Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Conservatives Still Deny Global Warming

I could be paddling a rowboat down Market Street in San Francisco after the poles have melted, and there will still be conservative fanatics who deny that humans are responsible for Global Warming or that it is even real.

Why this stubborn refusal to acknowledge the most respected scientists on the planet in favor of studies funded by lobbyists and political organizations with obvious ties to corporate interests? I see four possible reasons:

1. They believe it, but don't care: These people are so attached to the wealth created by their surreptitious business holdings that they are incapable of concern for their less fortunate peers, other species, or future generations of humans. This would be very disturbing, because it would mean that a huge portion of our population is actually evil.

2. They are simply to afraid to face the truth: Like ostriches who hide their heads in the sand when there is danger present, their fear doesn't allow them to admit their impending doom.

3. They are racked with guilt: Perhaps they just cannot face the guilt associated with their participation in the destruction of thousands of species of plants and animals; the possible extermination of the human race (or at least our civilization); and the destruction of an ecosystem which is the legacy of every person alive as well as those not yet born.

4. They are just ignorant: This is not very likely, but maybe they simply lack the intellect required to process the information available and come to the obvious conclusion that most intelligent people came to, back in the early seventies.

Such foolishness reminds me of the catholic church's pathetic attempts at stifling any theories that threatened their geocentric model of the universe. Whatever the reason for this self induced ignorance, we must try to educate them of the truth however difficult that may seem. The next time you hear some uneducated hick exclaim, "Global Warming? What global warming? This was the coldest winter I can remember, so how can the planet be warming up?" or, "These are just natural fluctuations in the Earth's climate." Please speak up and explain to them that only religious fanatics who cling to the notion of creationism and a flat Earth still doubt the unfortunate reality of global warming.

I liken our current situation to that faced by the inhabitants of Rapa Nui (Easter Island) before western explorers arrived to find them eating each other just to stay alive. The island was rich in resources, but its superstitious inhabitants squandered those resources trying to outdo each other by carving and erecting enormous stone monoliths which were meant to bring luck to their individual clans. Had they used those resources to build ships instead of statues, their culture may have survived and even flourished. Earth is also a remote island with finite resources. Our skyscrapers are our monoliths, our nations are our clans. If we don't stop our petty clan squabbles and get busy building space ships and space colonies, we may lose the opportunity altogether. Humanity may revert to an agrarian society only to be wiped out eventually when the Sun or a nearby star goes supernova; we are struck by an asteroid; or some other global catastrophe wipes us out. We cannot continue to allow the greedy, ignorant, and/or incompetent to exploit and squander the Earth's resources, which are the legacy of all life on Earth.


  1. You must have missed the news that the missing ice was a satellite glitch and it showed up later. Did you miss the news on how the data from Russia was faked and the real data ignored? You couldn't have missed the news of Climategate and the hacked e-mails. Open your mind and see the corruption and manipulation. AGW is a fraud. This is a global power-play. The data you are being fed is not real.

  2. Who ever supports the Global Warming Scare are commonly called "useful idiots." Now that's a pretty harsh term, but it's accurate given what is commonly known about Climategate. It takes tremdous energy to avoid the facts and remain a fool on thsi issue. Real science is always welcome, while politicized science form any political side is not welcome.

    So why is there a group of people wanting to promote fraudulent science about Global Warming?

    Could it be that it serves as a vehicle for furthering a small select group's political gains by crafting laws that will personally serve them well? It appears so.

    Maybe George Orwell's nightmare is upon us, with a green smile.

  3. Global warming, ugh, sorry, Climate Change, is a hoax perpetrated by certain disparate groups sharing common goals. Power and money. These people learn well from lessons past. Remember in 1975 the hysterical bleatings from grant seeking scientists (kind of like today) revolved around Global COOLING! We were entering another Ice Age! What nonsense then, and today. How arrogant we are to think we can change the mood of the earth's climate.
    I have been around a long time and I have learned one thing. Follow the money. What is there to be gained? Tell a big lie enough times, people will begin to believe it. Take freon as an example. ALGORE must have been paying attention to corporate generated hysterics when DuPont sabotaged its own product, namely chloroflourocarbons AKA CFC's. COMPLETELY harmless, but their patent was running out and rather than lose that lucrative OEM automotive/airconditioner business, having just patented R-34, and knowing anybody could then produce freon for about $.25 per pound, they said - LET"S DEMONIZE IT! So they went about convincing the general public that this FREON molecule, weighing 4 times as much as the air we breathe, has somehow made its way up to the ozone layer in great batches and attached itself to the oxygen molecule thereby removing the O2's ability to scramble UV rays ( which does not happen at all!). What a farce. Might as well try to convince me that releasing Helium into the air will kill the grass in my yard. Rubbish! so it goes with Global farting. Just a power grab and you sir, the owner of this blog ARE a usefull tool to them. I am conservative, yes. I am not rich by a long shot. I drive, unhappily a 1993 Ford Escort. I believe in being a good steward to this earth. I will not dump my used crankcase oil into the ground, but I dismiss attempts by treehugging commies and socialists that I do it according to rules they lay out for me. Please! Common sense must rule here. We cleaned up 95% of a given cars emmissions with a $5.00 PCV valve. Market forces, competition, and generational fuel management and ignition advances would have cleaned up the rest nicely without government mandating it. But no. The EPA makes rules and we must tolerate CAFE.
    California just banned certain plasma TV's for being power hungry. What a joke! As the manufacturers move to efficient LED's that power decrease would come naturally anyway. GET the GOVERNMENT out of my life, PLEASE!

  4. Here is a classic case of "projection". Our hysterical poster wants to make me a "believer". I suppose a good turn on The Rack would get a confession out of me. It's a joke, get it?...Racked With Guilt! In the meantime, until the Eco-Terror Inquisition forces my conversion...
    1. I believe but I don't care: You are half right. I don't believe and I don't care.
    2. I am simply afraid to face the truth: The truth is that it's bloody cold and I'm afraid it's going to get colder.
    3. I am racked with guilt: you mean "wracked" of course. I feel a little guilty making fun of the poor education you received. Ipso, this refers to my joke if you still don't get it.
    4. I am just ignorant: I read in History Books that at one time there were Inca and Maya civilizations that believed they could control the Climate Gods by throwing virgins and babies into volcanos. It appears some of us have not advanced much since then. Many, it appears, still believe we have the power to control forces of nature that are cosmic in scope. Such hubris among savages was ignorant; what do we call such hubris among 21st Century post-Christian post-modern Occidental Man? I call it "Post-Rational".

  5. @russ is cold:
    Thank you for taking the time to read and comment here.
    If you want to be a ball breaker and nit pick my spelling, I won't deprive you of the fun. For it is apparent from your "statement of truth" that you are completely bereft of reason, and I shouldn't begrudge you of those little moments of glory that you do enjoy.
    Thanks again and please come back.

  6. David, it is you who is beyond being bereft of reason. I came here to see your site because of a comment you left somewhere saying you were "so far to the left" even Democrats appear to you to be "right wing" while at the same time considering yourself to be a "strict Constitutionalist". (In the same sentence!)

    If you can't see the contradiction in this statement then you don't even have an -inkling- what reason is, let alone criticize someone else for lacking it. Bereft of reason implies you know what it is, you don't even have a clue.

    You are so consumed with your hatred of "conservatives" and the right wing you cannot see straight, let alone think straight.

    In your case; Thoughts are like a box of chocolates, you never know what you'll get.

    But it ain't reason.

  7. The ice is what we have to be afraid of. Who cares if the ice caps melt, it won't happen over night. We'll have time to move the people off the Maldives, the refugees in Bangladesh can walk to higher ground. The global grain belts will expand and food will be plentiful. Think of the natural resources that would be available in Antarctica and Greenland. If the ice comes back then we're all in deep S$#@.

  8. I'll admit to "climate change" because thats what it does, EVERYDAY, and thats what it HAS been doing since the beginning of time! My real question to the idiots who think that man can influence it one way or the other is, how do you know when you've done enough??? When do you stop your efforts to reduce man's "influence" on climate before you've gone too far the other way? You are all a bunch of pin-heads who can't think your way out of a paper bag. Mother Earth will go right on her merry way long after we have figured out how the eliminate ourselves from her surface and guess what, the CLIMATE will continue to CHANGE!!!

  9. Both sides have good arguements, however I will only say this.

    Fill a cup half way with water. Now put as much ice in it as you can so the ice is still "floating". Draw a line where the water is.

    When the ice melts you will see the water level has actually dropped. The science is simple; ice takes up more room than water.

    If our ice pole caps ever do melt it will actually lower the sea level, not raise it. Sorry if you were confused.

  10. Hurcule:
    I feel a little silly pointing out to you that the ice contained around the poles and in the world's glaciers is mostly above sea level. So, a better analogy would be to take a cup of water that is already nearly full and then drop a couple of ice cubes in. You notice that the cup overflows....this represents the flooding and other damage that will occur in every densely populated region of the planet.
    And no there won't be time to just move as someone else suggested. Ask the people living in the Maldives where they are going to go...

  11. David,
    I feel a little silly, too. The Ice, no matter how high above sea level, if it is still in the sea will not affect the sealevel if it melts. Only Ice and snow on land, when melted will affect the sea level. Fill a glass 1/2 full with water and Ice, the ice will float (because air gets trapped in the ice when it freezes, that's why it's lighter than water.) when it melts the total hight of the ice and water is lower. If you melt some ice in a pot and add it to the glass it over flows. (oh yes, the south polar ice is growing.)

    go to this site.
    There is some real science that explains "global warming" and keep in mind the earth is ice free every 100,000 years and within that cycle we also have an ice age at the 50,000 year mark. Do you think 2 miles of ice melted from over New York because the Mammoths wouldn't give up their hair dryers???

  13. I will not debate the science.

    As I said before, the world's most respected scientists have spoken "only religious fanatics who cling to the notion of creationism and a flat Earth still doubt the unfortunate reality of global warming."

    Tell me this, should we continue to act like idiots just on the possibility that you might be right?

  14. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  15. @Deleted Anonymous Comment:
    I don't mind being called an idiot (even by an anonymous poster) as long as you accompany your insult with an intelligent comment.

  16. " Fill a glass 1/2 full with water and Ice, the ice will float (because air gets trapped in the ice when it freezes, that's why it's lighter than water.)"

    These are the people who will overturn all of climate science? (Hint, this is not why ice floats).

    "Fill a cup half way with water. Now put as much ice in it as you can so the ice is still "floating". Draw a line where the water is.

    When the ice melts you will see the water level has actually dropped. The science is simple; ice takes up more room than water."

    This one understands why ice floats, but doesn't understand that the level of water will remain the same (if it's fresh water) after the ice melts.

    Dude - since you've suggested an experiment, why don't you *try it*. It will help you avoid looking foolish in the future.

    "If our ice pole caps ever do melt it will actually lower the sea level, not raise it. Sorry if you were confused."

    Ahem. Sea ice melting will essentially not change sea levels at all, as your own experiment would demonstrate *if you actually tried it*.

    (since it's salt water, there is a slight effect on sea level, but it will be nearly immeasurable).

    Wow. Just wow.

  17. To Anonymous: You say that AGW is a fraud. Is your brain not functioning properly or are you purposely trying to confuse people? AGW is an EVENT, NOT a person! Events can never be frauds, only people can be frauds... like you. Funny how you people cling to little phrases which make no sense whatsoever and attempt to pass them off as truths. You're sick. Also, you said its a global power play. Yeah, right! 3,000 of the most respected scientists from over 100 countries all got together one evening and whispered, "hey, I've got a good idea, let's trick the human race..." You're ridiculous!

  18. To the Screwball who said, "if the poles do melt they will not raise sea levels". (Guess he thinks he knows more than scientists). Ice which is already in water (like the summer sea ice at the poles) will not raise sea levels if they melt. You were correct about that. HOWEVER, ice that is on the land WILL raise sea level if they melt... like Greenland and Antarctica. Thus, you're wrong. The most reputable scientists around the world are right. Sorry, dude.

  19. Human beings have over the eons faced harsh weather, catastrophe, warming, and cooling. We have survived by adapting. Should my real estate be perpetrated on by rising waters, mud, or any other manifestation of the divine, I will pull up my stakes and head for higher ground. Why tax me into the stone age for natural variations in climate, pray do tell? Oh, in the interest in making everyone 'equal'. Sorry, fools, people are not created equal. Providing for the weak only degrades the gene pool nature has taken eons to refine. Humanity is in decline in this welfare state you so gleefully tout under Dear Leader Obama.

  20. To My Dear Anonymous Poster:
    I am not a huge supporter of President Obama, although I admit he was a better choice than any republican candidate. Please see my post regarding Democrats and Republicans:

  21. This is possibly the most juvenile and naive AGW movement blog I've seen yet.

    The nitwit links and referals are simply comical.

    You'll be joining the rather large group to be thoroughly disgraced.

  22. Can I get back the 10 minutes of my life I just spent reading this idiot's blog? It's freezing!! Can someone stoke up the old coal power plants and give us some Co2 so we can warm it up a bit?

  23. Hey, did you know that the continents today were once one giant land mass? Did you know that there were once these things called dinosaurs, and that there was a massive Ice Age at one time with wooly mammoths running around? Man, all those automobiles really messed the environment up to cause the world to change that drastically! Oh.. wait..

    Did you know that almost all of the planets in this solar system have been steadily warming? Curse those Martian automobiles! Oh .. wait..

    Y'see, there have been massive natural changes to this planet that were not caused by man, but by nature. The entire history of human existence has not seen any major changes like those and *IF* there is a trend coming for a major change like the aforementioned ones, what makes you think it isn't nature's causes?

    And here's the strange conundrum. Environmentalists want to stop this 'global warming', but if it is in fact nature's doing, aren't you actually fighting that which you want to protect? What if these 'measures' actually cause more harm by preventing the natural cycle? Or is it that you are simple-minded buying into a hoax that we can keep the planet the exact same always? Isn't that defying nature and preventing growth?

    And seriously how does me getting taxed higher and giving money to other countries going to prevent 'global warming'? Are we going to bribe the atosphere?

  24. "I will not debate the science." -- David Scott

    "If you cannot answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names." -- Elbert Hubbard

  25. @darrell:

    The science has been debated by greater minds than mine and the debate is over. However, I don't see any reason to fall into ad homonym attacks, though I noticed that those on the conservative end of this argument often do so.

  26. > The science has been debated by greater minds than mine and the debate is over.

    Just because you don't wish to take part in it doesn't mean it's over; it just means you've decided to stop thinking about it.

  27. Science Test: Measure the level of liquid in your iced tea before and after the ice melts. Both the same.

    That argument has already been refuted.

  29. Science Test: Check Ice Core Samples for natural Temperature variability. Back Then = "Especially astonishing are the very short times needed for major warmings. A temperature increase of 5°C can occur in a few decades." -Greenland Core Project, Final Report
    Now = ??

  30. Quote: "We cannot continue to allow the greedy, ignorant, and/or incompetent to exploit & squander the Earth's resources, which are the legacy of all life on Earth."

    How do we stop them? They are the ones in charge or they have purchased the ones in charge. Corruption in government appears to be complete and global. It is painful to be aware of what is going on and realize that there really isn't anything we can do except change our lightbulbs, walk more often and hope for the best.

    P.S. I do not like your comment box. It does not seem to allow for editing at all.

  31. The science has been debated by greater minds than yours therefore the debate is over?

    Science doesn't work that way, the debate is never over. If you are deferring to 'greater minds' you are either practicing religion or the logical fallacy of argument from authority. You pick, makes no difference to me.

  32. The debate is over because the scientists presented irrefutable facts & charts to prove their point and the non-scientists presented the compelling argument of "nuh uh!"

    It really wasn't that big of a debate and it should be over by now. The "nuh uh" side of the room should go away and let the grown-ups talk now.

  33. David, I'm very late to the discussion here, via a comment you left at Newsbusters.

    I'm quite intrigued at your comment I will not debate the science. Why? There's nothing magical about Science - as long as the data and methods are provided (and they often are not, particularly in Climate Science), there's nothing here that an intelligent person can't understand.

    I've laid out some reasons to be skeptical about the science here:

    Specifically, (a) the raw data in the temperature data sets does not agree with the processed (homogenized) data, (b) the proxy temperature data sets are poorly joined to the temperature record and have been diverging from them for the last fifty years, (c) the historical record about the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age is very clear (despite the desire of some climate scientists to challenge it), and (d) positive CO2 forcing appears to be not correlated with (or negatively correlated with) 75% of the twentieth century's temperature record.

    Personally, I'm much less interested in any "scientific consensus" and much more interested in the data. The data is pretty danged interesting, and makes the science look anything but settled.

    Now perhaps I'm wrong, but am interested in a response a bit more specific to my arguments than, say, Harriet's.

  34. @Borepatch:
    I think Harriet said it quite eloquently...

    The question raised in my article is why do some people cling to their arguments in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The responses of the right-wing(I don't know why they, but most of them are right-wingers) only proves that the basis for my question is reasonable.

  35. If one is not interested in debating the science, then it doesn't seem likely that any minds will be enlightened or changed. And if that isn't likely, then we are all just preaching to the choir, an exercise in futility.

    I for one, feel that the science supporting a significant contribution to global warming from human activity is quite compelling, but that doesn't mean that the opposing side is not raising some interesting points.

    So much of the discussion in general, and the comments on this blog, completely miss the entire point of having this discussion. The critical point is this:

    It is valuable for us to understand if our actions are adversely affecting the climate, not so much to protect the polar bears or the coral reefs, tho we have a moral obligation to do so, but to protect our children and our culture that we value so much. If we indeed are causing a global environmental catastrophe of the magnitude suggested, it is highly likely that this will have a devastating effect on our evolving culture and our future generations. We may well even cause our own species to go extinct.

    I would hope that tree huggers and conservatives alike can agree that making efforts, even painful ones, to avoid the devastation of our culture, or even the elimination of our kind altogether is worth doing.

    Thus, it is critical that we debate the science if that is what is needed to improve the consensus for action. Just saying all the scientists agree does not guarantee any action will occur, but when average people understand the true risks, and contact the politicians to demand change in big enough numbers, believe me, they will take action.


  36. Temp swings are a natural event :
    "The d18O records confirm that large and rapid temperature oscillations have occurred through most of the last 110,000 year period. They are of a scale that has not been experienced during the past 10,000 years in which human society mainly developed." Greenland Ice Core Project - Final Report

  37. Both sides say what you want, but the most important thing is to take your head out of a book and LOOK OUTSIDE- BECOME AWARE- essentially, wake up.

    What we have been doing to our planet, the effects being grander in the last 30 years, is ridiculous and irrefutable. We are definitely hurting our planet.
    In fact, because of us (yes you, me, humans) there has been
    1- Habitat loss
    2- Invasive species
    3 -Pollution
    4- Population growth
    5- Over-consumption (unsustainable use of resources)
    6- Climate Change (AKA melting ice that will have a devastating affect on migratory birds- if and when level rises and floods coastal plains, this will wipe them out- and polar bears, all that call the Tundra home, Adelie penguins (and this is just to name a few)

    Look at Biodiversity. There's damage. Try denying the fact that we are to blame is ignorant and foolish. Because that is essentially what all the "non-believers" of global warming are doing: trying to find a loop hole in their books instead of actually raising there heads and taking the blame.

  38. and the scientist still denied the global warming.

  39. It is shameful how some individuals still argue against proven facts. You don’t have to do much research about global warming to discover that there is something I like to call a “system”. This system is fundamentally a group of people who benefit in some way; to write denying, rubbish comments on the internet. Their arguments are however comical, as they have all been proven to be incorrect by today’s science.

    David I very much appreciate seeing people trying to make a difference. It is just truly unbelievable how corrupted human beings are. I just started reading your blog and I intend to continue to do so.

    Don’t stop posting on global warming!

  40. Even if there is no such thing as global warming would it be worth taking the risk? So you'll have to make a few changes in your lifestyle such as drive less, bring your own shopping bag to the store, buy organic food etc... As anonymous pointed out, lots of animals are suffering because of our inconsiderate lifestyle. Are you for instance aware of the damage caused by plastic bag consumption?
    Great blog!

  41. 'Anonymous said...
    I'll admit to "climate change" because thats what it does, EVERYDAY, and thats what it HAS been doing since the beginning of time!'
    Not true! The weather is what changes everyday! The climate is the long term weather patterns. A single day makes almost no difference to the climate.


Thank you for your comments!

Tulsi Gabbard - Presidential Candidate

Tulsi Gabbard is running for President and seeks the Democrats nomination. I feel she would be better received by the Libertarians but regar...