraid I can't think of how to answer you using meaningful phrases.

What would a "threshold event" mean?

James Dionne said...

Hey Mark,

Why are the polar ice caps on Mars shrinking?

It couldn't have anything to do with us polluting Mars with those two little rovers would it? I would guess it's more due to natural solar cycles, not human pollution. I'm also guessing these same solar cycles affect Earth.

How did the Great Lakes form?

Could it have been by a recent global Ice ages? Where did all that ice go? It must have gotten warmer. The climate changed, even warmed, all without us. Absolutely Amazing.

I really do not think those multiple, cycling Ice Ages were set off by man made pollution, do you?

Do you know that one large volcanic eruption does more CO2 damage to the atmosphere than a whole decade of human pollution? Seeing that there are hundreds of active volcanoes on the planet, that has to make us pretty small CO2 polluters, comparatively.

Nobody disputes the climate data (unless it's fudged, which some was, but I believe the majority is not.)
What people are disputing is the gall of some humans to think that we have anything but a negligible effect on the global climate. We really are nothing but piss-ants in the grand scheme of things. By the fossil record, Ice cores, and cave stalagmite samples, scientists have proven that global climate has been constantly and rapidly changing for thousands, if not millions of years before our existence and it will continue to change into the future even if we want it to or not. So please, stop thinking your "smarter" than everyone else or that you can "grasp" things better and please stop taking peoples tax dollars to control society in an effort to stop something that really cannot be controlled.

To be fair,
I guess it's a little like GWB attacking Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia. He wanted Hussein dead and used 9/11 as an excuse. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Liberals want societal control and use green initiatives and climate change summits as an excuse. One giant crisis diversion into our wallets and freedoms. If we let these green cap and trade credits rule, the liberals have just made you feel good about getting robbed of your freedoms as well as your money. That is what I call dangerous, Mark.

Cue snappy comeback about corporate thieves in three, two, one....

Mpeterson said...

You're underestimating human impact.

Those who work in science haven't.

Kevin Scheunemann said...

"threshold faith event"

---A point in time where one has to decide the data, input, or life experience is being represented accurately and fairly, and one has faith the representation is correct, true, and accurate.

You are asking me to have this spiritual event in relation to a government agency (NASA) that has screwed up many things in the past. (As well as having a strong economic incentive to maintain its "crisis du jour" funding with this hostile, anti-space administration to keep the agency aloat.) You are demanding I conform to your religion on global warming.

You would be the first in line to keep others in "check" about their "threshold faith events" in the public square...why not the religion of worshipping colder winters?

Mpeterson said...

Wow. Then you've completely misunderstood me. I can't imagine imposing that kind of impossible threshold on science of any kind.

So you're definition of "decide" necessarily includes a "faith" as a kind of jump beyond the probabilities inherent in the data?

I'd say that's an impossible measure. How could you ever, then, know anything at all?

Me, I'm content to allow my beliefs in things like economics and global warming to depend only on the stochastic probability distributions in the data themselves.

Of course, this means I could be wrong about things I believe, whereas you'll never be wrong once your threshold is passed.

Grant said...

You are demanding I conform to your religion on global warming

I would settle for not polluting teh Internets and impressionable young minds with nonsense. But I have no faith in that happening.

Kevin Scheunemann said...


So you could be wrong on global warming? (I couldn't resist)

If you don't practice this impossible review standard, you enter an element of uncertainty to the process, which reduces the science to a cosmology.

But I understand, I don't want to be in a position of stomping on your global warming faith---no matter how silly it is.

I'm just hopeful you will commit equal public disdain for religion in public, including the warming religion.

Mpeterson said...

Unless religion were scientific, of course -- which it is almost everywhere in the world, except in the western monotheisms, and only in Christianity after about 450.

Free Lunch said...

Bootsie has a lot of proudly ignorant folks telling us that there is no climate change. Why? How do they benefit by ignoring the problem?

Mpeterson said...

Short term profits are spectacular, in this case, and will always overwhelm long term planning. That seems to be the major factor.

James Dionne said...

Mpeterson said...

My goodness James, this actually kind of supports Kevin's argument for teaching creationism as science.

Thank goodness the Express is there to keep on eye on those industry sponsored scientists -- no, wait, that's not right -- state sponsored scientists -- no, that can't be it either or scientists in the US during the Bush years would have come out against global warming -- insane scientists would be able to get away with this whole global warming thing.

Sorry, bruddah. If I were Kevin I'd say you can't prove humans aren't causing global warming.

Neither can a journalist renegotiating their sense of a global warming scandal that never actually happened.

Anonymous said...

It's getting difficult to see how anyone can take global warming seriously anymore. The evidence isnt there, and the stated evidence has been falty. Comeon guys, seriously?

Anonymous said...

Wow, this guy must be some right wingnut, to come up with 17 specific points that might cause a normal intelligent rational thinker to wonder exactly what they are supposed to "grasp". Sounds like global warming is just a partisan issue, or maybe the "left" has an inability to present it as anything but.

My favorite is this:

"DutchGate – The IPCC also claimed rising sea levels endanger the 55 percent of the Netherlands it says is below sea level. The portion of the Netherlands below sea level actually is 20 percent. The Dutch environment minister said she will no longer tolerate climate researchers' errors."

Kevin Scheunemann said...


Tough luck on Conoco Phillips, BP, and Caterpillar, pulling out of the climate change alliance today.

Looks like the climate change religion is losing its followers.

What will the climate change pope, Al Gore, say?

Will it be a heretic denouncement of these 3 disciples leaving the warming religious faith?

Or will it be a warm embrace and forgiveness of those who strayed against the radical warming faith, but continue to sin against the climate change religion?

I will be fascinated by your reaction.

This is a pickle for leftist religion.