tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30020334.post1437938191831323611..comments2023-10-24T11:19:37.236-04:00Comments on Cognitive dissonance in Pittsburgh and beyond: Science or ... what?EdHeathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09109361235271107574noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30020334.post-44143266644916072522011-08-27T03:54:21.684-04:002011-08-27T03:54:21.684-04:00Hmm, well BC, you really pretty much prove my poin...Hmm, well BC, you really pretty much prove my point, in several different ways. You actually accuse me of being a religious fanatic because I trust scientists. Scientists are the people whose work and ideas are peer reviewed, and whose work and ideas are discredited if their peers don't agree when they investigate the methodology of the work and ideas. This as compared to actual religious fanatics, who have no objective standards (and only limited subjective standards) to answer to. And it is Republicans who invoke religious doctrine and morality when opposing gay marriage and abortion, and bring an almost religious fervor in their opposition to allow the Bush tax cuts only for the rich to sunset (a sunset provision written into the law that created them). As it happens, Republican legislators and candidates for President seem to have rejected neoclassical economics in favor of some form of Reagan inspired economic religion, where tax cuts and deregulation magically solve all problems (included those caused by a lack of revenue and out of control financial industry behavior that plunged the country into it's worst recession since the great depression (also caused by out of control financial industry behavior)). In fact, your handle “Bitter Clinger” is a reminder of Obama’s suggestion that the because of the lies Republicans have told for three decades now, blaming the countries problems on the government’s attempts to make up for slavery and racism stretching hundreds on years (on this continent) , such that the rural poor are convinced that Democrats want to take away their guns and religion (which of course the Democrats don’t, but y’all have your religious dogma). And yet you accuse me of being a religious fanatic. <br /><br />Now I am not any kind of scientist, but I have to say that the fact you don’t use your name when you repeat climate change deniers convinces me you are no scientist either. The difference between us is that I try to repeat the ideas of peer reviewed scientists. I googled “CO2 is a “buffering” agent.” and found no hits, except for one from a climate change denier’s website, filled with the gibberish science that ran through your comment. Again, I am not a scientist at all, and don’t know how CO2 works. However, what I read on Wikipedia suggests that CO2 doesn’t just reduce the rate that heat through the atmosphere, it also absorbs heat, particularly the heat that is supposed to be reflected back into space. And the increased level of CO2 in the atmosphere, the highest in two million years, according to two million year old tree rings … oh wait, I mean ice core samples. But feel free to repeat your drivel about tree rings. Then you flip from seemingly denying climate change yourself to talking about how wonderful it will be for a billion (more like two or more) people to be displaced by climate change. Of course with displacement and climate change will be drought and famine, and probably war, which will result in tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of deaths. I am impressed that you can be so cavalier about that level of death, but then Republicans have shown time and time again that they only care about the wealthy in America. <br /><br />It looks like we, or at least our children, will get to the effect of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere by 38%. Perhaps things will happen as you say, that areas currently too cold to farm (or too cold to farm corn and soybeans) with now be available, and we won’t miss the millions or acres that are currently being farmed. But ours is no controlled experiments, carbon is being pumped into the atmosphere willy nilly, no one’s hand on the throttle (or brake) of the CO2 pollution. Of course, either the religion of science or the religion of … religion will probably provide whatever answer we need. Even if the answer turns out to be that millions or billions must die on our overheated planet. At least you’ll have the satisfaction of knowing you were able to be sarcastic and smug about mass murder.EdHeathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09109361235271107574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30020334.post-13858653667043831082011-08-26T18:11:12.506-04:002011-08-26T18:11:12.506-04:00I thought you read Climatism by Steve Goreham and ...I thought you read <b>Climatism</b> by Steve Goreham and put all that Climate Change nonsense behind you. I guess religious fanatics just can’t learn. Goreham’s arguments aren’t mine, but they are good ones. I have my own concerns about your Climate Change religion, the first is the belief that you can coax meaningful conclusions from the interpretation of tree rings, bristle cones, or animal entrails. It is almost like reading bible codes or interpreting Revelations. The ostracization of the heretics that challenge the crusaders for Global Warming and ad hominem attacks by the orthodoxy to discredit them in light of the Climategate e-mails (which you continue to deny), further convince me that Climate Change is suspect. But my biggest doubt has to do with the premise that global warming will be bad. Aren’t you the guys of <b>Hope and Change</b>? Svante Arrhenius, over a hundred years ago, proposed increasing CO2 levels to produce global warming to feed the teeming millions in the coming century. He abandoned the idea after calculating it was impractical. The IPCC predicts increased CO2 levels will produce extreme weather, tornadoes, hurricanes, and typhoons. Weather is a power cycle. CO2 is a “buffering” agent. It reduces the rate at which heat moves (called heat flux) through the atmosphere. If global warming is caused by the reduction of the heat flux in the atmosphere, that reduction of the heat flux HAS to mean milder weather. If the present warming trend (if there is one) is cause by <i>Natural</i> causes (increased output of the sun or the nuclear reactions in the Earth’s core) then the IPCC predictions may be correct because we will be seeing warming by an <b>increased</b> heat flux. In this case, irrespective and regardless of what you believe, natural is bad and man made is good. PBS had a special, which looked at the temperature variation during the week after 9/11 when planes weren’t flying. <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3310_sun.html" rel="nofollow">PBS Nova </a>showed that the temperature variation increased significantly when there was no buffering layer of jet contrails. Large temperature variations cause large storms, small temperature variations cause mild weather. (The convoluted logic used to try to integrate this into the conventional thoughts of Global Warming is a joy to read, as to Hansen’s 25 meter ocean rise flooding the East and West coasts, what a good start.) Think of the millions of acres in North America and Russia that will be able to be used to grow corn and soybeans where only oats and wheat can be grown now. Millions of acres of permafrost where nothing grows but moss and lichen that will grow oats and wheat. The opening of inexpensive transportation routes across the arctic pole to ship oil and grain from the Ural Mountains of Russia and Siberia, a time of mild warm weather and universal prosperity. What’s not to love? Given that the only polar bears, dinosaurs, and coral reefs I have ever seen were on TV, that won’t change and I will survive. As Arrhenius predicted, during a time of global warming a billion people will be displaced, but they will be replaced by prosperity for two billion of the world’s poor and destitute. That is change I can believe in.Bitter Clingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15098683001919502174noreply@blogger.com