Do You Really Believe?

Ninety-two percent of respondents to an on-line poll on World Net Daily believes that the so-called Frankenstorm is a sign that God is angry with the United States for its stance on Israel. It is just slightly possible that the people who voted in this poll were not an accurate cross-section of Americans.

But what do you make of the “progressive” web site, Common Dreams, arguing that Frankenstorm is nature’s “revenge” on the presidential campaigns for “ignoring climate change”? Is progressivism as much a religion as fundamentalist Christianity?

As a believer in the separation of church and state, the Antiplanner ordinarily does not comment on someone’s religion. But I make an exception when that religion disguises itself as a political philosophy that is, in fact, just as anti-science as the most extreme fundamentalists.

One of the things I am proud of is helping to bring science to the wilderness movement in the 1970s. When I graduated from forestry school in 1974, the environmental argument for saving public lands from timber cutting was, basically, “big trees are pretty; clearcuts are ugly.” The timber industry, meanwhile, seemed to have all the science on its side: old forests were biological deserts that were rotting away; cutting them was doing mother nature a favor; and besides it earned big bucks for taxpayers.

James Monteith, then head of the Oregon Wilderness Coalition, gathered together a broad range of scientists, including ecologists Glen Juday and Paul Alaback; geologist Fred J. Swanson; the Antiplanner; and several others. Thanks to the hard work of these scientists, in less than a decade all of the scientific arguments supported wilderness preservation. Old-growth forests turned out to be vital habitat for more than 100 species of wildlife, of which the spotted owl was only the most famous. They were also highly productive ecosystems and important components in maintaining water quality and fish habitats. Oh, and by the way, most national forest timber sales lost money for taxpayers. The timber industry arguments for cutting old growth shrunk down to “cutting trees means jobs.”

Monteith’s foresight led to the outcome we have today: millions of acres of public forests in the West have been closed to timber cutting and set aside for old-growth preservation. It wasn’t done exactly the way I would have done it, and there are a lot of scientific questions that remain. But this shows just how valuable science can be on the side of the environment.

Today’s environmentalists have forgotten that lesson, if they ever really learned it. Yes, there is some science behind global warming, though not as much as its adherents claim. There is no science at all behind the “precautionary principle,” which is basically a prescription for digging a hole and burying yourself in it. There is very little science behind “peak oil,” and when the oil industry proves it by finding new reserves the environmental community tries to make peak-oil a self-fulfilling prophecy by preventing the extraction of those new reserves. Oh, and smart growth is anything but, while self-driving cars, not trains, are the twenty-first century technology we should be focusing on.

Share

67 thoughts on “Do You Really Believe?

  1. metrosucks

    Oh boy, this one is going to start a real howling from the usual suspects. More of a commentary, and it was filed in that section, but good points raised, nonetheless, about climate change’s precarious scientific footing. Anyway, let the games begin!

  2. paul

    I agree with the Antiplanner’s statements above except for “Yes, there is some science behind global warming, though not as much as its adherents claim”. I heard my first lecture on what was then the potential of global warming in 1975. At the time most climate scientist were skeptical of the potential and wanted it great deal more data and measurements to determine what was going on, especially since global temperatures had apparently declined from the mid 1930’s to the mid 1970’s. It took 20 years for most climate scientists to determine that there is a problem. The focus at the major university where I work and at meetings such as the American Geophysical Union that I have attended there is no now significant opposition to man induced climate change, mostly due to warming. The supposed descent comes from a handful of scientists, not from scientific organizations. These scientists are very vocal in their opposition and demand equal time from the press for the opposing view, but do not represent any significant numbers in their position. Read the book “Merchants of Doubt” by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway. Occasionally a scientist from another field with both a healthy skepticism of the science, and the technical expertise to competently evaluate the science, has determined that indeed human involvement is causing global warming. See:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 (Google search words “conversion of a climate skeptic”.)

    The in scientific circles the discussion has now shifted to what to do about the problem, and here science falters. Most climate scientists do not appear to have a good grasp of what to do, as it will require very major changes in the way we produce energy. Other groups have then then jumped on the bandwagon and tried to pretend that solutions, include city planning and high speed trains, can make a cost efficient reduction human produced global warming gases, which they cannot. To make a significant difference, CO2 reduction strategies must be in the range of $50-$100 per metric tonne. Most city planners are mystified when I ask them what price per tonne their plan would reduce CO2 production by. Without the cost claims of reducing CO2 production are meaningless. Even some prestigious researchers have become very defensive when I point this out. For a good discussion see: “Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air” by Mackay http://www.withouthotair.com/ PDF downloadable free, and “Cool It: The skeptical Environmentalists Guide to Global Warming” by Lomborg. The movie version “Cool It” of the latter book is also very good and available on Netflix instant play.

    For those who would point out what water vapor is a much more potent warming gas than carbon dioxide I would point out that this has been well understood since well before 1975 and is always included in the models prediction climate change. The problem is that if there is a very slight increase in carbon dioxide production and the earth warms then more water vapor is evaporated into the atmosphere and this further increases the warming effect in a feedback loop with an amplifying effect. This then reaches a new equilibrium.

    For those concerned about planners claiming their plans would have an effect on carbon dioxide production keep asking what the price per tonne is. If they don’t know they should not be making claims that their plans have any significant effect on this problem. If one tries to state that global warming is a myth or not a problem then everything one says at these planning meetings is likely to be ignored.

    Paul.

    Scott Reply:

    Good job at being a sheeple in following views of orgs, despite the many flaws in AGW, especially no GW for 16 years. Science is not based upon popularity, Mr. Dumass.

    Do you even have any idea of the shaky basis that AGW is based on? Only a 1.4F rise since 1880 & 1/3 of that is pre-GHG & once GHG started really rising, temps declined, 1945-1975. Those xbox climate models are jokes.
    Are you not aware of problems & ulterior motives with James Hansen, Michael Mann, Algore & those emails about temp fabrication (hide the decline) & such?

    Scott Reply:

    Correction/addendum: one word left out, in typing “pre-GHG” that should have been followed by “increase,” referring to ~pre-1940 when CO2 was about 180 ppm, & then started increasing to about 288 ppm now.

    Frank Reply:

    paul’s comment was thoughtful and reasoned. Name calling (“Mr. Dumass”–actually should be spelled “Mr. “Dumbass”) only undermines your position.

    Now, please don’t attack me and make assumptions about me, as I have been a skeptic of worst-case global warming scenarios for 20 years.

    bennett Reply:

    Lol!

    Scott Reply:

    Frank, you missed my points.
    Name-calling was far from the crux, & Mr. Dumass is not even a spelling mistake, as it is a fictional representation, which you’ve included yourself to be addressed as [phonetically, as 2 separate words].

    paul Reply:

    Scott, If you go into any scientific forum and start using phrases such as “being a sheeple in following views of orgs, despite the many flaws in AGW, especially no GW for 16 years. Science is not based upon popularity, Mr. Dumass” you will be ignored as you will immediately be recognized as name calling without references. If you then continue to point out that so called “smart growth” planning is much to costly in reducing CO2 to be effective you will also be ignored which is too bad, as that is certainly true from all available data I have seen. If you don’t want to believe in human induced global warming, fine, but keep hammering away on the fact that most measure to reduce CO2 production and not cost effective and simply reduce our standard of living.

    As to the rest of your post, yes the scientific community does realize all the problems you state, and had covered them extensively in depth. That is why most in the scientific community will listen to skeptics with skill capable of handling the huge amount of data and have come to the conclusion there is a problem, as with the physics professor Richard Muller I reference above.

    Finally, your claim that “those emails about temp fabrication (hide the decline) & such” is false and five different investigations have absolved all scientists of any wrong doing, see:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/opinion/11sun2.html

    Again, anyone going into a forum claiming these emails fabricated data and is not aware of the investigations absolving the scientists of any misrepresentation will be ignored.

    Paul.

    Dan Reply:

    Again, anyone going into a forum claiming these emails fabricated data and is not aware of the investigations absolving the scientists of any misrepresentation will be ignored.

    Yes, exactly. Long-refuted conspiracy theories are to be ridiculed or ignored, not considered when formulating policy.

    DS

    Scott Reply:

    You are too sensitize — typical of immoral leftists — when you cannot discuss issues. You also distracted & marginalized, among other fallacies.

    Care to address any items brought up?

    Scott Reply:

    Dan, what the hell on “conspiracy theories”?
    You’ve actually really discredited yourself by using those terms.
    What does that even mean & what are you referring to?
    Please don’t claim that applying that term to anything delineates it.
    Have you ever offered any evidence/facts for your ideas? Ahhahaha
    There have been times when you thought you did, in proving links, but they were actually contrary to your point. Do you have low comprehension skills?
    I won’t call you _____ because any responses will avoid substance & focus on that.

    Scott Reply:

    Sure, jerky, paul, focus on “sheeple”, which you are — blindly believing w/out evidence — instead how about addressing & attempting to counter any points?
    Can’ya not be a sensitive dummy & focus on substance?

    Same with you Dan — you are really scum, with no material that you stand for.

    Scott Reply:

    paul, Ahhahhhahahahahahhahaaaaaa,

    Yer so funny-flawed.

    “If”…”scientific forum” .. Do you not realize this… The minor use of “sheeple” doesn’t cancel out other things. I can still debate those mind-fucked scientists — their theories don’t hold H2O.

    Try this Paul — to object to my previous debunking of AGW. Can’ya do it sparky? Do’ya have any facts/evidence for AGW? I will refrain to call you mentally challenged.
    Up to par Mr.Wizard, respond objectively, rather than subjectively?

    Y’ra a joke for any intellectual discourse. Prove me wrong tuf-guy.

  3. OFP2003

    Anybody that looks at this

    http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&biw=1094&bih=557&tbm=isch&tbnid=-q-PjlFaFp8z5M:&imgrefurl=http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/GrandCanyon2.html&docid=hSOIRfNkFAfrBM&imgurl=http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/webpictures/grandcanyon-nankoweap_canyon_unusual_erosion.jpg&w=600&h=471&ei=D_WPULC_DaX50gGJqYCwDQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=690&vpy=132&dur=78&hovh=199&hovw=253&tx=98&ty=93&sig=101908732587502563690&page=1&tbnh=108&tbnw=141&start=0&ndsp=19&ved=1t:429,r:4,s:0,i:83

    and still thinks the Grand Canyon was formed by a little river flowing over a million or more years has very little common sense in my book. This photo shows a drainage basin from a huge flood, not the result of a slow gentle eroding river.

    Things like this show just how little truth can be involved in today’s science. Especially with earth-worshiping environmentalists.

    In a professional capacity, I recieved an email sent in a professional capacity that said something like: “Water is life. we must have clean water or we won’t have life.” Seems like water is nearly always teaming with life, much of which is harmful to us.

    Did the picture come through?

    Frank Reply:

    Good grief. Weak attempt that ignores mountains (literally and figuratively) of evidence of the uplift of the Colorado Plateau and the fact that previous epochs were wetter.

    If anything, the “great flood” was localized to the region around the Black Sea. That is, if you believe a small and primitive tribal community writing about events thousands of years after they supposedly occurred.

    Keep grasping at straws.

    OFP2003 Reply:

    Look at the picture.

    Dan Reply:

    a little river flowing over a million or more years has very little common sense in my book

    Common sense isn’t so common in some circles or some books.

    As Cardinal Baronius, the Vatican Librarian at the time of Galileo, roughly stated: ‘The bible tells you how to go to heaven, it doesn’t tell you how the heavens go.’

    DS

    OFP2003 Reply:

    Look at the picture and interpret what you see. My point is that you can’t look at the picture and claim it is anything but massive flood caused it unless you come at it with predeterminations aka prejudices.

    Frank Reply:

    You’ve got that backwards. You can’t look at the picture and claim it is anything but geological forces over eons unless you come at it with prejudices and a myth from a small and insignificant band of people who lived thousands of years ago and had no grasp of geological forces.

    Scott Reply:

    Thanx for the site on alternative theories in the Grand Canyon forming. There were reasonable doubts brought up, but also flaws & ignorance, for which I’m only speaking from a BA in geography, rather than my BA in econ or my MUP.

    What is the relevance?

  4. C. P. Zilliacus

    The Antiplanner wrote:

    Ninety-two percent of respondents to an on-line poll on World Net Daily believes that the so-called Frankenstorm is a sign that God is angry with the United States for its stance on Israel. It is just slightly possible that the people who voted in this poll were not an accurate cross-section of Americans.

    Reminds me of the folks from Westboro Baptist making claims that tolerance of gay people by some in the United States has resulted in battlefield casualties in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

    But what do you make of the “progressive” web site, Common Dreams, arguing that Frankenstorm is nature’s “revenge” on the presidential campaigns for “ignoring climate change”? Is progressivism as much a religion as fundamentalist Christianity?

    Progressive politics? No, probably not. But hard-core environmentalism, yes. And that includes persons and groups that want to use powers of government (land use and planning powers, along with the power to tax the population and collect tolls from highway users) to force people to live in tall apartment buildings on top of rail transit systems and not own automobiles.

    bennett Reply:

    The word “force” is used a lot in this context. Hyperbole?

  5. Dan

    But I make an exception when that religion disguises itself as a political philosophy that is, in fact, just as anti-science as the most extreme fundamentalists.

    Still, yet, another hatchet job with the conflation, hasty generalization, or guilt by association. Choose your favorite. Unnecessary in this context, even with the Brothers and their KXL shenanigans.

    Nevertheless, the start of the modern American environmental movement came when Americans got cars and started traveling to distant forests, only to be horrified by the scale of clearcuts and the resultant erosion. That is: the galvanization for action came from ugliness. You can’t deny the origin of the motivation and galvanization. That the evidence came later is not surprising.

    A good read that details more of what Randal wrote about wrt forests in this post is Dietrich’s The Final Forest.

    DS

    Scott Reply:

    Dan, I’m more sorry for you — in that you [more than regular] typed no substance & are clearly lost.

    Bless you, my son — which means nothing to me — not believing in falsities (ie no sky magician), as many lefties have done in their enviro-anti-humanism.

    metrosucks Reply:

    Still, yet, another hatchet job with the conflation, hasty generalization, or guilt by association. Choose your favorite. Unnecessary in this context, even with the Brothers and their KXL shenanigans.

    Blame the Koch brothers again, what a surprise. Did you know I heard rumors they are also responsible for Hurricane Sandy, the recent earthquake in BC, and the oversupply of assholes in Aurora, CO?

  6. gecko55

    If you’re going to refer to Common Dreams as a “progressive” web site, shouldn’t you in all fairness also refer to World Net Daily as a “wingnut” web site?

    And to the canard regarding AGW that there is “not as much (science) as its adherents claim,” check out this small comment from The New Yorker:

    http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/10/watching-hurricane-sandy-ignoring-climate-change.html

    Note the main sources cited: Munich Re and NASA. I’ll take them any day over, say, The Heartland Institute.

    Scott Reply:

    No connection between GW & extreme weather events, let alone GW being AGW.
    For one thing, look at the temps for 16 years — no rise.
    Secondly look at ACE, no correlation to GW.
    Hey, Algore’s book has several errors on the cover — a hurricane on the equator & another rotating in opposite direction, but those are actually irrelevant
    Oh, ya know what ACE stands for? If you don’t, than you might not be fully versed in climate facts — accumulated cyclone energy — it has no correlation to temps.

    gecko55 Reply:

    Abstract from the article “Expert credibility in climate change” published by the National Academy of Science in 2010 (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract)

    “Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.”

  7. Fred_Z

    I am 60. I live in Alberta but have connections and roots in the East Kootenay region of BC. I have had a second home there for nearly 25 years, and have visited, hiked, camped and hunted there for 45 years. My father panned for gold there from 1952 every summer for 10 years. He never did find the Lost Lemon Mine.

    My little house is surrounded on 3 sides by “Crown Land”, the Canadian equivalent, I think, of federal wilderness. The fourth side is owned by a fellow whose family has lived there for 120 years.

    My wife and I have many visitors, often folk who fancy themselves environmentalists.

    I take great, and perverse, delight in driving them around, or taking long walks through the forest, and asking them to identify natural meadowlands, clear-cuts, selective cuts, partial cuts, timed cuts, Christmas tree cuts, old growth, planted trees, natural species, imported species, volunteer species, pipeline rights of way, old wagon trails, und so weiter.

    None of them, not one, zero percent, were able to accurately identify even a small minority of them, in the case of cuts, if they were about 5 years old or older.

    The complete failure of the hippy dippy environmentalist ‘scientists’ to understand the weakness of their observational skills never fails to astonish me. Their self righteous satisfaction in their gross incompetence is marvelous.

    Sandy Teal Reply:

    On a cruise to Alaska, the “guides” point out breaks in the spruce and pines that they call “clear cuts”. Except they are clearly areas above the tree line or avalanche chutes.

    But what do you say to cruise ship passengers on the ocean that ask what elevation they are at?

    [Surely Dan will once again dispute they are on the "ocean".]

    metrosucks Reply:

    Lol.

  8. bennett

    I’m no climate scientist, but I’m finding it a bit alarming that we’re having “the storm of the century,” every year.

    metrosucks Reply:

    Just more media hysteria, bennett.

    Frank Reply:

    The last hurricane to hit New York was 1938. (It was a Cat. 3 and glanced NYC and pummeled Long Island.) Not exactly “every year”.

    bennett Reply:

    “We’re” was referring to the USA, not just NYC. I suppose media hype is partly to blame as I’m not the one labeling the events “storm of the century.”

    Dan Reply:

    Global weather events are in fact becoming more extreme. Utterly basic. In North America, couple that with the lack of preparedness for such events, and the resilience goes way down.

    DS

    Frank Reply:

    Hard to argue that Sandy was extreme when it had half the accumulated cyclone energy of Nadine.

    And since 1950, the ACE index has been at or below normal 38 out of 62 seasons.

    Fred_Z Reply:

    You link ThinkProgress citing Munich Re citing NatCatService and claim the result is a “fact”?

    I bet you think Michael Mann co-won the Nobel prize.

    Dan Reply:

    extreme when it had half the accumulated cyclone energy of Nadine.

    Write up your profound finding and publish. The rest of the world needs your wisdom.

    You link ThinkProgress citing Munich Re citing NatCatService and claim the result is a “fact”?

    The Reality-Based Community knows what facts are. If you are having a sad at this fact, post your own ideologically-pure fact that shows weather disasters are in fact not increasing. Let us know how you do.

    DS

    Frank Reply:

    Dan, in the liberal scientific method, no one has personal authority. Your responses to criticisms of AGW are laced with anger. It’s the kind of anger people who challenge religious dogma receive. It’s the kind of anger spewed by fundamentalists.

    Nevertheless, a published scientist has shown that, “While it’s hardly mentioned in the media, the U.S. is currently in an extended and intense hurricane ‘drought.’ The last Category 3 or stronger storm to make landfall was Wilma in 2005. The more than seven years since then is the longest such span in over a century.”

    Since you made this personal, and appealed to ridicule by urging me to publish, I don’t think you have any high ground to tell someone to publish since you never published, let alone finished, your master’s thesis.

    And at least I’m not linking to Urban Spoon rather than the US census in a failed attempt to support the ludicrous assertion that “stroller congestion” exists in Belltown.

    Frank Reply:

    As far as publications, NASA published a study showing the ACE/NSD trend is downward. It also shows that “Including the 2011 season, the respite in major hurricane strikes along the US coastline now spans 6 yr, the longest such respite in the interval 1945–2011.”

    Dan Reply:

    Dan, in the liberal scientific method, no one has personal authority. Your responses to criticisms of AGW are laced with anger. It’s the kind of anger people who challenge religious dogma receive. It’s the kind of anger spewed by fundamentalists.

    You are making it up and mischaracterizing, likely because you are having a sad. Use one of your favorite fallacies to fill in your preferred fallacy. Don’t use ‘hand-flapping to distract away from the point though’, as that is my line.

    Nevertheless, the fact is that you have special information that trumps the knowledge, wisdom, skill, and experience of people who do climate for a living. You are special.

    Therefore, it is your responsibility to society correct the experts. You owe it to the world, as the world somehow thinks that the climate is changing. You need to – Galileo-like – show those durn experts they are wrong, wrong, wrong! Wrong, you say!

    Share your special knowledge with the world. The world needs you. The planet needs your special knowledge that the experts don’t have. Don’t be afraid to share your special knowledge: step up, man up. Be brave and show the world how their knowledge isn’t knowledge, only your special knowledge is knowlege.

    Do it. Correct the world. You can do it!!!!!!

    DS

    Frank Reply:

    That you engage in ridicule rather than discussion undermines the weakness of your position, Dan. Someone clicked on the links I provided. Was that you? Did you actually read them? Would you like to actually discuss them? Or would you like to just ridicule some more?

    Also from the NASA study:

    The question remains, however, regarding the basis for this behavior for NMH: Is its behavior reflective of one that is quasi-cyclic in nature (i.e., consisting of cycles of more and less activity, each tens of years in length) or is its behavior reflective of one that is directly attributable to climatic change (i.e., driven by increasing temperature)? It also seems noteworthy that, although today’s 10-yma values of NMH (averaging about 3.8 storms per year) are similar to those of the early 1950s, presently, they still fall slightly below that of the earlier maximum value (4 storms per year in 1953 and 1954). Does this mean that the current active interval has not yet peaked, but will continue for another decade or so before weakening to levels indicative of another less active interval (presuming a cyclic cause) or will it continue to increase unabatedly (presuming a climatic change cause, perhaps, due to increased warming of the atmosphere and oceans)?

    Uncertainty. Over and over the study repeats the phrase “Such behavior possibly suggests a cyclic nature” for measurement X. Cyclic. Hmm.

    The study “Meteorology: Hurricanes and Global Warming” published in Nature shows “further investigation of a substantially longer time series for tropical cyclones affecting the continental United States does not show a tendency for increasing destructiveness. These factors indicate that instead of ‘unprecedented’ tropical cyclone activity having occurred in recent years, hurricane intensity was equal or even greater during the last active period in the mid-twentieth century.”

    Another Nature-published study, “Tropical cyclones and climate change,” finds that “it remains uncertain whether past changes in tropical cyclone activity have exceeded the variability expected from natural causes.”

    So, let’s discuss the peer-reviewed evidence, Dan. If you continue your appeals to ridicule, the hundreds of daily readers of this blog will see you for what you really are: a troll who cites Urban Spoon as “evidence.”

    Dan Reply:

    Would you like to actually discuss them? Or would you like to just ridicule some more?

    Look: either you have special knowledge that overturns the scientific paradigm and the understanding of the entire human population on this planet (save some white conservative anglo-saxons adhering to a couple fringe ideologies) or you don’t. If you do, you need to share your special knowledge with the world.

    If you are afraid to have moral courage, don’t make things up about me just for pointing out if you have special knowledge that overturns the entire scientific paradigm (in addition to physics) you should have the moral courage to share your special knowledge with the world, in order to overturn the entire scientific paradigm on which our society runs.

    Let us know when you submit your manuscript.

    DS

    Frank Reply:

    The troll has spoken and disregarded the empirical, peer-reviewed studies referenced, again proving he is not here to discuss but to ridicule and troll.

    Dan Reply:

    The troll has spoken and disregarded the empirical, peer-reviewed studies referenced, again proving he is not here to discuss but to ridicule and troll.

    See, this is what I mean. You are childishly lashing out at me when I point you have some special knowledge that overwhelms the vast majority of scientists on this planet. This is a good thing – why make me sad when I’m trying to make you glad?! If I were thinner-skinned, my feefees would be sad.

    That’s right: I tell you to have the courage of your convictions, and publish your special knowledge to overturn these ding-dang scientists who refuse the genius of your special information – and you have a sad.

    You now feel the little need to tell me I’m a troll for insisting that you have the courage of your convictions and act. Making me sad for encouraging you is the last thing you should be doing. The first thing is publishing, the second is thanking me for encouraging you. How sad. Buck up!

    Well, when you are done being sad, let us know how your campaign goes. I’m sure Randal knows of an opening in the Cato denial climate shop. I think there is a new opening after the recent so-not-plagiarism climate report they mistakenly published released. Maybe you can get a gig in there to spread your special knowledge when you are glad again.

    Remember: have the courage of your convictions. Publish. You can change the world.

    I’d be happy to discuss your successes after you publish. I’ll even buy as a toast to your success.

    DS

    metrosucks Reply:

    Classic Dan. Link to extreme left, dogma-filled websites to make his “point”, and then ignore contrary information from more balanced sources by engaging in hand-flapping* and attacking the messenger, and then accusing his opponent of the same!

    *“hand flapping” is a registered trademark of asshole extraordinaire Dan the Plan

    Frank Reply:

    Dan,

    Stop with the red herring about “special knowledge” and address these peer-reviewed, published findings, or kindly STFU.

    NASA published a study showing the ACE/NSD trend is downward. It also shows that “Including the 2011 season, the respite in major hurricane strikes along the US coastline now spans 6 yr, the longest such respite in the interval 1945–2011.”

    Also from the NASA study:

    The question remains, however, regarding the basis for this behavior for NMH: Is its behavior reflective of one that is quasi-cyclic in nature (i.e., consisting of cycles of more and less activity, each tens of years in length) or is its behavior reflective of one that is directly attributable to climatic change (i.e., driven by increasing temperature)? It also seems noteworthy that, although today’s 10-yma values of NMH (averaging about 3.8 storms per year) are similar to those of the early 1950s, presently, they still fall slightly below that of the earlier maximum value (4 storms per year in 1953 and 1954). Does this mean that the current active interval has not yet peaked, but will continue for another decade or so before weakening to levels indicative of another less active interval (presuming a cyclic cause) or will it continue to increase unabatedly (presuming a climatic change cause, perhaps, due to increased warming of the atmosphere and oceans)?

    Uncertainty. Over and over the study repeats the phrase “Such behavior possibly suggests a cyclic nature” for measurement X. Cyclic. Hmm.

    The study “Meteorology: Hurricanes and Global Warming” published in Nature shows “further investigation of a substantially longer time series for tropical cyclones affecting the continental United States does not show a tendency for increasing destructiveness. These factors indicate that instead of ‘unprecedented’ tropical cyclone activity having occurred in recent years, hurricane intensity was equal or even greater during the last active period in the mid-twentieth century.”

    Another Nature-published study, “Tropical cyclones and climate change,” finds that “it remains uncertain whether past changes in tropical cyclone activity have exceeded the variability expected from natural causes.”

    Dan Reply:

    Typing slowly:

    o Most of the analysis and comments from the people who do wx/climo for a living has indicated that is is likely that man-made climate change was a contributor.

    o You are claiming it did not.

    o You have special knowledge that people who do this for a living do not.

    Therefore:

    o Have the courage of your convictions to correct these people who do climate for a living.

    You can do it!!!!!! – buck up, pull up your pants, and get publishing. The world needs you and your special knowledge, as it is coming ever closer to not only adapting to man-made climate change, but mitigating man-made climate change, including huuuuuuuuuuuge capital investments to both adapt to and mitigate man-made climate change.

    Investments that your special knowledge can avoid.

    Now quit bullying me and making me cry. Get typing instead of hurting my feefees. Chaaaaaaaanggggg-uh the worrrrrrrrrrrrrrld, Frank! You can do it! Have the courage of your convictions!

    As a bonus, surely you will be recompensed handsomely by right-wing think-tanks, Exxon, Peabody, and countless lobbying firms for overcoming those dang scientists. And you will never buy a drink again when you travel to predominantly conservative white places.

    Win-win-win! Courage Frank! You can do it! Change the world!

    DS

    metrosucks Reply:

    I guess getting paid by the government to spread global warming propaganda is morally superior to getting paid by Exxon to fight such propaganda. Oh well, each to his own I guess.

    Frank Reply:

    I don’t think Dan is getting paid. He’s a “consultant”. And a condescending douchebag who misrepresents. He’s like a high school student who, after he has been called out for citing bad evidence (Urban Spoon, lolz!), goes looking for a fight to regain his dignity.

    “Most of the analysis and comments from the people who do wx/climo for a living has indicated that is is likely that man-made climate change was a contributor. You are claiming it did not.”

    Anyone can scroll up and see that I claimed that “Hard to argue that Sandy was extreme when it had half the accumulated cyclone energy of Nadine.” That’s it. Not that AGW was not a factor. Pure distortion by a douchebag who got his widdle feely weelies hurt by being called out for citing Urban Spoon as evidence.

    Oh, well. I understand Dan’s ego is is as big as a Category 5 hurricane and every bit as destructive. Dan will stoop to any level to preserve his narcissistic view of himself, even flat out lying about what others typed.

    Ignore the douche troll.

    Dan Reply:

    Oh, well. I understand Dan’s ego is is as big as a Category 5 hurricane

    Thank you for repeating your pattern.

    You are making sh$$ up. I merely pointed out you should have the courage of your convictions to share your special knowledge, and the next thing you know I’m a trolling condescending d-bag.

    You cannot muster the courage to have the courage of your convictions, so you suddenly have vapors and I am a troll.

    Sure.

    You poor thing. When you are done having a sad, tell us how you stopped being afraid and bucked up. Don’t be a scaredy-cat! Stop being such a little fraidy-cat Frank!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Stop being a coward!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 Change the world Fraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaank!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1one!

    DS

    Sandy Teal Reply:

    The last hurricane to hit NYC must still be in 1938. “Sandy” was not even a hurricane when it hit NY, so it can hardly be proof of global warming, can it?

    metrosucks Reply:

    It’s proof of global warming if planner boy says it is, I guess.

  9. Sandy Teal

    I am shocked how global warming advocates are now claiming victim status because the fossil fuel industry funds science to check their work. The spending on research and publicity must be 100-1 or more in favor of global warming advocates.

    Suggestion #17 to environmentalists — don’t launch personal attacks against your opponents if you want people to think you have some substance on your side.

    Frank Reply:

    Why are you shocked? Guilt by association fallacies are Dan’s bread and butter. (That and citing Urban Spoon, speaking of bread and butter, as evidence.) He’s so convinced that CO2 is pumping up hurricanes and doing all kinds of badness, yet he’s a hypocrite. Let’s engage in a little guilt by association, too, and review his hypocrisy, shall we?

    If Dan was so worried about CO2, would he drive a Jeep into the mountains just for a pleasure picnic?

    If Dan was so worried about CO2, would he live in a 2046 sq ft, four-bedroom single family home on a fifth of an acre? With an air conditioner? In Aurora? In a car-dependent development with a Walk Score of 25? And minimal transit and a transit score of 19?

    If Dan was so worried about CO2,would he fly all over the country to talk about such profound ideas like not planting trees where they’ll block solar panels?

    If Dan was so worried about CO2, would he have accepted the position of project manager on the Crystal Valley Ranch development outside Castle Rock? Where 5,000 sq ft houses were built on one-acre lots on cul de sacs? That has a Walk Score of 02 (two) and no transit?

    Truth is, Dan’s actions speak louder than his angrily typed, condescending words.

    If he is really worried about CO2, he should take a loss on his house and move to “stroller congested” Belltown where he and his wife/partner and kid can sqeeze into a 550 square foot condo and walk everywhere and/or take the bus and streetcar. He can get a job planning high-density development instead of sprawling suburbs.

    metrosucks Reply:

    This is where Dan comes in, hand flaps some more, and claims he will move to a more dense, environmentally “friendly” area as soon as he is no longer “under water” on his mortgage and can afford to do so.

    But, if Dan really believes all his eco/green tripe, wouldn’t he do anything possible to live by his own standards, including maybe losing money on the sale of his house?

    The difference between a liberal planner’s rhetoric, and what he really does, tells me he doesn’t even believe his own BS. It’s simply advantageous for him to talk out of both sides of his mouth, advocating dense TOD’s for the “rest of us”, while selfishly enjoying the benefits of the same suburbia/McMansion lifestyle he derides daily.

    If he is truly so worried about the environment, why would he, as Frank says, take a job essentially managing the building of an army of McMansions, a suburban housing type he claims is completely unsustainable, and utterly at odds with his ideology?

    One is left to conclude that Dan is a flaming hypocrite who doesn’t give a crap about the environment, but is interested in power and green, that is, money.

    Dan Reply:

    They always pout, mischaracterize and lash out when they get a sad upon realizing someone has pointed out for all to see that they can’t mark their beliefs to market, don’t they? Every time. Since the dawn of time.

    Some have utterly predictable behavior patterns at some point after the onset of the sad as well. Heat, kitchen

    DS

    metrosucks Reply:

    Poor planner boy, the most mischaracterized and misunderstood asshole this side of the Mississippi. Wondering about the whole “get a sad” bs, is this something Danny Boy read in some planner book on how to deal with recalcitrant residents?

    Frank Reply:

    Worse still is the trotting out a Keynesian Krugman lover as “evidence” of anything. Krugman has marketed silly alien invasion schemes as a fix to the economy. Brother. If this is all planners got- -well, this and Urban Spoon, and McMansions, and joyrides in Jeeps, and unwalkable neighborhoods- -then I am sad. Sad for them and their mentally and morally deficient worldview.

    Dan Reply:

    Krugman has marketed silly alien invasion schemes as a fix to the economy.

    Wow! You point out that they should change the world with their special knowlege, and they get all a-makin’ up unicorn stories.

    Your special knowledge is compelling. Show the rest of the world how wrong they are. Stop the tantrum and use that energy to stop the entire planet from planning for man-made climate change. Your taxes are going to the US military to plan for man-made climate change. Only YOU can stop the madness, Frank. Use your special knowledge for good, not a tantrum.

    DS

    metrosucks Reply:

    So planner boy,

    it sounds like the standard here is that we are supposed to take knowledge ALREADY published in studies and journals, repackage it(to your satisfaction, naturally), and then essentially write ANOTHER, plagiarized article in a manner of your choosing, because if we don’t follow every ridiculous step of your bogus set of standards, then we have essentially failed, according to your stupid little argument, correct?

    Oh, btw, I hope you’re still not knocking your wife around. I know getting caught underwater on your mortgage when you thought you were such a smart little cookie is tough, but still.

  10. Frank

    Paul Krugman Wants Manufactured Threat From Outer Space to Revive Economy
    http://youtu.be/fyW-o-Pr92M

    Dan Reply:

    Krugman uses very simple language to show how obvious it is that he is making up a story to illustrate how simple his point is:

    It’s very hard to get inflation in a depressed economy. But if you have a program of government spending plus an expansionary policy by the Fed, you could get that. So if you think about using all of these things together, you could accomplish, you know, a great deal.

    I mean, if we – if we discovered that, you know, space aliens were planning to attack and we needed a – a massive buildup to counter the – the space alien threat, and really inflation and budget deficits took secondary place to that, this slump would be over in 18 months. And then if we discovered, oops, we made a mistake there aren’t actually any space aliens –

    (CROSSTALK)

    ROGOFF: So we need Orson Wells is what you’re say?

    KRUGMAN: No. That’s a – that’s a – there was a “Twilight Zone” episode like this, which scientists fake an alien threat in order to achieve world peace. Well, this time we don’t need it – we need it in order to get some fiscal stimulus. [emphasis added, but not really needed]

    It’s utterly simple to see it is a metaphor. So his colleague that challenges people to mark their ideas to market has lost exactly zero credibility by being associated with an alien schemer.

    That is: it remains realistic to suggest that one mark one’s ideas to market, especially when they will change the world and save hundreds of billions of dollars/annum in spending by turning back the scientist menace to freedom and property. And likely make tonnns of money as a result of their exposing the Enlightenment’s menace to freedom, liberty, prosperity, individualism, capitalism, religion and property.

    DS

Leave a Reply