Yet another attempt to point out that what some on the conserv-o-partisan side of things claim is the “truth” is actually so much hokum when you scratch off the paint job… Today we learn that Bruno Behrend is all excited that Christmas came early for him and his prideful “global warming denier” allies.
You see, in his bizarre, head-in-the-sand rant Mr. Behrend links to a conservative newspaper (Washington Times) which discusses a minority “report” from a single Senator, himself a conservative (Sen. James Inhofe, R-Big Oil), about a quite faulty report from a group of conservative-allied pseudo-scientists…
And Bruno alludes that all this biased information is somehow proof that Al Gore is pure evil and everything he touches turns to crap. (I guess VP Gore’s appearance on Saturday Night Live a few seasons back explains the current writer’s strike, eh?)
Doesn’t Bruno have anything better to do with his time on the weekend before Christmas than copy and paste some propaganda and complain about a former vice president? What’s even more strange is that him and his fellow “deniers” have to now resort to referencing layer after layer of biased propaganda as if piling enough layers onto their malarkey will hide the fact it’s malarkey in the first place. (Such propaganda itself is of course based on often speculative, incorrectly referenced contrarian for contrarian’s sake reports in a journal which does not meet modern scientific review standards.)
It’s as if all they have left is stomping their feet and repeating “global warming isn’t happening … (as long as you ignore all the evidence)”.
Just what is so wrong with the head-in-the-sand position, you ask? For one thing, their tactics are reliant on measures aimed at distracting people rather than actually informing us.
Bruno’s post is a perfect example — carry on about a conservative paper’s article about a conservative Senator’s one-man brief about a group of conservative-influenced researchers and their “findings” (which turn out to actually be faulty). This is the same as the folks who run around crying that government research thermometers are too close to asphalt or concrete (which influences the readings) or that it’s simply a natural, long-term event (which completely ignores just how fast temps are rising globally compared to the prehistoric events deniers cite).
Sure, there’s a kernel of truth in their yelping (ie, yes, some thermometers are near built-up environments and yes the Earth has gone through hot/cold cycles), but it all tends to ignore the reality of what’s actually happening around the world with extreme weather, changing ice patterns at the poles, slowly rising sea levels, etc.
For another, much of their “research” (which usually sounds more like, “Nah, nah — told you so!”) is based on faulty conclusions. The report that Mr. Behrend and Sen. Inhofe rely on for their head-in-the-sand conclusions is chock full of unfounded speculative statements, misreadings and ignorance of available data and misrepresentation of their cited sources.
Even some of these folks’ “So what?” attitude turns out to be based on false premises. For instance, many “deniers” claim that as atmospheric CO2 rises plants will begin working overtime to convert the gas. Turns out they’re wrong on that bit of “conventional wisdom” too. Increasing CO2 levels actually harm plants instead of helping them.
Essentially, if they want to run around looking like fools by touting erroneous information as gospel that is certainly their right in this the Land of the Free… but basing their opinions on falsehoods and faulty info (and, worse, constantly carping against their opponents because of it) is hardly worthy of the Home of the Brave.
Sidenote: Is any group — the Nobel Prize “cabal” as Mr. Behrend calls it — really to be considered “politically extreme” when they award their prizes to people ranging from Yassir Arafat to Milton Friedman? That hand Mr. Behrend is using to point a finger has several more pointing right back at himself.
Mr. Behrend ought to relax and let go of all that pent-up hatred he’s got brewing in his mind, it’s clearly affecting his ability to be rational. (OTOH, it has perhaps been affecting his ability to reason for quite some time now, as his blog of rants demonstrates.)
(h/t Grist and A Seigel, both of whom dive into more detailed info than my bird’s eye view post)
16 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 22, 2007 at 7:15 pm
morris08
Rob,
Thanks for linking me again.
The Nobel People lose all credibility when they so clearly hype political issues through their prizes. Carter? Gore? For producing propaganda pieces and fevered Bush bashing.
Perhaps that is warranted by the fame-addled Hollywood types, but when the Nobel People do it, it merely shows that they have become politicized.
I see through your post that you’ve honed your name calling skills, but it hasn’t bolstered your arguments much.
The “anthropocentric” GW crowd is at least as self-referential as any of us “deniers” (another cheap rhetorical trick).
Time will tell, and I’m not too worried. At least my side isn’t trying to stifle debate and cook figures to bolster our case.
Just FYI, it isn’t “hatred” of any person (though I find Gore somewhat ridiculous) as much as it is hatred of the smarmy attempts to use questionable figures, cheap rhetoric, and replacing repitition for reason.
You might also note that it isn’t “pent up”, either.
As I commented on my site. Merry Christmas.
December 22, 2007 at 8:46 pm
robnesvacil
Bruno, Did you change your name to “Morris”?
So many false conclusions you’ve jumped to, so little time… Let’s go in order:
First -
The Nobel People likely do not consider science and peace to be political issues to be hyped. You may note that Gore won the prize along with a team of researchers. Past awards have been given to other researchers and theorists.
Do you consider awarding Kim Dae Jung “political” because he pursued peaceful negotiations with neighboring North Korea?
Do you consider awarding Doctors Without Borders political because the organization brings medical expertise to war-ravaged regions?
Do you consider awarding Gorbachev political because he helped bring about the end of the Cold War with his glasnost policies? But, he was a communist after all.
Certainly you must consider awarding the prize to Lech Walesa political — he did lead the Solidarity movement after all and unions sure are political animals.
Or perhaps you think giving it to Mother Theresa was even more of a political move, eh? We’ve been seeing quite a bit of what the joining of politics and religion can do over the past 7+ years.
And, those recipients are just from the last two decades. I could easily go on, but reasonable folks get
Your whine about the Peace Prize is bogus because you can’t possibly claim the Nobel committee is motivated solely by politics … they’ve given the award to too many different (and differing) organizations.
It is a “peace” prize. The recipients — all the way back to Dunant and Passy — have advocated for peace or have worked to develop peaceful solutions to world problems. (And if you don’t think the looming inundation of coastal areas isn’t going to lead to conflict I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn for ya.)
Just because little ol’ you doesn’t like one or two of the recipients over the past century-plus doesn’t mean the group is an “extreme cabal”. Get over your ego before it trips you up again.
Second -
Name calling has nothing to do with it. Read your own post — you engage in that line of humor also.
Besides, you have called yourself a “denier” (and proudly so, apparently) in the past.
Third -
In fact, yes, your side is trying to stifle debate and is cooking books. Pres. Bush has become a master of propagandizing what should be basic science and your friends at Exxon were helping quite a bit til they got called out on it. You’re just trying to follow in their footsteps.
As for actually trying to stifle debate … you’ll note that no one is saying the contrarians/deniers/ostriches/whatnot should just shut up (as opposed to the conservatives who, in fact, are actively trying to stop people from talking).
Instead, the folks who recognize the change and have reasonably deduced what is causing it are simply pointing out the many, many false conclusions in your side’s data.
We can’t help it that you choose to believe in fairy tales.
Fourth -
I see you’re attempting the lame distraction technique yet again.
Have some mistakes been made? Sure. Some (many, depending on your poitn of view) research thermometers are in urban areas which likely influences their findings. Once this was pointed out the data was adjusted. Didn’t make much of a difference — the charts still show the fastest rise in global temperature in the history of the planet (sans a spike in global volcanic activity).
Whether or not a thermometer is located next to a parking lot or a sylvan stream matters not one iota to the north and south poles which are seeing dramatic changes in their ice patterns. The ice under Santa’s workshop isn’t melting because it’s next to a parking lot. And, with less ice the ocean’s albedo soaks up those sun rays quickening the pace of the warming. The difference between 32 and 33 degrees is huge at the poles — and it affects every other region of the planet.
And the only thing different between this current spike and every other rise in global temperature is that these rapidly muliplying animals called Homo sapiens have invented combustion engines and such which literally dump garbage into the atmosphere.
Fifth –
Just FYI, it isn’t “hatred” of any person (though I find the entirety of the contrarian/denier/ostrich/whatnot crew somewhat ridiculous) as much as it is hatred of the smarmy attempts to use questionable figures, cheap rhetoric, and replacing repetition for reason.
I’ve already pointed out just how the “report” you based your anti-Gore rant on was deeply flawed.
Please indicate how what you consider to be “questionable figures” (there’s that distraction attempt again) are somehow not leading to a rise in global temps and dramatic climate change worldwide.
In Conclusion –
Merry Christmas and Happy Festivus and Chilly Solstice and So On and So Forth to you also!
December 22, 2007 at 10:29 pm
dwlawson
Global warming fanatic seem to be under the delusion that the earth has always had and always will have, excepting human influence, two ice-locked poles. This is not the case.
And who’s causing the global warming on Mars and Jupiter?
December 22, 2007 at 11:49 pm
robnesvacil
Global warming “fanatics”?
Oy. I think you can rest assured Dave that most folks who understand that global warming is happening realize that the earth hasn’t always had ice at the poles. In fact, there was a point when our own globe was frozen solid — even at the equator. The only thing that broke the ice was a series of global volcanic events, with vulcanism spewing greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere which in turn trapped solar heat.
But, what’s unique about the current climatic change event is the speed with which it is happening. Prehistoric warming events have been relatively gradual. On the order of thousands of years typically.
This current event is happening in the span of just over a century to two by the time it plays out.
Thus, the logical conclusion based on all the available evidence (not just cherry-picked info) that whatever else is happening naturally* is clearly being amplified by human intervention.
That said, if all the ice at both poles melts (or if even half does) … take a look at maps of global population distribution and you’ll notice a lot of soon-to-be-flooded homes.
And what happens when there are mass exoduses of peoples who’ve lost all their property and need to find somewhere new to live (let alone eat, earn a living, etc.)? I’m sure your militia-minded self can think of a few ways that may play out.
–
* – The solar output theory is interesting, but if it were solely behind what’s happening here we’d see warming happening evenly throughout the solar system — but we’re not as far as astronomers have been able to determine. On Mars, some patches of ice are shrinking but it doesn’t appear to be evenly global. On Jupiter, bands come and go as weather systems cool or heat up. Jupiter is the only planet which radiates more heat than it receives, by the by. As for Pluto and Triton, they appear to be going through a naturally warm phase of their own orbits (due to tilt, etc.).
Again, this may be a series of coinkydinks yet global warming deniers choose to jump to a hard-and-fast conclusion about it (after railing against people who’ve seen the light and claiming they’re taking “bad” thermometer data and thus jumping to their own conclusion).
I’ll admit that the “absence of evidence is not evidence of an absence” of the sun as ‘culprit’ per se but the clearly biased reports from conservative blogs and journals referencing the solar output theory all seem to avoid mentioning that the actual scientists doing the research all say that other influences (read, pollution) are likely at least involved, if not the main factors, in global warming also.
–
Besides, as I’ve said time and again, there are a great many other very compelling reasons to avoid carbon-based fuels and the pollution they and other activities generate. For one thing, oil costs are jumping as the resource becomes more scarce. We don’t know if the globe has hit peak oil yet, but many geologists are beginning to think that day is coming soon. Also, pollution pretty clearly causes and exacerbates asthma and other lung ailments. Finally, there’s a rich and growing industry in sustainable energy (solar power, wind power, fuel cells, etc.) which provides economic incentive for invention and expansion.
December 23, 2007 at 8:45 pm
dwlawson
The problem is not that we are investigating alternative fuel sources and other environmentally friendly practices, but that we are doing so without proper due diligence.
Ethanol appears to have problems. There’s a massive amount of water needed and states are running out of water.
Bio-diesel appears to create more carbon emissions than regular diesel, if land is converted to grow corn, etc. Not to mention that using food to fuel our cars while people starve is ridiculous.
Let’s not rush into any ’solutions’ that could end up being more impactful or costly than the problem.
December 24, 2007 at 11:15 am
robnesvacil
Dave says, “Let’s not rush into any ’solutions’ that could end up being more impactful or costly than the problem.”
On that we agree… tho’ I will say that if ethanol-producing Iowa perhaps did not have its self-proclaimed “first in the nation” status the politics of ethanol would be totally different.
Besides, now that enough capital is being generated in the ethanol market, other sources (switchgrass, corn “waste” products like husks, etc.) are being explored — alleviating the food vs fuel debate.
December 25, 2007 at 11:06 am
Narc
Global warming denialists seem to be under the delusion that the earth has always had and always will have humans as the dominant species on the planet. This is not the case.
Hell, the Earth has not always had an atmosphere containing oxygen. I, for one, would like to keep the status quo for a bit.
December 25, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Dave
To Rob and All My Liberal Friends:
Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2007, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere. Also, this wish is made without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee.
To My Conservative Friends:
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
December 26, 2007 at 12:18 am
robnesvacil
You forgot education level and economic status, Dave.
Right backatya — on both counts.
Hope you had a Merry Christmas and have a fun New Year’s Eve and a GR8′08 (or whatever it is the kidz are saying theze daze).
December 26, 2007 at 12:28 am
robnesvacil
Narc,
For all that oxygen you enjoy, you can thank another species which came to dominate the planet for a time — teensy, tiny cyanobacteria — a few billion-with-a-B years ago. Before that, we animals would’ve had a tough time finding any free O2 amongst the dense, toxic mix; which is likely why animals (let alone plants) hadn’t yet evolved.
December 26, 2007 at 11:42 am
dan l
Look, I think that global warming deniers are just about as annoying as those that fervently believe that the whole global warming thing is of critical urgency. To me, they should at least talk about something interesting: like what if UFO’s exist or something.
December 26, 2007 at 12:00 pm
robnesvacil
Dude,
It’s aliens causing the global warming… Didn’t you see “The Arrival”?
As for any “fervency” … I suggest you consider for yourself how important it is that the Arctic Ocean is melting much faster than scientists predicted and that the albedo of open ocean is drastically different than that of ice. The ice reflects the sun’s rays whereas the open water soaks up that energy, further driving warming (and melting, in the case of the Arctic).
With several million more square miles of open water all the world’s oceans are going to change their circulation (not too mention the already-happening rise in sea levels — and the billions-with-a-B of people who will be displaced should the water rise “too high”).
And here the GOP was worried about a Communist domino scenario… The domino effects of global warming are pretty stark when you stop to think about it. By the time the shit hits the fan there’s nothing that can be done about it.
(Besides, as I’ve been saying all along, there are plenty of other reasons to work toward sustainable initiatives on everything from electricity generation to powering vehicles — pollution-induced lung problems, our “oil addiction”, etc.)
December 26, 2007 at 1:21 pm
dan l
Preaching to the choir. I just don’t necessarily believe that the world is ending soon due to climate change.
Look, if you really want change, you’re not going to get it by trying to convince people to buy carbon offsets at the woodfield mall during Christmas time. We’re not going to sort our trash and we’re not going to buy local/organic foods if there isn’t going to be a cost benefit. Likewise, nobody is going to buy a Prius.
If you want to change a society of consumers, you change what they consume.
December 26, 2007 at 3:29 pm
robnesvacil
No one’s saying the world itself will end… it might just get a little harder to find livable beachfront property for a billion or so people (not to mention a few island nations that will literally drown). That, and growing food might be a bit more difficult but what’s a little starvation among friends?
I think the 1000s of Prius (and Civic Hybrid, and other “green” car drives) would dispute your assertion that no one’s going to buy those products. Even GM’s working on a hybrid Hummer. Granted, a big part of that is simply the cost of gas, not environmental concerns, but still…
December 26, 2007 at 4:56 pm
dan l
The cost of gas _is_ what’s going to do it. When it comes to the wallet, the average person doesn’t care about the environment.
And when they make a hybrid hummer or some other stand up SUV with no performance loss (and reasonable service costs), I’ll gladly buy one.
Till then though: 8 cyl’s of fossil fuel burning glory.
December 26, 2007 at 5:36 pm
robnesvacil
You need to get in touch with car mechanic and inventor Johnathon Goodwin (with his 8th-grade education) … He uses GM parts to create biodiesel-fueled hybrids — doubling or tripling horsepower, cutting emmissions and exponentially increasing mpgs: