Thanks for creating such a pleasant blogging atmosphere, Neo.

I guess I wasn’t the only kid who spent many an evening browsing through the World Book for fun! And to think, the other kids thought I as weird…

But it’s great training for psychological attacks.

Certain others,
At the risk of feeding trolls:

Hehe, I like that. Certain others. Very diplomatic.

However, a lack of specificity also makes your argument not very clear. I don’t think Neo wanted you to make yourself ineffectual in communicating your points when she suggested people not feed the trolls. I’m not complaining that it isn’t clear to me, you understand, just that not everyone is tolerating of translucency.

Given that Neo is probably deleting certain comments, it also produces datum static as time goes on.

Regardless, I skipped like 95% of the comments here cause environmentalism never did interest me. Other than as one of those true believer fanatical cults that is.

I ended up there partly because I was a true environmentalist and still am but can’t call myself one now due to the fact that environmentalism has morphed into an obsessive-compulsive paranoiac controllist hypocritical religion which wants to recreate its own Garden of Eden – last existing apparently around 1850 – but without the humans.

It’s strange that these Environmentalists say they also believe in evolution, when in fact they don’t seem to even know what it is. They are the true anti-scientists as much as the radical Christians. [Compared to the current non-classical Liberal Liberals, the not-so-radical Christians are vastly more rational and perceptive about human nature, basic existential questions, about rationality itself, and about human rights which include the right and necessity of the Good to defend itself against Evil. The latter in effect makes these particular Christians more in tune with evolution than the avowed “scientific” secular materialists who don’t seem to know much about anything except trying to control everything, regardless of cost, as their basic form of self.]

elmondohummus: “That fellow would rather bash than be effective. The romance of the protest is more important than the substance of the issue.”

That’s a great summation. At shrinkwrapped “Speedy” just inadvertantly specifically admitted to being an angry, seditious Bush-hater who would destroy George Bush at all costs, thus admitting also to being a true “enemy within”. Speedy is nearly mechanistically moved to exact this all-consuming revenge in response to the great unjustly caused emotional damage s/he received when Bill Clinton betrayed his/her trust and somehow managed to get himself impeached. Naturally s/he blames Republicans for Clinton’s stupidity and lies. You can feel the venom generated by Speedy’s denial and resultant self-loathing.

I was thinking back then that the most important thing about Clinton’s behavior involved National Security concerns. In retrospect, what if Osama had managed to get wind of Clinton’s addiction to poontang and thus was able to blow up the White House, or worse?

“

Thanks for the post. You bring up some good points about the IPCC and how it’s funding choices tend to lend more to an echo chamber effect than anything else, not to mention the distressing fact that only the possible consequences have been hypothesized, not the benefits. Remember: Way back in the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras, average global temperatures are estimated to have been 6 to 12 degrees Centigrade hotter than today, yet life exploded during those times. It’s entirely logical to bring up the fact that climate change does not necessarily indicate a totality of negative effects and a complete dearth of positive ones. What’ll happen is, in fact, unknown, and it bothers me that too many people take the science and run in the wrong direction with it.

And Kyoto? Cripes… what a horrid little treaty. Anyone remember the petition urging the government to reject Kyoto was signed by, what, 17000 scientists and engineers? That — The Kyoto treaty — is my primary example of the politicalization of science. It’s mean effect was next to zilch. It’s a feel-good treaty, nothing more. Stumbley made a great point: “It’s especially dangerous to make poor policy decisions that create more problems than they solve, as those who tried to “solve” the wolf “problem” in Yellowstone at the beginning of the 20th century did.”. Too many are rushing to judgement because the current science seems to validate their personal political biases. When that happens, bad policy may result. It’s a very good point to keep in mind.

As far as the computer models? Here’s where I break a bit with J. Peden: I remember reading an interview with a researcher once where he said something to the effect like “Don’t peg me at 99% certain, but put me at 90% certain”. While there’s doubt as to the accuracy of the modeling — and keep in mind that such modeling is only one tool used in the study of this issue — it’s possible to overstate the uncertainty. The press attempts to nail scientists down to certainties that scientists cannot state, and when they give reasonable caveats, some people misinterpret that to mean a complete lack of confidence. That’s not the case; they’re allowing for doubt, but they believe their models point in the right direction. I’ll try to find that quote again and get you the link, but my point is that, even with the flaws, they believe the model is more accurate than not. Is that 100% confidence? No, of course not. Nothing can be. But it’s a mistake to think that this means there’s 0% confidence. It’s somewhere in between, and that’s what the researchers are hammering out.

strcpy,

Easy, man. I never said “we need to make sweeping changes”. I only agreed with the climatologists that there’s an impact, and said that we can control what we contribute. I never said or implied that humans need to take radical action, and in fact I’m against that. Stumbley’s caveat as to unintended consequences is part of the reason; the sheer idiocy of advocating sweeping changes with complete indifference to the very real human, material, and monetary costs — which would not be insignificant — is another part. Doing what humans have been doing so far — continuing to pass legislation and improve standards, researching cleaner technologies for cars, power generation, etc., moderate, sensible conservation — is what we need to continue to do. Not put on a hairshirt, reject anything that smacks of big oil, and drive a damn Prius; getting 2 to 3 mpg more out of the most sold vehicles in America — the quarter ton pickups and mid to large SUVs — will have a far greater effect than all the Priuses and their 10 mpg advantage over the average car can ever have.

And for the love of God, strcpy, please don’t lump me in with those environment-as-religion idiots by saying “We don’t really know for sure, you may be right, but here is the absolute way it is and you are wrong” (and, considering that all his/her actions thereafter reflect the “I know, you wrong” I rather suspect that is what he/she really believes).” That’s unfair, and it’s a misreading of my posts besides. All I’ve tried to claim is that there’s real research and science there; the fact that it can be interpreted, debated, and even found lacking in the light of different evidence should go without saying because it’s science. I’m attributing allegience to the process, not stating a religious belief in the findings.

Anonymous,
That protestor in Montreal is exactly what I mean by the idiots with “religious” beliefs about climate change. He doesn’t even have the basic science down if he’s confusing “weather” with “climate”, and blaming it all on Bush for not ratifying Kyoto is just the height of ignorance. Putting the shortcomings of Kyoto aside, ignoring Russia’s, China’s, Brazil’s, and India’s emissions is simply irresponsible. That is what we need much less of. That is what I mean by someone not being constructive. That fellow would rather bash than be effective. The romance of the protest is more important than the substance of the issue. That’s sad, and that’s what angers me about some of those folks. They’re completely counterproductive, and proud of it.

Certain others,
At the risk of feeding trolls: Please, please remember that insult is not argument. strcpy may have taken me to task, but I respect him (him? Is that right, S? I’m a “he”, btw) because he built an argument. J. Peden disagreed and provided evidence for what he was saying, and I completely respect that as well, even though I have points of disagreement. Attacking and insulting is not an attempt to debate, it’s a parade of self importance and condescension. Please, choose to engage with respect. You’ll get a better dialogue that way.

– anonymous Montreal “climate change” protester, spouting off to the CBC cameras. Chicken Little indeed.

Global Warming is not bad science any more than current AI research in human learning is bad science – just the latter branch realises that it understands such a small part of the answer that any real predictions made on it should be taken with a *really* large grain of salt. For some reason many of the climatoligists say “We don’t really know but here is exactly how it works” – which of course makes no sense. That attitude is, however, Very Bad Science.

The sad thing is that Elmondohummus touched on something that *could* get legislation: “There is a pollution problem.” Ahh, here is something that could probably get passed just to simple things like air quality, asthma, allergies, and many other things. In fact we do get legislation passed about that.

But unfortunatly he/she then goes back to the “We don’t really know for sure, you may be right, but here is the absolute way it is and you are wrong” (and, considering that all his/her actions thereafter reflect the “I know, you wrong” I rather suspect that is what he/she really believes).

The vast majority of papers in climatology wouldn’t make it in a harder science. Once more the more you control you world (this time, the model), the more likely you are to have leftist beliefes and ignore anything that doesn’t meet with your pre-concieved notions.