I'm shocked!

You mean, the frenzied climate changed crowd has their heads ensconced firmly up their asses?!?!

See, we MUST control the earth's climate NOW or we're all DOOMED!

Kyoto is the only way!

AAAAAAAH!!!!

Global Cooling!!!! We're all gonna diiieeeeee!!!!!

The science was in on the Titanic too.

Meanwhile, IPCC Report Mocks Own Findings

This would suggest that Hans Island was really a tropical paradise.

Moreover, there were no Dane's with Viking tendencies, laying claim to the "True North, Strong and Free".

Now where is my daquiri and my maple leaf shade tree to accompany my ocean view?

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht BGS, PDP, CFP

Commander in Chief

Frankenstein Battalion

2nd Squadron: Ulanen-(Lancers) Regiment Großherzog Friedrich von Baden (Rheinisches) Nr.7(Saarbrucken)

Knecht Rupprecht Division

Hans Corps

1st Saint Nicolaas Army

Army Group “True North”

No real surprises here for me. We have barely touched some of the particulars hidden in the *earth's history* that directly impact on the present debate regarding AGW. As more and more of these historical facts are unearthed (sorry for the pun) they seem to make the AGW claims increasingly untenable.

(Transfered from another thread)

Well, look what happens when a Finn actually crunches the numbers for a specific area (Helsinki). I wonder what would happen if this was done in this detail for many more sites around the globe.

http://www.tilmari.pp.fi/tilmari5.htm

http://www.kolumbus.fi/tilmari/globwarm.htm

I wonder how many conservatives are going to point to this as evidence of prior warming periods while still trying to maintain that the earth was created in 144 hours only 6,000 years ago. Just wondering out loud. Carry on as you were.

Well, gee, I don't know, Ted.

Kate links regularly to science articles and never to religious ones, yet she maintains Canada's most popular blog thanks to thousands of conservatives.

I realize this must present a cognitive disconnect for you, but if you sit down a quiet room, turn off the lights and mull it over for a few hours the answer just might come to you.

Good luck!

Are you guys idiots? The fact that the earth was warmer 900,000 years ago has nothing to do with the current phenomenon of Global Warming.

Some of you seriously need to rethink that decision to drop out of high-school.

Ted...LOL

Brad...So if the earth was warmer 900,000 years ago,then it must now be cooling? Otherwise,it would just be getting warmer. So you believe in global warming? Not a problem. Just send your money to Al Gore,idiots pay here,USA. He will be so happy. Twit.

"The fact that the earth was warmer 900,000 years ago has nothing to do with the current phenomenon of Global Warming."

No Brad, but it does point out rather well that forces other than manmade carbon dioxide has driven temperature higher in the past. But then you know that, it's just doesn't fit with your premise that mankind is the evildoer. So carry on with your "theory" presented as fact mindset.

Chip, relax.

I think I have read somewhere here evidence that Kate is in the scientific realist camp so I have no reason to believe she thinks the earth is only 6,000 years old (although she has posted a number of times on articles questioning evolution, at least as us pedestrians understand it).

So I don't think Kate is being hypocritical in using such dating science to try to undermine global warming claims. My comment is more directed at those who would go "ra ra, way to go Kate" and then claim that the earth is way younger (by a few billion years) than the science they just supported.

Justthinkin, do you actually know anything about climate science?? Your specious reasoning makes me wonder whether you were actually drunk when you wrote the last comment. Think about it! Whether or not you believe in man made Global Warming is besides the point, the temperature of the earth 900,000 years ago is not an issue. The earth has been through several ice ages since then. It has cycled through hot and cold several times.

We can argue until we're blue in the face about the current warming trend, but don't serious accept anyone to take you seriously if you are using "this" as evidence.

Ignorans caecus est.

"No Brad, but it does point out rather well that forces other than manmade carbon dioxide has driven temperature higher in the past. But then you know that, it's just doesn't fit with your premise that mankind is the evildoer. So carry on with your "theory" presented as fact mindset."

geothermal, No scientist would suggest that human beings are the only cause of climate change! Scientists have known for the better part of a century that the earth has been warmer in the past.

Where did i state that mankind is an "evildoer". You don't know anything about what my opinion is on Global Warming, so don't try to pigeon hole me. I am simply stating that is is NOT evidence for either side!

{irony]
Those scientists, always trying to upset people by searching and finding black swans. Troublemakers, all of them. Just cut 'em off.
[/irony]

Brad...my point exactly...the earth cycles through both cold and warm stages. I just do not understand why so many people are upset and screaming global warming. It is a natural cycle. Neither you,me nor anybody else can change that fact. For us humans to think that we can control nature is just plain idiotic. Drunk? Yes I used to be,but have been sober for 12 years now,one day at a time. I may not express my opinions that well,but at least we have a free foroum here at Kate's,and I thank her for that.

"You don't know anything about what my opinion is on Global Warming, so don't try to pigeon hole me."
We know you un-necessarily capitalize it, and attack like an ad-hominem Pigeon-Holer, Brad.

@ Ted,

Th latest survey from Decima shows that conservatives in Canada are the LEAST likely to believe that God created the universe, especially the ones in Alberta.

www.clangmann.net

But hey, keep stereotyping away. That's how you liberals win arguments.

"We know you un-necessarily capitalize it, and attack like an ad-hominem Pigeon-Holer, Brad."

Touché.

"I am simply stating that is is NOT evidence for either side!"

Huh? Brad, if this is not evidence in the global warming "phenomenon" then what evidence is allowable in your obviously not so humble opinion? Brad, you there? Or is the debate to hot for you now, now that you might have to put up some supporting evidence for your view instead of just calling people names.

As for pigeon holing you, your term "idiots" gave you away. You do believe in Global warming don't you?

On the same topic of the wonders of science they've just announced that the world's diameter is 5mm smaller than when they last measured 5 years ago. Lets review, we been circuling the globe for about 500 years and we can't get a simple measurement down but the IPCC and algore know that in 100 years time, with all the uncertainty involved in climate and the sun, that we are in big trouble. Makes a believer out of me.

While the title of the article states the Earth was warmer, the authors of the research make no such claim. They only say Greenland was warmer.

This is no way negates the AGW point of view. In fact the part of the world most affected by warming these years is precisely the Arctic. Whatever the cause of the warming, the effect is very notable with glaciers melting, sea ice receding and permafrost thawing (now that's an oxymoron). We see that a small amount of global warming results in a large amount of warming in the Arctic.

That climate has always changed during Earth's history is obvious. What is special about our times is the speed of the change.

"As for pigeon holing you, your term "idiots" gave you away. You do believe in Global warming don't you?"

I actually maintain a healthy skepticism towards the subject, but to debate the shades of grey of my beliefs among non-specialists is pointless.

However, you do nothing to strengthen your case by pointing to a warmer period in the past as some sort of smoking gun, or damning piece of evidence. The fact that the Earth has natural cycles of hot and cold, which no scientist denies, does not necessarily disqualify man-made global warming. That's like suggesting because mother nature "naturally" allows some species to go extinct from time to time, mankind has never been responsible for any species to go extinct. Both phenomenons could co-exist, and in fact, could both be contributing to global warming. You would have to be a zealot to not at least acknowledge the possibility.

The 'climate-fanatics' often use the 'it-is-different-this-time' arguement.

Snake-oil salesmen of many stripes use this ploy on subjects that are hard (initially, at least) to disprove.

The NASDAQ bubble of 2000 was OK because we were in a new paradym.

Y2K will crash computers and automobile's brains because of the "scary" 1000 year event. This is different.

Genetically enhanced foods are dangerous because we have never eaten them before. Never happened before.(Even that was untrue, random modification takes place naturally.)

It is different this time because climate "modelers" and their computers can now predict. (Junk in -- junk out)

No matter how deeply the John Crosses of the world are buried by a mountain of indisputable scientific fact, they will wiggle an arm out and say ---- yabut, this time it is different. And they will keep it up until the inevitable 'best-by-date' passes.

This 'new secret-formula' is different --- now your hair will grow. (So secret nobody knows where it is.)

Brad ...

The fact that we now have evidence to support the claim that the worlds average temperature was far (FAR) higher in the past is reason enough to re-examine the evidence, claims and conclusions of the "Global Warming Doomsayers." Certainly, we should still take action to reduce the ammount of energy we use (which will in turn reduce the quantity of CO2 emmited) but we should do that regardless of whether the world is warming or not; the ammount of energy we use causes so many problems associated with polution, security and various other issues that it doesn't make sense to continue to use it at the current rate.

Brads comment - "Are you guys idiots? The fact that the earth was warmer 900,000 years ago has nothing to do with the current phenomenon of Global Warming.

Some of you seriously need to rethink that decision to drop out of high-school."

Well Brad I guess you have been outed as a lefty troll and and a member of the Cult of Climatology espousing their Universal Plan. As soon as the science contradicts your beliefs you are out calling names and hurling insults, just what we expect from Trolls. You do know what the acronym works out to for your plan right - "COC UP".

Funny how the Cult of Climatology denied any possible affect from previous warming and cooling periods during the height of the frenzy and dropped the Medieval Warming Period right off the hockey stick. Now when it is turning around and biting them in the rear they start waffling. Who was it that said "The Truth will out", what is being pointed out here is that members of the Cult denied that Greenland had ever had this type of climate, that it was always covered in Ice miles deep, now that has been shown as being false. What else amongst their faith/believe systems is false?

Interesting how easy it is to spot Trolls like you and Ted who drop by to fling their ad hominem attacks and run away, now if only we could build a filter to take care of that....

“My comment is more directed at those who would go "ra ra, way to go Kate" and then claim that the earth is way younger (by a few billion years) than the science they just supported.”

Can somebody help me out here? Has somebody’s comment been deleted?

Or is Ted charging in to do battle with a figment of his own imagination?

Cal:

A recap (which is all off topic, but some people like to drag this out, so...):

- Kate posts an article that uses dating science showing hundreds of thousands of years ago Greenland was warmer

- lots of conservatives and global-warming-ridiculing readers cheer her on including (partly a guess, partly observed fact on other blogs) social conservatives who also happen to believe that the earth in the figment of their imagination is was created in 144 hours some 6000 years ago

- I wondered whether there was a bit of oddity in someone who believes in that kind of, ahem, "science" but relying on a study like this

- someone (Chip) makes a claim that I'm attacking Kate which was profoundly stupid because I'm clearly not, as I pointed out

Minor point from an erstwhile sh*t-disturber that is almost wholly off topic.

Like I said... just wondering out loud. Carry on as you were.

"Mankind against what mother nature allows"

Whew!
Let me guess.

Only those Brad enou,...er uh "brave" enough to laud their highschool credentials, are able to decipher what "mother nature allows."

"The fact that the Earth has natural cycles of hot and cold, which no scientist denies, does not necessarily disqualify man-made global warming"

But it does counter the continuous AGW notion that the 20th Century Global Warming is Unprecedented

Demonstrating past instances of natural climate change should at the very least reinforce the need for a full debate. Nature's part in climate change must be fully explored to determine whether or not CO2(man made) is really the major contributor or not.

GreenNeck, as to the speed of change, I really believe that it has not been conclusively determined whether this change is any faster or slower than previous changes. I think the speed is being based on computer models and not concrete evidence. I've seen information that the change in temperature based on satellite date in not outside natural parameters. NASA Satellite Temperature Measurements

Maybe you have a link to some literature other than brash statements by activists.

Sorry Cal no support from this quarter. I'll let Ted tilt at his own windmills and hope he doesn't get hurt when the windmill dumps him on his head.
Personally I would like to know how the "scientific community" knows that the world is heating up. I've heard numbers being tossed about except no one is actually using the same thermometer in the same place under the same conditions to get an accurate reading. Secondly I hear about verdent plant life on Greenland thousands of years ago as being indicative of climate change. Yet it could also indicate geological change instead. Tectonic plate theory indicates that Greenland was not always that far north. Dinosaur bones in the high artic indicate that either the world was warmer, the tectonic plates shifted or the rotational axis of the earth moved a few degrees one way or another. In other words all we know is that if you dig under a glacier you often find dead plant and animal matter.

Ted's just trying to stir the pot. He was refering to the comment at the start of his post.

Interesting how evolutionists can't accept that Darwin's Theory is still a theory and get upset when someone attempts to discuss it from a theoretical point of view.

Now a law is something different, for example the law of gravity: if a brown envelope stuffed with cash slips out of Ad Exec's hand in a Montreal restaurant I know it will fall to the ground rather than float up to the political organizer's hand.

Ted, Who claims, besides you, that all conservatives believe the earth is only 6,000 years old? Kind of a reach don't you think? Have you seen thye petrified forest up in the arctic? I didn't think so.

Brad, Quit chucking excretera around and assuming all of us here are either drunk, drop outs or both. This degree toting conservative thinking canuck is not amused by your antics. Most of the commentors here know how to debate a position without ad hominem attacks.

The interesting thing about natural climate change is that scientists don't understand what causes it. There are lots of theories, but they often conflict and all have flaws and inconsistencies.

Geologists are usually the most skeptical of the current global warming hysteria. They understand that the earth's climate is always changing - often dramatically.

In geological terms we are still in an ice age.

I really honestly do find it funny how extreme partisanship can interfere with basic reading skills. It is a disease that inflicts all sides, of course, but today's example happens to be brought to us by Texas Canuck who claims without a molecule of supportive evidence and despite directly contradicting statements that I've stated or even believe all conservatives think the world was created in 144 hours 6000 years ago.

Heck, I don't even believe all social conservatives believe that, especially when stats (if you can rely on them) show that only a quarter of Canadians hold that non-scientific view of the earth.

Honestly, give your partisan head a shake.

Brad,

You are correct that this on its own doesnt mean AGW is or isnt happening.

What it does do is cut at the argument

1) That it has never been warmer....it has

2) That the melting of the Greenland ICE Sheet will cause a 28 ft rise in sea level....much much less than that

3) That something other than CO2 is causing the increase in temperature. unless you can find the C02 source that preceeded this

So lets see, Kilimanjaro is melting due to sublimation not heating

Greenland ice cap has been half as big in the past wothout sea levels being 28 ft higher

CO2 increases follow temperature increases not the other way round

Sea Surface temperatures have cooled in the last few years

Hurricanes are less last year and dont seem to be shaping into a bad year this year either...oh and no trend has been seen over time in them worsening

HMMM so whats left of an inconvenient truth, other than CO2 levels are rising, a documented fact. Not too much it would seem.

So lets all recycle, because it is a good thing to do, not fouling the nest and all that, enjoy the music at Live Earth and ignore the message because there really isnt one.

ICT should be redited down to about 5 minutes once all the half truths and untruths are removed.

enjoy Live Earth, I know I will

"That climate has always changed during Earth's history is obvious. What is special about our times is the speed of the change."
[Posted by: GreenNeck at July 6, 2007 1:11 PM]

GreenNeck:
Would you, by any chance, have a citation or two that definitively proves that the rate of change of climate is markedly different at the present time,as say compared to the time during the retreat of the last continental glaciation from the northern hemisphere.

I would really like to know what data this important claim for AGW is based upon. I see many AGW proponents claim that the present increase is the fastest ever. Where is the proof for that, and over what time period is that comparison being made?

"I actually maintain a healthy skepticism towards the subject, but to debate the shades of grey of my beliefs among non-specialists is pointless."
[Posted by: Brad at July 6, 2007 1:15 PM]

Based on the results of the last study run by Kate that inquired as to the "specialities* of the denizens of SDA this response by Brad is LOL funny. Clueless a fair description?

Ted said:

"...while still trying to maintain that the earth was created in 144 hours only 6,000 years ago."

"Minor point from an erstwhile sh*t-disturber that is almost wholly off topic."

Well at least Ted admits he is a "sh*t-disturber".

Nowhere in the post did anyone from the conservative camp suggest a literal creationist account as an explanation for the appearance of mankind on earth.

For all we know conservatives secretly harbor the proposition that the earth was populated by alien invasion per Van Daniken. Because after all PMSH has a 'secret agenda' which can't be proved because well, it's secret.

I don't think PMSH has ennunciated official government policy on the origins of mankind, which is still the subject of some scientific debate and research. Ted's assertion might hold true when PMSH cuts off funding for geology,anthropology, and astronomy research. Watch for strange crop circles to appear whenever the Prime Minister visits farming communities.

Gee where did that 9.2 billion in science and technology funding just disappear to?

Thanks for the attempted insertion of a red herring.

Presumably Ted, you found this red herring while trolling the waters about HANS ISLAND between Ellesmere and Greenland.

Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht BGS, PDP, CFP

Commander in Chief

Frankenstein Battalion

2nd Squadron: Ulanen-(Lancers) Regiment Großherzog Friedrich von Baden (Rheinisches) Nr.7(Saarbrucken)

Knecht Rupprecht Division

Hans Corps

1st Saint Nicolaas Army

Army Group “True North”

And here I was thinking that it was only my fellow liberals who tended to be too tightly wound up. Thanks for showing me that that's not the case Hans, Chip, Texas, etc.

"I wonder how many conservatives are going to point to this as evidence of prior warming periods while still trying to maintain that the earth was created in 144 hours only 6,000 years ago. Just wondering out loud. Carry on as you were."
[Posted by: Ted at July 6, 2007 11:41 AM]

'Conservative'

'Creationist'

Well... both words do have essentially the same letters, just arranged differently.

Yes Ted, behead all those who question Global Warming(tm)! Those who slander the Prophet Gore-hammed (concert royalties be upon Him) will be butchered by believing Environmentalislamists! Gaia Akbar! Gaia Akbar! Gaia Akbar!

to ignore the geological record is bad science. how long it takes for the earth to warm or cool during any cycle is important only if you are concerned about snow to ski on or going to the beach for a swim.

JP, what the frig are you talking about? Haven't mentioned a single critical word about environmentalists or anti-environmentalists or global warming questioners.

What is it with some of you folk? 'Look, der a libral, must spew attack, must regurgitate talking points'.

GreenNeck posted "That climate has always changed during Earth's history is obvious. What is special about our times is the speed of the change."

Could GreenNeck please provide an explanation of the frozen mastodons many found with grass in their mouths as is eating one minute frozen to death and buried under an ice sheet the next? Is that what he means when he speaks of rapid climate change? Enquiring minds want to know.

Now kiddies, be kind to Ted. After all, he IS just a lawyer, poor thing.

He comes over to someone else's blog and raises a straw man guaranteed to make Ray Bolger look metallic -- then pretends to be shocked by the negative reactions of others. Must be Friday.

I'm a real live Conservative Christian(tm) and have never, ever, EVER met a single human being who believes the earth is only 6,000 years old.

It would be like me joking about a bunch of wacky leftists who believe, say, that one in four women have been raped -- oh, wait...

"Geologists are usually the most skeptical of the current global warming hysteria. They understand that the earth's climate is always changing - often dramatically."

Exactly...hike any government or other funded nature trails and you might come across info. posters like:
"100,000 years ago this was a lake bed"...or "these massive boulders were slowly moved by glaciers in the last ice age"...

Get in touch with nature, go outside, go hiking...

"What is it with some of you folk? 'Look, der a libral, must spew attack, must regurgitate talking points'."
[Posted by: Ted at July 6, 2007 3:06 PM]

Ted:

Since I'm obviously a bit slow out of the starting blocks, and confuse rather easily, maybe you can explain, in little words that I can comprehend, what you actually meant by this statement:

"I wonder how many conservatives are going to point to this as evidence of prior warming periods while still trying to maintain that the earth was created in 144 hours only 6,000 years ago."

Or, was this actually meant to be a pithy comment that would draw attention away from a *scientific* discovery that was/is going to give the most ardent AGW proponents a bit of a problem with their AGW *history*?

Kathy...LOL...stirring the pot. I love it.
Brad...my point was that what happened all those years ago may be just a cycle. No I am not a climatoligist,but in the 50 years I have been around,guess what? The weather changes! Neither you,me,or Gore,or Dr Fruitfly have any say about it! The weather varies.Ask texascanuck about the the petrified forest in the Arctic. I have a piece of it right here in my house,from Ellsmere Island(before it became a park). If you cannot come here and debate honestly and seriously,without attacks against those who post here,then please just don't show up. Even Ted is honest in his point of view,and respects others,something you should learn.(No disrespect meant Ted)

See, now you folk have gone and raised Kathy's ire over a minor comment. Kiddies, you could learn a lot from her as she's clearly someone who knows how to give and take a humourous poke or two, and doesn't feel the urge to regurgitate anyone's talking points and knee-jerk reactions.

I guess though I will have to explain it really carefully and type r e a l l y s l o w l y (slow speaking is a skill you learn in law school to stretch out those billable hours).

Extreme conservative and liberal partisans are alike in using whatever bit of information dispells that which the other side holds dear. In fact, so rabid are some that they will regurgitate a nifty counter argument that in fact undermines other core beliefs they have espoused. You still with me, kiddies?

This is an example. I'm not commenting in favour of or against the data provided by Kate. Seems pretty sound and interesting information. I've read other similar old earth studies that raise questions about global warming. I've also read social conservatives (Texas, Chip, JP, other slow readers: let me repeat for the umpteenth time - that does not mean "all". Ironically, you can consult Kathy's recent post on "some" vs. "all") who do believe the earth is only 6000 years old also use those studies to try to disprove global warming. A little odd doncha think. Multiple choice test on today's lesson will be on Monday. Bring an HB No. 2 lead pencil. No calculators.

As an aside, Kathy: honestly, you've never met anyone who believes the earth is only 6000 years old? Honestly? I know Catholics take a much saner approach to science and religion but our American evangelicals poll out at 54% believing the world was created sometime in the last 10,000 years (in the same poll, only 21% of Catholics thought so). No, I'm not talking about evolution, but age of earth stuff here. I've had lots of arguments with them, online and in person. Did my MA in North American Christian history with a bunch of them. They exist and they, not Mr. Bolger and his like were the only intended target of my slight, little barb that has the proverbial knickers of all of these kiddies in a knot.

justthinkin: how dare you not disrespect me! What do you think I come here for? Besides, some might want to kick you out of the club with statements like that!!

Stephen,

I think you GREATLY underestimate the amount of hot air, posturing, and audience-leading Gore does. The untruths and exaggerations don't take up enough time to limit that movie to 5 minutes ;-)

Speaking of settled science preceding the regulatory feudalism which results from this authoratrian mindset...we note that the genX lord Rothschild has jumped on the fear mongering GW Juggernaut.

It seems the media darling playboy of the world's largest banking cartel wants you to limit your trips to buy food, while he saves the world jetting well heeled clients on Eco-adventures at 100K$ a crack.

He also apparently penned the Krishna-like global warming pamphlet that will accompany a ticket to this GW dog and pony show.

When we see the richest insider family on the planet encouraging this GW mass hysteria you KNOW the con is in at even the highest levels of global banking...it means the big money wants a global taxing system based on consumption and a global regulatory regime to restrict private property use, consumption and mobility....when you see the Rothschild money come out of the shadows to promote blind hysteria with a "happy face" pop-star image, it should make the small hairs on the back if your neck bristle and give you a cold chill.

Screw science: The _really_ scary thing for me is that Ted doesn't seem to know who Ray Bolger was...

And no Ted, I never have met anyone who thinks that the world is 6000 years old. I really don't appreciate your "honestly?" bit in your response, despite your other conciliatory remarks. Sorry my personal experience doesn't conform with your dearly held stereotypes. Obviously I spent my younger years with smarter people than you did, eh?

Kathy, the Bible says creation took place less than 10,000 years ago. How can you profess to be a Christian if you don't believe in the Genesis account? If one thing in the Bible is suspect, is not everything in the Bible suspect? What else don't you believe? Adam and Eve? The Virgin birth? The exodus? Turning water into wine? Papal infallibility?

Behead all those who dare not disrespect Ted (slow-talking billable hours be upon him)!

Talking-point regurgitators, you will pay!
Ted's jihadis are on their way!

Teddy Akbar! Teddy Akbar! Teddy Akbar!

You know, you just have to love a guy like Brad popping over to illustrate in a profound way what is wrong with the GW movement. Brad, when confronted by evidence that does not support his views, he comes back with the lowest order of responses. First posters here are "idiots" who dropped out of high school, then climbs on a high horse and dimisses others because we are incapable of comprehending his "shades of grey" because we are "non specialists". No doubt without the reasoning power he is endowed with.

Well Brad, I for one am grateful that I do not have your debating skills. I much prefer reasoned argument, something you are incapable of by your words today. In fact, I would go so far as to day that you are welcome here all day long if you like, for your presence supports my growing belief that you have more in common with religious terrorists than not. Please keep it up Brad, I like shooting fish in a barrel.

Didn't mean to be or sound patronizing Kathy. Sorry. With all of the articles recently about the creation museum in the US and Alberta, with recent polls on widely published on this issue (and recited even here), with the number of evangelical bloggers out there espousing that view... I was just surprised by the strength of your "never, ever, EVER" statement.

Anyway, I did know who Bolger was (after a quick google, admittedly). So a second apology for not being as witty as you can be. Re-read and substitute "scarecrow" for Bolger. It will make more sense.

Clearly you have indeed spent your "younger years with smarter people than" I did. Wouldn't argue with that. I did grow up in a pretty hardcore conservative household.... JOKE, people, ok, a joke! As in, badaboom!! Oh, nevermind.

Have a great weekend anyway folks. I'm outta here.

ted - you deliberately linked 'conservatives' with 'global-warming-ridiculing-readers' and with people who 'believe the earth was created in 144 hours 6000 years ago'.

You linked these attributes with conservatives. So, don't be surprised by people being upset with your statements. You didn't link those beliefs with socialists - but with conservatives.
Quite the liberal, aren't you - stereotyping people like that?

The earth may be warming which is a good thing. The earth was warmer in the 1200's and 1300's, During this time even with limited technology the earth prospered as there was more food available because of warmer temperatures. The world's great Churches, Castles and Palaces were built during this warm period because people prospered.

Heck they grew grapes in England during that period.. Don't see many grapes grown in England today as it is too cold.

The Globe may be warming (from the Sun) but I don't buy all the doomsday and scare tactics being thrown around. If Gore was right the oceans should have gone up by a foot this year..Don't see much eveidence of that.

Hopefully when the globe warms a little, England will make a good wine from their grapes..Lord knows we cold use some competition from Chile, The US, France, South Africa etc..

You know what, ET, pardon my lack of civility, but you are full of it.

If there was any possible way to misunderstand the little statement that has all of you over-generalizing and deliberately mis-reading it so you can vent some anger... I've clarified that over and over again.

To quote another blogger and "some" people's need to hear the word "some" in front of every generalization or they are seized with the need to convulse in a fit of self-proclaimed suffering and victimization from stereo-typing:

"So my critics invoke the imaginary, arbitrary, new fangled and completely self-serving "Some" Law of Rhetoric to my posts in order to condemn me, along with the equally arbitrary "Mean Spiritedness Is, Well, Mean" Law, that, again, is a stupid new "rule" of discourse, the existence of which would come as an incredible shock to, say, H.L. Mencken, Mark Twain and other writers who are these (presumably illiterate) critics' superiors in every way.[...]So grow up."

Did I walk into rabble.ca here? Did someone play around with my bookmarks? What happened to Kate's intelligent readers?

Way to go, Ted. Inspired commenting!

We had a post here a few weeks ago and, golly gee, all the folks were sharecroppers, snake oil salesmen and rent-a-tent plymouth Brethren.

Not an inginear, sinetist, teecher, farmer, soljer, etc to be found. Not a single normal Canajun.

These here folks claimed:

. no evidence of sea levels risin'
. sugisted that glowball temperchers peaked in 1998
sugested that temps ony rose 0.6°C over the las' hunnert yeers
. clamed no everdince of poler bares extinchun
. clamed sun activerty resposibull for eny worming.

etc, etc.

I'll bet you can refyoot all these stupid ideears ted.

Do it to 'em.

You da guy!

Ted, I will type this slowly as I know you are on billable time. I have no problem with reading comprehension (speling maybe), but the line you put out there was virtually linking conservatives with the 6,000 year crapola. Must be a lawyer trick, to imply something without actually saying it.

BTW, Did you know there are only three lawyer jokes? The rest are all true. TGIF y'all.

just adding two cents here on the 6000 year old earth.

Jews who read the Torah/book of Genesis etc, and study the Sages and the commentaries do not take the 6 days of creation to be literally 6 24 hour periods. The sun and the moon are not around until day 4, so it was recognized at least 2 thousand years ago (Rabbi Akiva and other sages, long before any fossil evidence)that the six days of creation are on a different time scale. Kabbalists of the middle ages (also long before fossil record uncovered)calculated the age of the universe to be something close to that accepted today - 13 billion years old.

ted - insults don't work; only the facts.

The facts are - that you, that's you linked several phrases/attributes/values.
You linked conservatives with 'global-warming-ridiculing readers' and with people who 'believe the earth was created in 144 hours 6,000 years ago' etc.

You made the links. There's no possibility of misunderstanding, no whiff of mis-reading those links. They were all in one sentence, one paragraph; they were linked.

Now - you are trying to deny that you ever made such claims, that you ever made such links, that you ever made such statements.

Of course, it's not only the difference between 'all' and 'some' that matters. It's the FACT that you LINKED these values together!

Now - what is it about links that you don't understand? hmmm?

Ron : If there was a scientific point in your post I am afraid it did not come through. First, I have never used a “yabut” without explaining why it is different this time. However, if you feel that strongly about my opinions, why don’t you attack the science I present instead of attacking me personally.

Regards,
John

Now I would only do this for you ET, and only because it's a Friday afternoon and I'm bored with work, but here goes:

"I wonder how many conservatives are going to point to this as evidence of prior warming periods while still trying to maintain that the earth was created in 144 hours only 6,000 years ago. Just wondering out loud. Carry on as you were."

"I have read somewhere here evidence that Kate is in the scientific realist camp so I have no reason to believe she thinks the earth is only 6,000 years old (although she has posted a number of times on articles questioning evolution, at least as us pedestrians understand it).

I don't think Kate is being hypocritical in using such dating science to try to undermine global warming claims. My comment is more directed at those who would go "ra ra, way to go Kate" and then claim that the earth is way younger (by a few billion years) than the science they just supported."

lots of conservatives and global-warming-ridiculing readers cheer her on including (partly a guess, partly observed fact on other blogs) social conservatives who also happen to believe that the earth in the figment of their imagination is was created in 144 hours some 6000 years ago

"I really honestly do find it funny how extreme partisanship can interfere with basic reading skills. [Ed note: ET, you should re-read that statement a few times.] It is a disease that inflicts all sides, of course, but today's example happens to be brought to us by Texas Canuck who claims without a molecule of supportive evidence and despite directly contradicting statements that I've stated or even believe all conservatives think the world was created in 144 hours 6000 years ago.

Oh wait, then there is this one if all of that doesn't make it perfectly clear to you:

"Heck, I don't even believe all social conservatives believe that, especially when stats (if you can rely on them) show that only a quarter of Canadians hold that non-scientific view of the earth.

"Extreme conservative and liberal partisans are alike in using whatever bit of information dispells that which the other side holds dear. In fact, so rabid are some that they will regurgitate a nifty counter argument that in fact undermines other core beliefs they have espoused. You still with me, kiddies? This is an example.

"I've also read social conservatives (Texas, Chip, JP, other slow readers: let me repeat for the umpteenth time - that does not mean "all". Ironically, you can consult Kathy's recent post on "some" vs. "all") who do believe the earth is only 6000 years old also use those studies to try to disprove global warming. A little odd doncha think.

Well, wasn't that as fun as an enema.

Now tell me, oh sharp eyed-one ET, after reading those statements - that's "reading" not "ignoring" - where I accuse or imply that all conservatives think the same thing on this.

Like I keep saying, uber partisan liberals and uber partisan conservatives are absolutely and fundamentally the same. It is silly blind partisanship - like ET has demonstrated - that chooses to ignore statements contrary to their desired preference to feel victimized and insulted.

GreenNeck posted "That climate has always changed during Earth's history is obvious. What is special about our times is the speed of the change."

GreenNeck: Ahhh yes, the famed hockey stick. We've been-there-done-that so many times on this site and others that it's truly sad to see one as you coming in with such an unsupported comment. The "speed" of climate change you speak of only exists because different data sets have been used to measure temperature change. Let me explain ... slowly and simply ... modern data come from actual temp measurements taken from an ever increasing set of locations (this alone invalidates the data). This method only goes back about a 100 years ... with a decreasing data set as you go back in time due to the lack of records until you reach a stage where no thermometers existed. Back from that the IPCC relies on things like sediments, tree rings, DNA, etc.

In otherwords, the IPCC mixes data sets, making any conclusions nearly impossible to make. When one sticks to a data set, say tree rings, there is no hockey stick. This is true for all paleoclimatological gathering methods. Strangely though, "tree ring" methods do show much more rapid changes in the past ... pre-industrial that is.

By the way, criticism of the hockey stick theory doesn't originate from "bloggers" or right-whing drooling red-necks ... it originates with paleoclimatologists ... the real experts in this field.

some reading for you:

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/006510.html

no, ted, the reaction to you had nothing to do with the difference between 'all' and 'some.

The reaction was to your deliberate linking of the term 'conservative' with a list of derogatory comments, such as 'global warming ridiculing readers', beliefs in creationism, etc.

No, people here aren't eager to feel insulted. The fact is, that your linking of the term 'conservative' with derogatory statements, was a blatant insult.

Of course no one thinks the world is only 6000 years old and created in 144 hours don't be silly everyone here thinks their great grandfather was a magically appearinging rock just like the prophet Darwin told us and all the astro-physisists and biologists keep stressing. Test here boys and girls which is sillier?

Well, Ted, let's turn your statement around and link it to, let's say, the recent deaths of Canadian troops in Afghanistan.

"I wonder how many LIBERALS are going to point to this as evidence of the FUTILITY OF FIGHTING FOR DEMOCRACY IN AFGHANISTAN while still trying to maintain that THE LIBERALS NEVER SENT THEM THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Just wondering out loud. Carry on as you were."

You made an attempt at a smear and are now trying to hide behind a careful parsing of your words to defend yourself (sort of like Bill Clinton, eh?). Protest all you want...we're not buying it.

It is abundantly clear --- ths jig is up, the scam is exposed.

Global Warming Fanatics --- straws grasp grasp --- grasp grasp straws.

FACT; Manns stick graph has been proven a fraud.

FACT; Mo Strong's UN IPCC was based on stick. Also a fraud.

FACT; CO2 follows temp -- Gore wrong. Again.

FACT; Expected sea level rise no where near 28 ft. Gore lies -- Suzuki aids and abets.

FACT; Mars is warming. How Cum ?? By omission, Gore and crowd lies --- again.

FACT; pages more.

Without even mentioning the often used 'this-time-it-is-different' crap, the eco-fanatics are dead in the water. Hence their rediculous drive-by-bafflegarb. Too bad -- so sad, about their dwindling hope, at middle age, of a so called "career" and sweet pension. The hard working stiffs, who would have provided the tax $$s were not so easily duped, were they ??

Ted, Ted, Ted. Why beat your head on the wall. Some faux conservatives like to taunt or else they are as stupid as they seem and embarras the rest of us.

Obviously you are poking some fun at the hypocrisy of those who are so wrapped up in partisan disgust with "the other side" that they'll say and do anything to criticize. We aren't all obtuse. Some of us do get what you are saying.

Some of us do realize that if someone says "people can be so stupid" that the statement does not mean all people are stupid, though sometimes if you listened to the auto-reflexive reaction to perceived insult you would be forgiven for thinking that we all are.

I used to think that only you lefties were professional victims whining about every perceived insult, going out of your way to find even more insult in order to feel self-righteous (and then turn that self-righteousness into some sort of government program!).

Alas, I have come to realize that you have no monopoly on idiocy or else too many self-described conservatives have realized that there is power in being perceived as being insulted and so why not go with it. I just call them whiners one way or another.

So forget the ETs and the ETs and the Kathys and the JLCs. They are either just stirring the pot in return or they really ar plain boring uptight idiots.

I just thought I would point out that when going back considerable time spans it might not be so wise to put too much faith in these dating (carbon 13, argon) techniques!

This doesn't mean the data they give is garbage however. As long as the same techniques are used for dating everywhere their dates should be directly comparable to eachother, saying that they should theoretically have comparable amounts of error. The difficulty comes with drawing correlations to the numbers they spit out, and the the years as we experience them.

So whose to say the whether the earth is 6000, 5,000,000 or 3 billion years old. I couldn't tell ya, but in reality that point is moot.

From this perspective someone who thinks the earth is younger could still easily believe the data to be correct and the 900,000 year old date spit out by the dating techniques in respect to times given by such dating techniques in other situations,

The numbers can then just be pro-rated to their respective view with no problems.

Yes Amy, behead all the faux conservative, taunting, stupid, embarassing, hypocritical, partisan, critical, obtuse, auto-reflexive, whining, insulting, self-righteous, idiotic, pot-stirring, plain boring uptight idiots!

Phew! Anyone else?

"So forget the ETs and the ETs and the Kathys and the JLCs. They are either just stirring the pot in return or they really ar plain boring uptight idiots."

Well said, Amy. You and Ted are amazing and we ar (sic) just "plain boring uptight idiots."

Go f**k yourselves

Amy: She's stupid, he's stupid, we're stupid.
Couldn't you get that hamster to run a little faster on your wheel and get a little more creative. Dumb and slow are two words that come to mind.
Mix it up a little honey.

I'm a real live Conservative Christian(tm) and have never, ever, EVER met a single human being who believes the earth is only 6,000 years old.

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle at July 6, 2007 3:24 PM

katy

I could introduce you to several, but I won't as they are related to me, and I would be embareassed if anyone found out:-)))))

multirec now come on at least Amy was creative enough to come up with the prefix faux instead of neo in her description of people she doesn't agree with. Of course my question is why she needs to use a prefix at all since she doesn't like any conservatives. Of course it might mean that if you are not a faux or neo then you must be a genuine which means that her antipathy no longer applies to you. I hope Amy will explain.

However I'm not holding my breath waiting because I think her Mommy repeatedly warned to stay out of the deep end of the sand box. Still won't it be wonderful when (if?) Amy finally reaches the level of maturity required to post an intelligent thought or two?

Now Amy run along the grownups are talking. Ta ta

Ted succeeded.

Eeyore:

I'd you were trying to point out an inherent hypocrisy and idiocy among some liberals, actually, and there are more than a few so I'd think you were being kind with your dig.

And if I was smearing anyone - as opposed to pointing out the hypocrisy and inconsistent arguments of some - it is those conservatives who believe the world is only 6000 years old AND who use old earth science to dispel global warming. That has been made pretty abundantly clear. Over and over.

Ahh, so now we have the attributes of the people Ted was 'smearing' or insulting.

You have to be: a conservative AND believe the world is only 6,000 years old AND use 'old earth science' (what the heck is that?)'to dispel global warming'. Three characteristics.

So, if you are a liberal AND believe the earth is only 6,000 years old AND use'old earth science' etc. - Ted isn't going to smear you.

If you are a conservative and do NOT believe the earth is only 6,000 and yet, do use 'old earth science...global warming'..Ted isn't going to smear you.

If you are a conservative AND believe the earth is 6,000 years old, BUT, use 'new earth science' (?) to conclude that climate change, both warming and cooling is natural ...then, Ted isn't going to smear you.

So- Ted has made it clear to us. He was smearing or insulting only people with those THREE (3) attributes.
Now, the number of people you'll find with all three attributes is probably - well, it's probably about three in total.

So- heck - what's the fuss about? Ted was only insulting three people in the entire world. That's abundantly clear.

Whining on and on and on about being insulted still, ET?

Or are you now whining that I've excluded you and ivory tower atheist conservatives?

Boyo, boyo, do you have some issues.

Well, issues with reading comprehension at least. Now that's abundantly clear.

You know what, I take that back. That was uncharacteristically rude.

The point was clear in the very first post and if you support hypocrisy that's your business. If you have a hard time understanding basically English and grammar, I shouldn't beat you over the head with it.

I apologize for explaining it over and over and over and over to you ET. If it was too hard for you to understand, then I should not have gone on making you look ridiculous. I apologize for that as well. You don't need me to make yourself look ridiculous.

Ted, are you still bored at work, man, that's a long day you put in!

And that was long before there were CARS,AIRPLANES,POWERED SHIPS, and AL GORE and the wackos from GREENPEACE and other eco-wackos

I feeling pretty proud of everyone in my family and extended family, positive contributions ... no lawyers here.

2 billion, 3 zillion, 425 million - you call this science? Scientists don't have a friggin clue - I think they grab numbers out of a hat!

Hey people, the world was made in six days - a day is as a thousand years - and man was made on the sixth day and God rested on the seventh, so we are already up to 7,000 years, and mankind has only been around for a little over a thousand years at this mark, so I'm pretty sure I'm not dumber than a fifth grader, and the earth has got to be over 7,000 years at least......biblically speaking of course.

Tenebris, exactly right.

People, Ted didn't do anything out of the ordinary for a Liberal. He dropped a smear (for the record Ted--I don't care), stood back for the explosion, and spent the rest of the day backpeddling over sentence structure saying "I keed, I keed". He's not even an original troll.

A. Cooper: "Ted didn't do anything out of the ordinary for a Liberal."

Well, as far as I know, he didn't steal anything from me ... but give him the chance ...

[pedant]
@Ted:

ET, in his comment at 10:24 PM, was just putting together (part of) a truth table. Symbolically:

(Cons & Crtst & OES) -> Smr

All three of the initial postulates have to be true for Smr to be true.

@ET: There are a total of eight possibilities to run through in your truth table.

Cons Crtst OES | Smr
--------------------

  T    T    T  |  T

  T    T    F  |  F

  T    F    T  |  F

  T    F    F  |  F

  F    T    T  |  F

  F    T    F  |  F

  F    F    T  |  F

  F    F    F  |  F

Now the difference between "it is false that both are true" and "it is true that both are false" - that's something to crap over!
[/pedant]

[back to pedant]
Actually, with respect to formal logical inference, (Cons & Crtst & OES) -> Smr is equivalent to ~(Cons & Crtst & OES) v (Smr) So, the only way to falsify it is for Ted to refrain from smearing someone who's a conservative creationist who also uses old-earth science. As long as he smears, he hasn't falsified the inference.

On the other hand, if Ted will smear someone only if (s)he is a a conservative creationist who also uses old-earth science, then the symbolzation of it is (Cons & Crtst & OES) [equivalent to] Smr. Then you can catch him out if he's rude, ET - but not if it's a plain inference, according to the rules of symbolic logic.

Put in unmixed English, Ted can smear anyone he pleases, claim that he was smearing them on other grounds, and he won't violate the plain inference. That's why there's such a huge hole in the truth table for if-then statements: it prevents someone from affirming the consequent. There's many ways up the mountain, unless it is specified in advance that there's only one.
[/back to pedant]

[goodnight.]

I was about to agree with you, Tenebris, when Ted rejoined to re-illustrate the broad-brushism that plagues his rhetoric. Consider, Ted, the following words you wrote at 10 PM above:

"And if I was smearing anyone - as opposed to pointing out the hypocrisy and inconsistent arguments of some - it is those conservatives who believe the world is only 6000 years old and who use old earth science to dispel global warming."

My question, Ted, is: why did you use the word conservative in that quote? Does it not make as much sense, indeed, more, when that word is removed:

"And if I was smearing anyone - as opposed to pointing out the hypocrisy and inconsistent arguments of some - it is those who believe the world is only 6000 years old and who use old earth science to dispel global warming."

You claim to rail on about extremists, Ted, which I would agree with, yet you keep drive-by criticizing one kind of extremist in particular, and even then overgeneralizing, and then you wonder why over time your virtual character comes to be deprecated at a site where your failures of wit are most seriously exposed by their lack of subtlety?

I would have thought your character was stronger than that, Ted.

Ted to ET: "If you have a hard time understanding basically English and grammar, I shouldn't beat you over the head with it."

I wasn't going to jump into this long waste of rhetoric, but Ted, really, this takes the cake. At least have a modicum of skill at something before you chastise others for their lack of it.

Ummmm....sorry Ted. I didn't mean to insult you. Boot me from this forum? Ummmmm..why? Can't we just get along while singing Kumbayha?

And since this thread is yet another "popular science" lesson, I would ask some of the participants to review some basics, most specifically the contextual scientific meanings of the terms "theory" and its corollary, "hypothesis".

Well, ignoring Ted's partisan smear (I agree with your assessment Vitruvius...replace the word "conservative" with "AGW-denier" and his post would have been fine), I would like to carry on from someone's previous post about tectonic movement.

I have long believed that tectonic movement could readily explain the finding of tropical vegetation in the arctic, but the timing is off for the Greenland find. If the dating is correct, I cannot believe that Greenland moved from the south to the north in 900,000 years. If it were 9,000,000 years, then it would be a reasonable hypothesis, IMHO.

More reasonable to conclude warmer temperatures in the past.

And, to Brad's poorly-scripted post, I would agree that this is no conclusive proof against AGW, but it DOES positively support the anti-AGW theory.

As with most everything, I suspect the truth regarding GW is somewhere in the middle of the two extremes. I imagine that anthropogenic activities likely have SOME effect on the climate, though I suspect it is very minor.

As for John Cross' comment about "no increase in solar activity in 25 years", I can't comment on the veracity of that statement, but assuming it is correct, I would offer the following analogy:

- when I cook a roast, I put it in the oven at a constant temperature and over time, the temperature of the meat increases.

The solar activity may be constant, but it may be constantly higher than previous years and has (gasp) caused a "greenhouse effect". I understand that solar activity is expected to reduce shortly, so we can see what may happen when the temperature is turned down. I would suspect the "greenhouse effect" would linger for a bit then dissipate.

But, I'm a "non-specialist" so my opinion carries no weight...it's just a poorly-informed opinion.

My daughter summed up the AGW debate rather well. She said that it's obvious that climate has warmed (on an anectodal basis it seems obvious, at least here in Canada), BUT, the climate has warmed and cooled many time in the past. She understands the need to get off fossil fuels, but takes no counsel from the likes of Gore or Suzuki. She is 23 and her group, the ones that think about this stuff, have no use for Gore whatsoever.

BTW Ted, smearing whomever for their "literal" interpretation of the Bible is really quite childish, regardless of the context. I know some who do and they are loving and gentle people; they don't smear others, nor do they engage in violence. So are you saying they are a threat because they have a belief, a faith? What kind of totalitarian nonsense is that.

Two more points Ted - people of all stripes have that belief. Can you provide actual evidence that only (or at least predominately) "conservatives" have that belief. Second, calling people hypocritical when you are a supporter of the Liberal party (correct me if I am wrong) is quite stunning, given the Liberals (witness their ludicrous flip flop on Afghanistan) dishonesty and hypocrisy of the past.

I think my daughter is more intelligent than you; she can spot a specious argument, who is not a prisoner of ideology, trying to tar others with that brush.

It took too long, but the brain-dead trolls were put down on this thread.

They are nothing more than Attention-Deficit-Disorder flunky 'kids' who deserve no attention :)

Eeyore: In regards to the time lag it is a good point. Temperatures will lag forcing functions on many time scales. The truth is that we don't know for sure but there are some indicators that can place absolute limits on it. We can discuss it more if you are interested.

Regards,
John

...the Bible says creation took place less than 10,000 years ago.

A short scripture lesson for the Biblically illiterate.

Genesis 1.1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (The age of the dinosaurs)

Genesis 1:2 And the earth was (hayah - became) without form, and void;

Many other places the word "hayah" is translated "became" or "came to pass". Genesis 4:14 is one example.

No time period is given for the length of time expired between Genesis 1 and 2.

Thanks for the offer, John Cross, but there would be little point in debating. I am essentially illiterate in terms of the science of global warming. There is too much complexity in the details for my little mind...but I have just enough knowledge and sense to know when an issue is being railroaded.

True science is never settled, true sciencists should never seek to shut down debate, true scientists should never disregard or belittle valid alternate hypotheses...yet this seems to be the case with the AGW crowd.

It may be that there will be a "flood" and the "ark" you and your ilk have built is indeed our only path to salvation, but I suspect your predicted "deluge" will only be a passing storm. So, close up the doors, John Cross...until you can plug all of the gaps in your AGW ark, I think I'll just sit here on the porch and wait out the storm.