I have to point out micadelic pulling out the latest right wing talking points on my post A systematic White House effort to minimize the significance of climate change. Coincidently, PZ mentions the same issue and web site that micadelic pulls out. Hanging around too many right wing blogs, dude?
Let me be clear: if we discover that humans are not fucking up the climate, I will be very happy about it. I am not rooting for global climate change. I do have a big fucking problem with people who cherry pick science and news articles to try to convince people of something they have already made up their mind on. micadelic, my dear friend who has no shot in hell of being elected President, said “No, your wrong. Anthropomorphic Global Warming is a myth.”
His mind is made up and no amount of science will change it. Very typical for right wingers. Politics first, reality second.
4 thoughts on “Rightie Talking Points”
I’ve blogged about this before and I’ve made the exact point you made above. Pumping tons of shit into the environment is not good, we should keep it to a minimum. We should conserve our resources and be good stewards of the environment. Believe it or not, I am, and have always been, a conservationist.
Pounding bad, politically driven “science” down the throats of the gullible, ignorant and uninformed is not productive.
it seems to me that the main, overarching point in all of this is that climate change *is* real; who give a crap about why or how it’s happening, and who can really say with all confidence that humanity is 100% *not* to blame? climate change is taking place and industrial & agricultural output are contributors. to what degree they are continues to be unresolved… which brings me back to my original point; it’s real. humans should continue to do everything they can to educate themselves & their children, cut down on consumption and stop using so fucking much oil. in that case, if it turns out that natural planetary processes are mostly to blame then at least our collective conscience will be clear(er).
Nope, sorry Michael, you, and PZ, are both wrong. In fact, PZ’s characterization is either ignorant of the study or he’s just lying.
PZ states that the study is counting the papers that don’t explicitly endorse the theory of AGW, even though their findings support it, as not supporting AGW. This is a flat out mis-characterization of what the study found.
From the article…
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers “implicit” endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no “consensus.”
If you have a point, why can’t you make it without lying about the study. I see this tactic used by the left all the time, lie, and lie and lie until the lie is believed. I’m all good with a solid rebuttal to something I post, bring it on, but don’t just flat out lie about what the study I’m referencing is stating.
Look, it seems to me that all the building blocks you use to make your arguments are crumbling around you. Even the climate scientists whose research was used in Al Gore’s propoganda piece have backed away from his most dire predictions.
So, what has the so called “consensus” been wrong about so far? Let’s list them out.
The “hockey stick” – wrong, bad data.
The 90s were the hottest decade in the US on record – wrong, it was the 30s, bad data again.
The debate is over, AMG is real and “virtually all” scientists agree – again, wrong, no matter what you say, it’s far from a consensus.
How much of your argument do you need to fall apart before even you have to admit you’re wrong?
Sorry man, I’m about as afraid of AGW as I am of killer bees, the coming ice age they warned us about in the 70s, Y2K and last year’s and this year’s hurricane seasons; all of which were duds on the order of Comet Kohoutek.