Saturday, November 22, 2008

Bring It On Indeed

I saw this AmericanThinker article and just had to post a link to it so that everyone can see an example of extreme racial bigotry and hatred. It drips with disgusting epithets and tired stereotypes.

Just kidding. It's really about Global Warming. Just a little joke for my own amusement. Geoffrey thinks AT is racist, among other equally goofy things, so I had to have my little joke. But give it a read. Despite Geoffrey's unsupported opinions about AT, which hosts pieces by a veritable cornucopia of writers and people who live in the real world, this piece is by a physicist who understands the subject, though likely not to Geoffrey's lofty and fantasy world standards. It's more than denial of the Goracle, it's a counter to what apparently passes on the left for consensus and science. But then, what do I know? I don't understand these things. I wonder if this guy has any peer reviewed papers? (That's like God's own impramatur.)


Mark said...

I think the whole GW theory began thusly:

Some "scientist" walked outside one Winter's day, and observed it seemed unseasonably warm. After walking outside on ensuing days which were also unseasonably warm, he decided that the world must be getting warmer, then he went to work formulating a theory based on selected research he did that coroborated his theory. Then, with much fanfare, he presented his "findings" to some important scientific board or wrote a paper in a scientific journal, or both. Other scientists, impressed with the notability it garnered the original author of the theory, decided to cash in on the money cow, by creating similar supporting theories. Thus, the theory took on legs and rambled throughout the rest of the Liberal gullible world.

I formed a similar theory on my own once, many years ago, based on the same physical data. I noticed the weather was unseasonably warm one winter, and the sun seemed to be causing sunburns more than it used to in the summer. My conclusion?

The world must be slowly but steadily turning over on it's side. Yes, it's a silly theory, but no more silly than GW.

But then, I never claimed to be a scientist.

Mark said...

Now, let the vitriol begin.

Mark said...

I meant, "colloborated". Calm down, Geoffrey. In comments, there is no spellcheck, and while I am a great speller normally, I nevertheless have trouble with some words. I don't even know for sure if I spelled it right yet.

Les said...

I can vouch for Mark's spelling prowess, Geoffrey. He's also an excellent driver.

blamin said...

I read the article yesterday. It pretty much sums it up for all to see.

Don’t expect too much in the form of reasoned rebuttal. Because there is none!!!

Goofy-ass global-alarmist clinger-on-ers. Led by people trying to destroy capitalism, supported by hollow – headed, kool-aid drinking, dip-shit sheeples!!!

Do us all a favor – go back to bed, turn up the cartoon channel, and leave the countries business to people that actually have a clue!!!

Anonymous said...

Great blog that you have here! I'm looking to add you to my blog roll. If you are willing to add me in return. Let me know.

blamin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
blamin said...

As predicted, the man-caused-global-warming crowd has nothing to say. So, so predictable.

This is how I foresee this issue. The link you’ve put forth will be ignored. Several months down the road, Prez Obama, with help from the main stream media, will put forth the “global warming” issue again, it will be a dire warning, and they will use it as an excuse to take more freedoms from citizens.

Of course, the average Obama voting citizen will have no clue and will fully support whatever power grab put forth.

blamin said...

Hey Marshall,

Your boys Geoffrey and D Trabue have been searching all over the web, just trying to cast their usual doubt. But they have nothing.

I guess they’re coming up empty handed (yet again); poor, poor, suckers.

blamin said...

Oh, the pure out, unadulterated waste of it all!!!

Marshall Art said...


Geoffrey may show up yet, if only to mock the source of the info rather than address the info itself. I'm still waiting for some proof of racism on the part of AmericanThinker. Dan, on the other hand, was never quite the GW defender that I can recall.

Dan Trabue said...

Thank you for that bit of decency, Marshall. I have not, in fact, talked about climate change that much.

What I have said is fairly straightforward: There are some scientists and some studies which indicate that climate change may have human origins. That is merely a statement of fact.

I have also said that over dependence upon and over consumption of fossil fuels has MANY negative repercussions. The possibility (some say likelihood, but there is disagreement) of human-induced climate change would be just one more reason we should be prudent (conservative) with regards to our consumption, environmental and energy policies.

Seems logical to me.

blamin said...

I’m not sure how you define “over-dependence”.

I agree that nothings wrong with pursuing alternate sources, I’m just concerned that BHO will use this fabricated crises as reason to ban offshore drilling, slight nuclear energy, and chip away at our already threadbare armor of freedoms.

The fact is that we overwhelmingly rely on oil, and any solution to our energy problem will have to coincide with a slow weaning process.

Regardless, we need actual facts, and an informed electorate before taking any drastic actions. Unfortunately, with all the global warning hysteria dominating the media, I’m concerned that reasoned solutions will be sorely lacking in our debates.

Marty said...

Global Warming?

Two words.

Polar Bear

blamin said...

Marty, morty, mort

You have to do better than popular propaganda in order to convince thinking people.

I do however appreciate your link.. I did “symbolically adopted a polar bear” for only $30. My arm still hurts from all the self-back patting I’ve done, and I just can’t wait to tell all my friends. I fell so good and the world is fine.

Marshall Art said...


According to the linked piece, as well as others who have made the very same claim, the earth has been far warmer in the past than it is now. As it said, Greenland was once actually green. The polar bears survived that terrible time of greater crop yields. I'm sure they'll make out just fine now.

Marty said...

Marshall, it doesn't take much thinking to look at what is right before your eyes.

You remind me of that guy in the New Testament that Jesus said wouldn't believe even if he saw one raised from the dead.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Actually, the reason I haven't shown up so far is simple. Just as I do not debate with Holocaust deniers, or those who deny the fact of evolution, I do not debate anthropogenic global warming.

It's really that simple. One does not debate whether an established fact is, in fact, a fact.

Now, go talk amongst yourselves, while I do more planning for the destruction of capitalism (I hope you are enjoying the work my cohorts in Marxism and I have already accomplished this fall; Lehman Brothers was my own project).

Marshall Art said...


It's not a matter of denying what I see before my eyes, but a matter of believing the Geoffrey version of why it's happening. I believe, as apparently far more scientific minds than those that Gore follows, that we are merely seeing a natural and cyclical situation, rather than the doom and gloom of a mythical man-made situation. This is separate from anything we do from this point on in terms of environmental concerns. That is, of course concern for the environmnent should be a factor in our decisions, but not the only or even necessarily the primary factor. There are some that like to believe that anthropogenic global warming is an established fact. Well, it's only established by a sorry few, apparently, and the rest of the scientific world disagrees. The linked piece is merely yet another voice exposing the AGW people for the loons they are and the science behind it as woefully incomplete and, by some standards, fraudulent and/or based on assumptions. Does mankind have an effect on global climate? Yeah, I'm sure it does. Does it, or even can it, impact global climate on the scale that AlGore and his drooling followers, like Geoffrey, believe? Doubtful.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

For Marshall, it is all about following some odd creature named AlGore. In real life, it is thousands of pieces of evidence, put together in a coherent theory that successfully predicts the outcome of further research, which expands our understanding not only of the reach of the theory, but the ways the action so described acts in ways not necessarily foreseen. The former is cult-like behavior that is usually reserved for people who do not think. The latter is called science, and while hardly perfect, it serves quite well at describing all sorts of phenomena.

Now, it may be true that there are scientists out there who disagree with all sorts of theories. Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein didn't accept quantum theory, and they helped invent it! This hardly invalidates a theory. It is evidence, testable theories, and their success or failure that is key.

Marshall Art said...


Whether or not you personally kiss the Goracle's ass is neither here nor there. You are still in his camp which is that which states that it is man that has so overwhelmed the planetary climate patterns with his everyday activities. You have latched onto one or two of the "scientists" that have put forth disputed data and find their work to be gospel, as you have labelled it "established fact". It is not established that man has such influence on the vastness of global temperature, except by those who believe it to be so for the benefit of their own status.

For my part, I am content, after constantly hearing and reading from those who dispute such claims with equally, if not more convincing arguments, that the matter is far from established, and likely much ado about nothing. Your side of the equation present themselves as alarmists, and you personally are of the type that finds such alarms more noble than alarms raised about Islamoterrorism, as if one could choose between the two. One side thinks a threat is looming, the other side, the one I favor, knows a threat is clear and present through thousands of deaths.

So the author of the linked piece (gosh! is he one of AT's racist regulars?!! heavens-to-betsy!!) has issued a challenge. How do your saintly, pure of heart researchers respond to points raised in his article?

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Marshall, there are no camps. This isn't one group with one set of opinions pitted against another group with another set of opinions. It scientists and lay people who understand science on the one hand, and cranks and know-nothings who think this is all some grand anti-American conspiracy on the other. That you don't even wish to understand it says so much.

Again, there is nothing to debate. There is no question any one at this site could raise, there is authority any of you could quote that would chance the reality. See, science doesn't work that way. Science is anti-authoritarian to the core.

Al Gore is a politician who happens to accept the reality of anthropogenic global warming, and offers a series of policy proposals for ending it, or at least mitigating its worst features. Some of them I agree with, some I do not, but that is hardly here or there. The issue isn't Al Gore, or the Global Panel on Climate Change (who shared the Nobel for their work on advocating for policy change in the face of global warming), or any individual.

It is the evidence. It is the science. That's it, and that's all.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

As to your final question, I didn't read it for the same reason I don't read Holocaust deniers or creationists. A crank is a crank is a crank, and I don't waste my time on them.

Except, apparently, in the comment section of their blogs . . .

Marshall Art said...

What a coward!

You say it's science. They say the science is in dispute. You say they are cranks. You point to peer reviews and citation indices. I show how they are unreliable and often corrupt. You say consensus. I show there is none. You believe whatever the purveyors of your so-called established fact say. I offer challenges to those "facts". You have no response to those challenges. You stand on haughty pretense and posing supposing you and your "sources" are above reproach. I say you are beneath contempt for your blatant Gore-ass-kissing koolaid drinking.

There is no such thing as "the reality of anthropogenic global warming", there is only the beliefs of a few people who are unable to answer the challenges of others in the field. That the challengers are accused of being cranks and know-nothings is near certain proof that the Gore-ites have little to go on. That's the type of thing frauds, charlatans and of course, those who are just plain wrong typically do.

Ben said...

"They say the science is in dispute."

OMG!!! marshall.. you are so right!! It is in dispute. Too bad for you scientists are in agreement. The only "dispute" going on is inside youre head.

It wasnt that long ago you didnt know about AGW. Now youre some expert?

Anyway, you better get back to arguing with youreself and the other Holocaust/Evolution deniers.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Marshall, I shall repeat myself only because your head is so thick the point needs to be pounded with a jackhammer. Al Gore is not a scientist. I couldn't care less what he or any other politician thinks on the science of global warming, except insofar as they push policies that are in line with current scientific understandings (real science, not the kind of thing you call "science" but resembles more an annotated bibliography of idiots).

If Al Gore were out there spouting off about, say, plate tectonics, or the threat from sedimentation, I wouldn't pay any attention to him, because those are both established scientific theories (not that sedimentation is a threat, just that it happens). Only because global warming is not just a scientific theory, but results in issues of public import - including matters of revenue, employment, investment, and even habitation - that people in positions of power created the false impression that debates within the scientific community, which usually involve technical details over levels of correlation, fine-tuning certain theoretical models, and that kind of thing, meant that there was no actual consensus on a theory of global warming (creationists tried this with evolution back in the 1970's, and it didn't work then, either).

See, I'm not cowardly for not reading some crank who writes crap. That is called being wise about what information one puts in one's brain. Citation indices for peer reviewed journal articles are nothing more than that - an Index. People sit down, they count the number of times a person's work has been cited in academic literature, then they put that number after the person's name in a big book. It's one way to gauge the merit of an individual's work. If other people are paying attention to it, it might be important. It is only one way, and people might be paying attention to it only because it's crap, but it is one way.

See, there's the real world of academic publishing and research and controversy, then there's this weird, conservative idea that it's all a bunch of liberals thinking up ways to screw America. The latter is the creation of mindlessness.

One more point. Back in the 1970's, research on the effects of chloro-flourocarbons discovered that they tended to rise to the upper atmosphere where they reacted with the Ozone layer. In fact, they reacted volatilely, and there was an urgent call to regulate, and even eliminate them. The chemical industry went in to high gear, and nothing was done, because people created the impression that a debate over various details in well-established research meant the theory itself was in question.

Jump forward to 1986, and satellites discovered . . . a huge hole in the Ozone layer, with the culprit very clearly the collection of chloroflourocarbons, which, in an unprecedented act of global consensus, became highly regulated materials. Now, this result (although not the detail that the chemical agents in question would migrate to the poles) had been established in the 1970's. Had action been taken in time, our planet's protection from cosmic rays may have been itself protected. Instead, we allowed cranks to rule the political dimension. While scientists should not be policy experts, neither should policy advocates pretend they understand science.

Marshall Art said...

Hey look everyone! It's Butthead Ben, come here to fart out a few stupid comments again. I wonder if he'll ever contribute something substantive or simply visit under the buttheaded notion that he's clever? If the answer wasn't so obvious, I'd take bets.

Marshall Art said...

Real nice Geoffrey. See? It's not so hard, is it, to engage in actual discussion. You're just about there. Now, if you'll offer something that supports your charges of quackery by those that I have presented, you'll really be aces. So far, however, all you've got is, "My guy is smart and your guy is stupid." This is more than just "cranks" disputing the religion of global warming. This is knowledgeable people poking holes bigger than the one in the Ozone layer in the notion that the current warming is manmade and out of control if God help us we don't let AlGore do something about it now.

And yes, you are indeed a Gore-ite for agreeing with him and the fear-mongers he raises on high. Not only that, but it seems you still worship whatever comes in the form of some published paper, despite the fact that I have shown how they aren't the be all and end all you make them out to be. You are free to prostrate yourself at the feet of whatever scientist that impresses you. That, and stories of flourocarbons have little to do with the arguments against AGW by the growing hordes of "deniers" amongst the global scientific community (not to mention those that are distancing themselves after having been grouped with the Gore-ites). You're still simply playing "sez you".

It's hardly MY head that's too thick to consider all the info. I've heard "your" side. They've been contradicted by "my" side. Now the ball is back in your court and there's been nothing but disparaging remarks about the credibility and quality of opposing scientists. Kinda makes you look like a buffoon.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Global Warming isn't a religion. It is a scientific theory. It is remarkably fruitful in EXACTLY the way a scientific theory is supposed to be. There is always room to debate all manner of points within an established theory (after all, Newtonian physics went the way of phrenology after the establishment of Relativity Theory); yet, the current theory is accepted not for reasons of politics, or who is in what political "camp". It is accepted because (a) it explains a whole host of disparate data, some of it seemingly unrelated, some of it seemingly contradictory, in a far simpler fashion than other competitors (Ockham's Razor is still around); (b) it makes predictions, within an excepted range of deviation, on the outcome of future research based upon its assumptions, and those predictions tend to be correct; (c) by offering predictions and areas for further research, the extent of the theory's explanatory power is increased, even as the theory itself becomes far simpler to understand and explain.

This, in a nutshell, is science. It is a high-school textbook example of the way science is done, and how it succeeds in explaining natural phenomena far better than any other way of so doing.

The issue I have here is not with legitimate questions, raised in the proper fashion, over anthropogenic global warming. It is the tone and tenor, of which Mark's first comment is almost archetypical. That is to say, there is an almost glowing ignorance as to what science is, what a scientific theory is, how science actually operates, etc. In such an environment, of what possible use would it be to engage in a discussion, point by point, when none of those commenting here in support of your position have any inkling as to what science actually is? I am not a teacher, and I have no patience to go back and explain something that should have been absorbed when you were all sophomores in HS.

Marshall Art said...


You are my hero. Never have I seen one who can dodge an issue so craftily as you can. I have great respect and admiration for someone who so skillfully avoids engaging in confronting challenges with such aplomb as do you. I especially love this part:

"(after all, Newtonian physics went the way of phrenology after the establishment of Relativity Theory)"

I hope anyone reading is taking notes here. That was an expert example of "baffling them with bullshit". Kudos to you for that. You are truly the master.

But getting to the point, that is, your inability to intellectually respond to ANY of the pieces on the subject to which I and others have linked, I wish to respond, based on those pieces, to the nutshell you call science and what a theory is supposed to be:

a) The charge by the smart dudes to whom I have given my ear have raised numerous points for which your theory has NOT explained. Thus, the constant unrequited request for a response, from you by me, and by your scientific gods by them.

b) I'm going to assume you meant "accepted" range of deviation, but as this "theory" is relatively new, I can't see as how there'd be any impressive predictions that have come to pass.

c) Nosensical gibberish and the only thing that seems to be simple to understand and explain is how the notion of AGW on the order presented by you and yours is crap and a growing horde of smart dudes are pleased to point it out. If they are the cranks you suppose them to be, then it should be child's play to respond to their refutations regarding AGW. Neither you nor your can't be wrong chicken littles have the courage to do so.

Marty said...

"The polar bears survived that terrible time of greater crop yields. I'm sure they'll make out just fine now."

...And if they don't?

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

In science, there are these things called "counterfactuals", which are instances of events that are not, or at least not yet, adequately covered by existing theories. The reason for this is simple. No theory is perfect, no theory explains everything, and part of the wonder of science is that it is self-correcting, and tries to make sense of the world and all its diversity.

I would never claim that current Global Warming Theory answers every question raised. No scientist would make such a claim. On the other hand, putting a bunch of counterfactuals together and then saying, in essence, "What about that, huh? HUH?" isn't science.

Again, I'm not dodging anything. If you want to direct me to something in the scholarly literature that uses these or a set of these counterfactuals as the basis for serious research that calls some or another facet of Global Warming theory in to question, I'd be happy to read it and think about it. Until then, not so much.

The bit about Newtonian/Relativity wasn't a non-sequitur. It was an example of the way an established scientific theory that purports to explain all sorts of phenomena in a grand, sweeping manner can be found wrong over time, and replaced by something better.

One things about scientific theories that separates them from other ways of thinking about the world and describing it is they are falsifiable. In other words, every theory, no matter its current explanatory power, is always provisional, subject to revision and even rejection. Whether it's relativity theory, neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory, the laws of thermodynamics, or anthropogenic global warming - they could all be tossed on the side of the road if something comes along that accounts for things in a more elegant, simpler fashion.

That isn't done by sticking out one's tongue at people with whom one disagrees and accusing them of being anti-American. It is done . . . by using science. All of your, and Mark's, comments have displayed a remarkable lack of understanding of this one small, central point.

Marshall Art said...


And it has been done with science and by pointing out the poor science being used to support AGW, but you refuse to acknowledge any of it, choosing instead to demonize the "expert" or the source that presents his opinions. Ignore Mark if you like. Feel equally free to ignore me. Neither of us, any more than you, are experts, though you like to see yourself as more highly schooled. And that might even be true. But school doesn't teach common sense and lots of reading doesn't fill one with intelligence. Once again, if you have anything that refutes the points made by those presented by my linked pieces, present them or links to them and then we'd have something to go over. Your condescension, a ploy to avoid exposing the true level of your knowledge or lack thereof, doesn't cut it and impresses no one.

Marshall Art said...


If they don't, which is highly doubtful, then perhaps they weren't meant to.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

First of all, you apparently are either not reading or simply ignoring my central point.

You aren't presenting science. You are making a political argument. Why should I argue with those who simply choose to ignore the way science really works, even if they might make a point or two worth noting? Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, but that doesn't mean I'm going to turn to it to find out what time it is.

Anyway, I just stopped by to wish you, your whole family, each of you and all of you, a Happy Thanksgiving, and many blessings on the day.

Mark said...

I've been reading these comments faithfully without responding. A couple of things stick out like a sore thumb:

First, Geoffrey has attacked me personally twice in this comment thread...for what? I simply related a theory I formed through observation some years before any one ever heard of Global Warming, which undoubtably is the very same reason some scientist somewhere decided to look into explaining the same phenonoma I noticed years ago.

I will point out, however, that had that same scientist formulated the same hypothesis that I did, the Al Gores of the world might very well be warning us of the apocolyptic danger of the world turning over on it's side.

I also noticed Geoffrey's argument devolved from stating categorically that AGW is a scientific fact to finally admitting it is not a scientific fact, but merely a theory, and worse than that, a theory that has unexpainable holes in it!

Shall we next expect Geoffrey to admit that Global warming isn't real at all, or would that be too much to hope for?

Oh, and Les? I should be an excellent driver. I've made my living as a driver for many years now. But I fail to see the relevance in that fact.

Mark said...

Here's more "Scientific" proof of Global Warming

Marshall Art said...


Great link! Thanks for that!