Frosty Hardison: His 15-minutes as an Attention Whore
1 February 2007 by Naomi
There are reputable “minority groups” and then there are the others. The original Fairness Doctrine (1949-87), dismantled and archived by Ronald Reagan, was mandated in order that other viewpoints be given a chance to be heard.
But, these days, that aim has been perverted by “equivalation“, the act of assigning equal value to opposing points, only one of which is valid. In Hardison’s case, speaking against the idea of global climate change and armed only with the Bible and his beloved PowerPoint, quality science education in public schools was hijacked.
From the Federal Way Mirror:
It all began Jan. 9, when the board voted to temporarily halt classroom viewings of the movie “An Inconvenient Truth” in response to several inquiries from parents.
Some parents and school board members were concerned about the political undertones of the film [An Inconvenient Truth] as well as the controversy surrounding the cause of global warming. The [school] board wanted to be certain that teachers who used the film were also presenting opposing viewpoints to their classes.
Some people supported the board’s decision. Others said that global warming isn’t a controversial issue at all and that there is no credible opposing viewpoints.
“There is no scientific controversy,” said Federal Way resident Paul Levy. Levy said scientists all agree that global warming is happening and that humans are the cause. The folks who disagree are politicians, business owners and the media, Levy said. He compared the global warming controversy to a past controversy over the health risks associated with tobacco.
“[The controversy] exists solely in those people that want to skew facts,” he said.Frosty Hardison, the Federal Way resident who objected to the movie being shown at Lakota Middle School, said he’s fielded 200 e-mails and 50 phone calls since the story broke in the media. Many of those callers were angry but a few offered intelligent conversation, he said. “For somebody that actually wants to debate me intelligently, that’s an opportunity for me to share Jesus Christ with them,” Hardison said.
At the blog, k rad eleet: “Toto, I don’t think we’re in Seattle anymore”, we find the christianists have taken over the school board of Federal Way:
In 2005, three challengers to the incumbent School Board raised a rather significant concern: that three members of the 5-seat school board are members of the same conservative religion (Latter-Day Saints), and that this could — and I quote the Federal Way Mirror — “lead to a narrower scope of thinking on the board about issues.” The board members were not exactly open about their ties, either.
[...]The Hardisons are a notorious bunch in city politics. After failing at few cottage jobs, including real estate (Griffin Resources), wife Gayla Hardison ran for city council in 2005, saying quite ironically that she “doesn’t pick a lot of battles”, and without any agenda at all except that she “would consider other options” on, I guess, everything. (Oh — and tax breaks for business.)
Since coming in last in that contest, Gayla, often with backup from Frosty and sometimes their kids, have been vocal in the local paper, at city council meetings, and apparently school board as well. They’re both known for their visual aids; Frosty a big fan of long power-points during his speaking time, Gayla eschewing technology for dining-room-table craft projects. (Frosty was none too pleased when the City Council proposed barring PowerPoints from public speakers’ time, citing unspecified security concerns.)
Without knowing the “backstory” that “kradeleet” provided, I posted at CorrenteWire, a political blog that gives “vanity privileges” to anyone who wants to “join the fun.” My Equivilation in action: “Al Gore does not belong in school”, says father of seven! went up on January 12. It worked its way down the “frontpage” and onto the second page, without any response at all.
On January 28, I revisited it, thinking it was a “dead post”. Imagine my surprise to find a comment from an “FHardison“, entitled “Why We Bother”, dated January 26. That referenced the last three “paragraphs” of my post:
Asshat Frosty Hardison knows that his “opposing view” is not “credible, legitimate” so he shuts the down the whole show instead! WOW! There it is, in a nutshell: I can’t make you believe what I say, therefore, you will not hear what they say!
Equivilation in action, folks!
Why do we even bother…
His response:
We bother because the same climatologists 30 years ago said we were headed to an iceage brought on by the pollution blocking the sun. We bother because the geophysicists have data about volcanic eruptions and the dust clouds that may be caused when and if Yellowstone explodes. We bother because astrophysicists have data about the solar cycles, the sun spots, the CME and and ejecta spewing from the sun and causing electrical ionization in our upper atmosphere we bother because SOMEONE has to include the OTHER rational sciences that say we have a much bigger problem than you think we do. We bother because AL Gore’s video does not take these things into consideration. We bother because WE think that the public at large as well as our daughter should be given exposure to ALL THE DATA available and not have a miniscule portion of it spoon feed to her by the “poster boy” for the liberal left. We think our children should be educated to be able to think for themselves and make decisions measured by all the information available… not just that which is being presented as the absolution ONLY truth. That’s why we bother. God blees you for thinking the way you do though… that’s what healthy debate is all about.
Some of my heated reply:
Delusional people, you need to get a clue. Man, in this case, will be the author of his own disastrous end, not any mythical sky-daddy created for assauging feelings of “alone-ness” or to avoid death.
Has it entered your mind yet that, even if there were a gawd, he might be warning and not foretelling? That the disaster can be averted? That Man can and should save the Earth? That it may be a combination of physics and human folly but that if Man’s folly can be corrected, civilization may survive the effects of, for instance, that solar ejecta?
What hubris to decide this issue for the rest of the world, most of whom do not believe in any deity!
CorrenteWire calls itself, quite modestly, a “fifth-tier” blog. But I was shocked. when I decided to post an update on the Hardison nonsense and started my research, to google(tm) “Frosty Hardison”, and find my post was number three, even ahead of Technorati. And on Answers.com, it was again number three! Again, ahead of Technorati!
Do you get the feeling that Frosty is a blow-hard, authoritarian husband and father? And that Gayla is the dutiful, subservient wife? Was it her idea to run for city council–or was it his? On Frosty’s remark that “condoms don’t belong in school”, one letter to the editor said, “and they don’t seem to belong in [Hardison's] bedroom, either!”
I ask you: How can we save our children from the predatory christianists? And how do we balance Free Speech with religious freedom? And can we address our manmade pollution and energy gluttony, without interference from the religionistas?
1 February 2007, on 3:09 pm
We think our children should be educated to be able to think for themselves and make decisions measured by all the information available… not just that which is being presented as the absolution ONLY truth.
That’ll bust the stoutest irony meter. What a fucking idiot. All that bullshit about climatology in the 70’s…you know, the science and technologies of climatology (let alone computer modeling)have advanced dramatically in the last 40years.
The real thing about these fucking fundy global warming deniers is their motivation. Some wacko’s argue some conflict with their eschatology, but really it is all about money. They are ardant free-market capitalists. And global warming/climate change dictate lifestyle and fuel changes that will have negative economic impacts. So it is easier to deny it and keep the money flowing.
1 February 2007, on 4:33 pm
Honestly, whether it’s natural or man made, I think it’s prudent to make sure that if it’s natural, that massive climate apocalypse that’s been predicted about as many times as the Biblical one, never has a chance to actually happen.
1 February 2007, on 4:36 pm
Sorry, Spirula, I’m not a fundy, nor a republican, but I don’t believe humans are having a measurable effect on global temperature.
My main problem is the doom and gloom crowd who spout things like sea levels rising 30 feet by 2070, widespread disease, worse and more severe weather, etc. None of this is borne out by the science.
Even the IPCC has been gradually decreasing the levels of their predictions. Which tells me, that the more they refine the computer models, the closer to reality they become, and eventually they will show that there is nothing we’re doing that we can change.
I’m all for “taking action” but we don’t know enough to take ANY action, except adaptation. The climate will inevitably change, even if we stopped all the factories and fossil fuel burning right this second. Modest warmth is nothing to worry about, but another ice age IS something to worry about, and believe me, there’s nothing we could do to stop it if it starts. The fact is the only causal link to CO2 and global temperature exists in computer models, because reality doesn’t agree with them.
1 February 2007, on 4:38 pm
If it’s natural, there’s nothing we as a nation or as a race can do to stop it. Any attempts to control the global climate will ultimately cause more problems, since we don’t know what we’re doing.
1 February 2007, on 5:00 pm
Revenant,
I am aware of your position though I disagree with the scientific consensus about the human contribution (it is not just the fossil fuel but the deforestation that matters).
And giving warnings, even if they are refined to something less dire is still important. If climatologist keep it to themselves until they are certain (assuming such a thing possible) would be as irresponsible as those early attempts to down play the dangers to many fisheries (which subsequently collapsed do to overharvesting). There is no plus-side for scientist to “scare” the public. As a researcher myself, there is a lot at stake for a scientist go out on a limb issuing warnings or predictions, without the evidence to back it up.
Anyway, you’ll notice my comment was directed at at the motivation of these fundies. It’s not about the science, it’s about the money. Just like their attacks on evolution, it is never about the science and scientific debate, but rather some religious belief and thus deceitful.
1 February 2007, on 5:01 pm
Sorry…that should read “disagree ABOUT the scientific consensus”
1 February 2007, on 5:14 pm
Hey, big welcome to the newest GifS poster, Naomi.
1 February 2007, on 5:26 pm
And I would like to reiterate Ron’s welcome to Naomi.
“Lang may yer lum reek!”
1 February 2007, on 5:30 pm
Oh, and before anyone asks, that is a quaint Scottish saying wishing someone a long life and a prosperous one.
It literally means, ‘Long may your chimney smoke’.
1 February 2007, on 5:36 pm
Actually what I meant was that if mankind is NOT behind, we should make certain that mankind can NEVER be behind it.
But then, we don’t need threat of apocalypse to begin experimentation in other things, such as alternative fuels.
1 February 2007, on 5:48 pm
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will issue the first part of their 2007 report tomorrow (Friday), according to the BBC.
Apparently, the IPCC’s report will state, inter alia…
The BBC also quotes this comment by United Nations Environment Programme executive director Achim Steiner
I’d be interested to hear your comments on this, Revenant.
1 February 2007, on 6:03 pm
And the link doesn’t work, either, so here it is to copy and paste for yourselves: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6321351.stm
1 February 2007, on 6:59 pm
My fear concerning climate change, (aparts from the effects of climate change itself), is the large amount of religious whackos who may set up religious cults if or when some startling environmental changes occur because of climate change.
It will be a hotbed (pardon the pun), of religious fundamentalism and the growth of new supserstious cults based on “god’s, allah’s, tikki tikki tembo’s” disapproval of our faith in her/him/it.
Superstitious whackjobs will be roaming the streets with their placards made out of old BHP billboards, stoning to death those who do not agree with their brand of fanaticism.
Ok, I have a vivid imagination, but I don’t think I am that far away from the mindset of some of these people.
1 February 2007, on 7:42 pm
Thanks, Modgawd.
1 February 2007, on 7:50 pm
Howdy, Naomi! Great first post!
1 February 2007, on 8:42 pm
I saw a news report tonight (NBC) about the IPCC report Old Git mentioned. The estimated sea water rising was 3 feet by 2100. Much different than 30ft. by 2070.
Still, they say this would swallow up much of Fla. , San Fran (if I recall correctly) and the Netherlands. There was talk about billions of dollars worth of sea walls and levees.
1 February 2007, on 10:14 pm
Currently, the mean rate of sea-level rise is 1-2mm/year. There’s no exact measurement for obvious reasons. And rate has not increased in the past 3 decades. This isn’t just me saying this, this comes from multiple papers submitted to scientific journals. So, at the high end, 2mm/year would be 200mm by 2100, roughly. That’s about half a foot, if it remains constant. Half that if the low end is correct. Of course sea levels rise and fall at different rates at different places. Not to mention sea levels have been rising and falling since the last ice age approx 14,000 years ago, mostly rising.
Regarding what the IPCC’s new Summary for Policymakers (SPM) will say, again, it’s a far cry from their orginal SPM several years ago. Their estimates are about 25% lower than the TAR (Third Assessment Report), which was the last one they did.
I fully expect a UN representative to say what he’s saying. Such things give the UN more power.
The primary problem with these predictions is that they rely on positive feedbacks in the climate system that have not been proven to exist. Mainly, that CO2 warming will trigger Water Vapor warming (Water Vapor makes up about 98% of greenhouse gases, and is thus the main GHG, in spite of most media outlets reporting CO2 as the main GHG. Methane comes in second with respect to warming capability, and CO2 third. CO2 makes up less than 1% of greenhouse gasses) and thus produce a runaway greenhouse effect. The fact that this has not happened in the past is fair proof that it cannot.
Now, IF water vapor were so sensitive to warming, then every summer in the northern hemisphere we would experience this runaway greenhouse effect. Meaning ANY warming would trigger Water Vapor warming. There’s nothing special about CO2’s warming capability. In fact, it’s relatively insignificant.
There is more evidence which points to solar activity as the culprit for the majority of the warming we’re seeing (which isn’t catastrophic by any stretch of the imagination.)
Why so many scientists are on the CO2 bandwagon is beyond me. I can only think it’s because that’s where the funding is. But the myth of a consensus is only touted by policymakers and green groups. If you hear a scientist say there’s a consensus then they aren’t a scientist. There will always be questions that need answering. And as far as Earth’s climate is concerned, there are a HUGE number of questions that remain to be answered.
One thing that will be missing from the IPCC report is information from recent studies which show that the oceans have cooled in the last couple years, which goes against all the model predictions. This information is from a project called ARGO, which measures ocean heat content, not just temperature.
I REALLY don’t want to take up GIFS space for this, however, and would invite anyone who wishes to to debate this on my blog (just click my name). If I don’t change any minds, that’s fine, I just want you to know that groups like GreenPeace, WWF, Sierra Club, Rainforest Action Network, etc. are alarmists through and through, and will grossly over-inflate, and just plain make shit up, to bolster their point. The same way they do about DDT, genetically modified foods, and lots of other things.
And if anyone watches Al Gore’s film and thinks it’s a documentary, think again. It’s mostly fiction.
2 February 2007, on 12:39 am
I REALLY don’t want to take up GIFS space for this, however, and would invite anyone who wishes to to debate this on my blog
Revenant, this post is about a global warming denier. You are a global warming denier. Why are you reluctant to make your case in a place where it’s relevant and appropriate?
2 February 2007, on 1:13 am
Revenant,you write “Why so many scientists are on the CO2 bandwagon is beyond me. I can only think it’s because that’s where the funding is.” Gee, what about the ones who work for think tanks funded by the likes of Exxon Mobil? Aren’t they going where the funding is?
In a post further up, you wrote “I don’t believe humans are having a measurable effect on global temperature.” But it is more than just the pollutants we are spewing into the atmosphere every day. The world’s tropical rain forests are being lost at a rapid pace, and as they shrink, they become drier and more susceptible to forest fires. Just look at what is happening on the island of Borneo, where the forest fires are so severe that on some days they shut down air traffic in Malaysia and Singapore due to poor visibility and people have to wear masks on their faces because the air is so polluted. Tropical rain forests function as carbon sinks, so not only are we increasing CO2 emissions, we are also destroying the capacity of our rain forests to absorb them. Call it burning the candle at both ends.
2 February 2007, on 1:28 am
Yeah Naomi…Congratulation!
“Oh, what webs we weave…when first we set out to deceive!…” [Shake...spear?]
Oops…wrong quote?…
Ummm…
Wow…considering all the warring on this planet; and the nashing of teeth that goes on…even here at GifS…add to that, being an atheist…with death staring at me down the road…
I’m kinda glad I didn’t contribute to the ‘gene pool’; thereby dragging anyone into this insane world…as MY parents did, so long ago…in their selfish little orgasmic moment.
I know…they meant well!
It reminds me of the abortion debate; when someone comes back at you: “…but if YOUR fetus had been aborted…or miscarried…YOU wouldn’t be here!”
Me: “Yeah…and I wouldn’t have gone through all the stupid bullshit I went through…only to arrive at THIS time period of even MORE bullshit! In other words…
like the Miles Davis tune: “So What!”
As to the argument at hand…I dare say we’ll all be gone when the worst happens.
What!…”Tra-la-la”?
Even, most of YOUR kids will be gone too!
“Boo-Hoo”? Do I mean that, in a bad way?
You decide? [Hey...Free will?]
Yeah…I’m also somewhat kidding in this…but I’m also, really, a bit ticked off today…
I got a Jury Duty Summons in the mail….FUCK!…DOUBLE FUCK!
Should I tell them I’m an atheist…and I don’t ‘do’ Oaths?
Like:…”Fuck all of you, the government, the courts,..AND stick that fucking bible up your ass…
and while you’re at it…follow it up with the Q’uran!…and be sure to use a plunger handle, to drive it further up…towards you mouth!
OR…tell them:
“I can just look at a person…and tell if they’re guilty or not!” [Tee, hee!]
Y’all can imagine how much MORE I’d really like to say to all the judges and government fuckheads; considering how many assholes are running the show…and the world…these days!
I’m not MAD, am I?…I guess I took too many George Carlin lessons!…”AARGH!”
“So Fuck the world…AND the environment…I’LL be getting off soon!…
What’s that, you say?…
“Bugger off, you insolant, ungrateful, atheistic…yada, yada…asshole?”
“Oooh,…what was that throbbing pain in my chest area?…or was it my brain? [Huh?...what brain?]
Or was it my ass?
Oh!…it’s nothing…better just take ANOTHER antacid!
2 February 2007, on 1:32 am
Oh…
and fuck “Frosty Hard-on!”
2 February 2007, on 3:17 am
So, where did Naomi get to, after posting?
A quiz–was she:
Since it’s Thursday, the answer is “C”.
On a most serious note, read this:
South Pacific island-nations endangered by rising sea levels
And in the comments was this gem: Carteret Islands, which proves that you can find just about everything on YouTube–in this case, putting human faces on the problem of rising sea-levels in the South Pacific…
Naomi
2 February 2007, on 3:21 am
And many thanks for the warm welcome! Joining the pantheon of “atheist gawds and gawdesses” at GifS is like being invited to Olympus by zeusRon!
I’m scouting out land for a site to build my temple now…
Naomi
2 February 2007, on 4:12 am
Naomi…as to your quiz:
“So, where did Naomi get to, after posting?”
I would have thought, additionally…maybe: ‘E’?…
all of the above!
2 February 2007, on 4:12 am
This is the last whiplash on the dead horse…
Much closer to home, on Smith Island in the Chesapeake Bay: THE CASE OF THE VANISHING ISLANDS from National Geographic.
Back to you, Chet.
Naomi
2 February 2007, on 8:14 am
I have no problem arguing it here, but it’s not specifically GIFS related.
As for the term “global warming denier”, that’s exactly the type of ad hominem attack one uses when you have no facts to dispute my presented facts. It equates one to a “holocaust denier”, and is untrue. I don’t deny that the climate changes, and in reality the alarmists seem to deny that climate change is natural, or that “global warming” is natural, so the label could apply both ways, if you want to go there.
2 February 2007, on 8:22 am
Typical. You can’t provide any facts, so you attack the funding. Did you know that funding from sources other than oil companies dwarfs oil comany funding trememdously? And what difference does the funding source make? The science stands on it’s own merits. Show me some oil-funded science that has been de-bunked. I’ll tell you what HAS been debunked is the so-called “hockey stick” graph which started much of this hype in the late 80s, yet it’s still used today to show that today’s temperatures are unprecedented, and pretty much ignores the proven Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, which we’re still recovering from.
The truth about this particular situation is much more startling. The governments in those countries are clearing rainforest to grow plants for biofuels… Doesn’t that seem ironic to you?? One area where humans ARE having an effect (though how much is almost impossible to measure) is land use changes such as this.
2 February 2007, on 8:26 am
This proves my point, Naomi. Sea levels have been rising for the last 14000 years, and the rate of increase, since we’ve been measuring, has been flat for the last 3 decades. So how is this an emergency that we can stop?
2 February 2007, on 8:29 am
Still proves my point. I live on an island also, one which has some very low points, such that if sea levels rose 5 feet it would be 3 different islands (Whidbey Island). I can tell you, there have been no frantic building of sea-walls, the ones that have been there for 100 years are doing just fine, in fact the high tide barely touches them.
All these anecdotal cases are only coming to light because we’re becoming more aware. It’s not like this hasn’t been happening for a long time, before CO2 began a steep climb.
2 February 2007, on 8:58 am
No ad hominem was intented, or in my mind, used. I used a term that described what you are. You deny global warming. Seems pretty simple to me. Yet, if you want to go there, you’ve been throwing around words like “alarmist” and “doom and gloom croud” long before my post. So if we want to be sensitive about it, you drew first blood.
I’m not out to prove anything since this isn’t a topic that I’m particularly passionate about. You seem to be, however, and the fact that you said “take it to my blog” when the subject is on topic and relevant to the current discussion seemed to me almost cowardly, and very like Cocksnack and the other Christians that come here and want us to take the fight to them.
2 February 2007, on 10:05 am
Fair enough, Julie.
Although I resent the representation of “cowardly”. This topic is only relevant in the context of the original post in that religion is injected into the debate. I make no such claim. I thoroughly reject religion and the concept of a god or gods. I’m simply looking at the science.
I do not deny “global warming”, whatever that really means. I DO deny that CO2 is the primary driver of climate, or even a secondary or tertiary driver. There are a LOT of hypotheticals out there, mostly driven by climate models, which aren’t up to the job by any means. Yet governments are willing to rely on the predictions from climate models to shape their economies, without any evidence that such action will have ANY effect other than to empty the pockets of the masses and line the coffers of governments. More and more of your freedoms will be taken away in the name of “carbon neutrality”, a bogus concept from the start.
2 February 2007, on 1:54 pm
Good post and Welcome aboard Naomi!
These assholes like Frosty are just getting out of hand is what. They object to nearly everything that is current and up to date in their schools. Often the case rests on having the ear of the local school board or some other power to influence what gets into the classroom. They also try to use their influence silently and behind closed doors.
So far as the movie itself goes. Big deal. The kids need to know this subject to become aware of it. I remember that in the early 80’s a dispute going on by a group of xians in the area where I lived. They claimed that humans couldnt hurt the earth. That was their claim to be able to contunue not recycling and not having the EPA monitor the local landfills for hazardous materials. Ad Nauseum. They also believed that 2000 was the year the world would end therefore no effort needed to clean up the wastes. I find it fortunate that clearer thinking prevailed. And in the 60″ as a child growing up in Pittsburgh PA. area. The air stunk sll the time. And when it snowed the snow was white for a day and then it was grey and then it became dirty and nasty looking. Fortunately smarter people had a say in that as well. So much so that the fish have actually started to repopulate their local rivers. The decimation of the US steel industry had a hand in that local area being clean today. It’s hard to say if the environmental regs had a hand in the steel industry moving or not.
We have most of the technology available to mitigate environmental degradation from pollution. As thinking and aware people we need to use it. We don’t know if that is going to be sufficient to effect the climate.
2 February 2007, on 2:01 pm
Revenant:
Do people produce pollutants? Do they have a choice not to?
Does industry? Could they choose to pollute less? Should they choose to pollute less? Where do we put corporate greed and public complacency in the equation?
I consider overpopulation to be a form of pollution? Am I wrong to believe this?
“Fortune-telling” is bogus. But modeling on as many “knowns” as can be gathered and fed into a computer is much more believable. Should we not do it?
And what is the motive for scientists to become Cassandra’s? What is BigOil’s motive “anti” position? What is SaudiArabia’s? What is Bush/Cheney’s?
—
I believe, global climate change or not, the planet and Man would be much healthier if we had less pollution and less people.
I believe Man’s “footprint” could be smaller and lighter.
I believe American corporate greed is more a evil than religion’s fictional “satan”. And that religion is doing more harm than good (although Pat Robertson’s turnaround on this issue is so anomalous, I wonder what HIS motive is?).
I believe marijuana should be legalized, even though I don’t partake. And I believe spammers should be slow-roasted over a hot fire!
Naomi
2 February 2007, on 2:32 pm
Revenant, how come you get to say that scientists support human caused global warming are simply following the money, but when I argue that scientists who deny it receive funding from oil companies, I am “attacking the fund[ing]“? You can’t have it both ways pal, if you get to question the funding of those who argue that global warming is happening, I get to question the funding of the skeptics. You are trying to rig the argument in your favor.
2 February 2007, on 2:32 pm
This has been mentioned before. The industry only went away, which means the pollution is still occurring, only somewhere else.
2 February 2007, on 2:40 pm
I agree with you 100% regarding pollution, Naomi. The problem is, CO2 isn’t a pollutant. It’s an essential atmospheric trace gas.
Whether overpopulation is a form of pollution is a matter of debate, I would imagine, but generally I agree. More people, more demand for infrastructure, more land-use changes…
As for modeling, right now it’s still on a par with “fortune telling”. You can’t make an accurate model when the processes we know are poorly understood, and new factors are being discovered all the time, like the cosmic ray flux on cloud cover.
Scientists get probably 100 times the funding from governments (the US under the Bush administration has spent over $30 billion on climate research) than they do from oil interests.
Man’s footprint could be smaller and lighter, if developing countries gave a damn.
And I’ll start the fire for the spammers. Oh, no we can’t, that would contribute to global warming
2 February 2007, on 3:57 pm
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2208256.ece
Here’s some very good news, though I expect it means that Bush will soon attack England.
This is what we need – every other country just ignoring what goes on in the US and doing what needs to be done.
2 February 2007, on 4:30 pm
2 February 2007, on 4:32 pm
Had some trouble using the tags as described on the reply form. Trying again using conventional HTML…
That’s like saying “For someone who wants to dance with me, that’s my opportunity to feed them eel.”
2 February 2007, on 4:51 pm
Vast Left: Yuck! I hate “dancing for eel” as much as I hate “sitting still for jeebus-spiel”!
Yuck!
2 February 2007, on 4:58 pm
Ignoring a problem by sticking one’s head in the sand does not always result in the problem going away.
Science is an evolutionary process itself, but if all we are going to do with it is argue about it without DOING anything, why bother teaching it?
We have the capability to make positive changes without further endangering this little planet which sustains us. Should we not even try?
Sounds a lot like the Xtian view of “our reward is in heaven, whatever happens to this earth is immaterial”.
I truly wonder why I’ve even bothered with this post because I don’t have children,etc. whose futures may depend on our (your?) action or inaction. It just pisses me off when people refuse to accept responsibility for what they do.
2 February 2007, on 5:22 pm
I got a little off topic before. The question seemed to be more related to teaching/free speech in classrooms. Ie.:teach alternate views on a subject. That would be nice if both sides presented a variety of credible sources, however when the “religionistas” enter the fray, they inevitably fall back on their one source: A book that (were it sent to a publishing house today) should be considered FICTION. And poorly written at that. I’ll shut up and take my lumps now.
2 February 2007, on 8:21 pm
Bad news, Naomi:
“Dancing with Eels” is on NBC’s fall schedule.
2 February 2007, on 8:24 pm
Naomi,
I do hope you’ll appreciate that the eels have to do everything Fred Astaire did, except backwards and with no legs.
2 February 2007, on 8:57 pm
VL, are you saying Ginger Rogers was an eel? I see more slithering on MTV…
666:
What lumps? Does anybody see where 666 deserves lumps?
I agree that debates can become dithering and, thus, useless. If Gore, et.al, are correct (and Revenant, the hypothecal IF doesn’t mean you are necessarily “wrong”), we have a finite time frame–and may even have dithered too much already.
Having no children does not exempt anyone from the issue. Unless you’re a fundie, 666, and believe in “EndTimes/Armageddon”–in which case, I have cudgel with your name on it. I just don’t think that’s the case…
Frankly, if it came down to locking up Hardison and his ilk, I’d consider it. Their fundamental selfishness knows no bounds. How dare they!
2 February 2007, on 10:57 pm
I hate people. Things like things are just so disheartening for the future of humanity.
3 February 2007, on 11:05 am
Bill Maher once had words to the effect that you don’t need to present both sides of the issue if one of them is completely stupid.
3 February 2007, on 1:51 pm
Bernarda: I hereby appoint Bill Maher head of the Federal Communications Commission. I’m pretty sure that he thinks our corrupt “mainstream media” needs a “go back”–to the
days when it wasn’t in the hands of only five or six megacorps who are “mouthpieces” for a corrupt president.
ChuckA is taking me over again–
Now I’ve got another headache–this channelling stuff is hard work!
3 February 2007, on 2:39 pm
It would be if it were actually teaching something useful. Limiting CO2 won’t accomplish anything, really.
And shunning imported food will do nothing except destroy the economies of those exporting countries.
This is just more knee-jerk reactionism.
3 February 2007, on 2:42 pm
I would agree with that, Naomi, if there were any evidence to backup Gore’s claims.
3 February 2007, on 3:48 pm
There’s an advert on TV, up here in Canada, that shows some scenes of people trying to camp in a forest while a forest fire blazes away and others playing ball in a flood with the tune Mr Rogers use to sing, “It’s a beautiful day in this neighborhood…”. It’s a World Wildlife Fund advert trying to reap some financial support for the effort to stem global warming. They don’t say how sending money to them will help or how they’ll spend it. If WWF told everyone viewing the commercial to turn off their televisions think of the energy it would save and thus reduce CO2 emissions. There is a powerful bunch of money to be made off knee-jerk reactions to what may or may not be human-influenced climate change.
Let’s say, for argument sake, that humans have definitely influenced the current trend toward global warming. Let’s also say that they have fail-proof means to reverse the trend. Will the effect of such means result in the deaths of as many humans as the climate change is likely to cause? Scientists, with only a few hundred years of experimental data, do not seem to have enough grasp of all the various factors influencing human survival to guarantee that the hardships caused by reducing CO2 emissions (especially in third world countries) will be worth it.
3 February 2007, on 3:56 pm
Naomi;
Nope, not a fundie unless you mean fundamental atheist.(chuckle)
Revenant;
“I would agree with that,Naomi,if there were any evidence to backup Gore’s claims.”
These claims are not just Gore’s, but those of scientists that have been looking at these relationships for many years. It would seem that you have an ax to grind with Gore himself rather than what he is speaking up about. (sounds like shooting the messenger) and no, I am not a great supporter of Gore’s. All he is saying is “listen to the people that are working on this”. Believe it or not, many of these scientists’ work has been swept under the rug or misrepresented through “cherry picking”. If the Opinion Makers have enough money to throw at shutting up contrary opinions, we will never get to hear them.
“any evidence”? There is plenty of evidence. Unless you believe that ALL of the independent (Of huge corporate funding,that is) scientists are lying. Whenever I see these kinds of conflicts, I have to ask “Qui Bono?”, Who benefits? and the answers kind of jump off the page. I just read on truthout.org about Exxon? trying to bribe scientists to keep their mouth shut. Why would they do that? Hmm.
3 February 2007, on 4:16 pm
Thought I should let you know that I have limited access to a computer so I may not be able to get back to comments,etc. in a timely manner. Sorry. And thanks for giving me a chance to voice an opinion. We just can’t sit back and wait anymore. When I read “The Population Bomb”, I was 13yrs. old and my initial reaction was that it couldn’t/wouldn’t happen. It has happened and is getting worse. This is a planet with *finite* resources. Unfortunately, it takes a loooong time to get enough people to get off their asses and do something. How long will it be before we get to “Soylent Green”?
CO2 may not be considered a pollutant, but life as we know it requires that it be a balanced ingredient in the big mix we call air. Too little – bad news, too much – same scenario.
3 February 2007, on 6:09 pm
666: This is the metaphor I gave (on another GifS post) to explain why I think we should do all we can:
Giant mirrors? Sulfide flakes in the ionosphere? Atomic-powered “refrigeration units” at the poles, replacing the ice caps? Bad ideas!
Better ideas: Cutting emissions and industrial effluent. Getting off the extractives and using free sources (wind, solar, tidal, geothermic). (Did you know that the US is studying a UK scientist’s theory that we can underlay our city sidewalks’ and capture the energy-potential from footfalls? That it may be enough to run the subways?)
I favor solar. Driving I-10, west of Los Angeles, and seeing the “commercial windfarms” near Palm Springs–ugly, ugly, UGLY! If I lived on Cape Cod, I’d fight it, too. In Amarillo, the Texas Ag/Ext service were testing about 15 different types of “wind-capturing” devices. I liked the one that was a very radical design change. Instead of radial vanes atop a “pylon”, they were more sail-like, extending vertically from collars at top and bottom of a tall post. Totally omni-directional!
Ahem, back on topic! Gore or no Gore, we need to put this issue on the fastest track we can.
3 February 2007, on 8:13 pm
I haven’t seen any scientific studies which support Gore’s grossly over-inflated claims. If you can point to some scientific references, I’d like to see them.
Is Truthout.org a reputable source? Maybe they have an axe to grind as well. The only thing I saw was monetary offers to scientists who have specific opinions, to speak about them. I didn’t see anyone trying to bribe someone else to keep their mouths shut. I can tell you that attempts at suppression of dissent has occurred on both sides of the argument.
3 February 2007, on 8:18 pm
The problem with this analogy is that the cardiologist knows a lot more about heart health than climate scientists know about the very complex system that is Earth’s climate.
As for CO2 having to be in “balance”. There’s no evidence for that either. What’s the magic number? CO2 has been a lot higher and a lot lower than it is now, so who chooses what the magic number is? And what about the REAL primary ghg, Water Vapor? The effects of water vapor make CO2 look like a grain of sand in the Grand Canyon.
All I’m saying is that we shouldn’t be taking action when we don’t know the whole question, much less the answer. We could indeed cause more harm than good.
3 February 2007, on 9:05 pm
Research on Frosty does show his polictical activism in the FW area is REALLY far right. This issue was not about global warming but his affiliation with Christian Identity type cult groups that are even imbedded in the school. Several evangelicals, deacons, and zealots are employed at this school. Evidence can even be found in the Chief Custodians Office where he regularly listens to Homophobes like James Dobson. Building Administration supports this under freedom of speech and equality but does nothing to protect the offended. Someone should really be enforcing The Separation of Church and State and just call it a day. I know at least 3 black persons and one jewish person that left the school just last year.
3 February 2007, on 10:49 pm
One thing I don’t understand is “carbon credit trading” for countries and corporations. It seems to me that it’s a “shell game” and a way to stall making changes. And anything that corporations are in favor of, are deeply suspect in my book.
As for a “carbon tax”, that sounds way out there, too.
It’s all about the pollution. And corporate greed. And smug complacency. And “I will, if you will, but you go first…”
4 February 2007, on 4:11 pm
Hey Revenant, here’s your chance to make $10,000.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/02/04/scientists-offered-cash-to-dispute-climate-change/
4 February 2007, on 4:15 pm
Absolutely! I would also add governmental greed.
4 February 2007, on 4:20 pm
I’m already doing it for free. If I do it for money, I’ll get attacked, so no thanks. I’d rather do it on principle.
And this is the kind of thing I’m talking about. The whole thing is being totally mis-characterized. Hardly an un-biased report.
How much does Al Gore or James Hansen or David Suzuki get paid to fly all over the world and preach junk science? Why is it ok to attack the funding of dissenters but not of the “majority” (meaning louder) voices?
Science is supposed to welcome dissent, constantly questioning itself.
4 February 2007, on 6:39 pm
Lighten up dude, I meant it in good humor.
5 February 2007, on 11:04 am
That’s cool, I didn’t see a smiley, so I didn’t know how to take it.
5 February 2007, on 7:39 pm
What’s been particularly amazing about the FW issue is that there’s been no identification of legitimate classroom sources from which to present these alternate views. While there are a handful of MMGW (man made global warming) deniers who have, at very least, respectable credentials in the field in question, not one was presented by Hardison or Larson — nor, it seems, have these esteemed academics made much useful print.
No, instead it was the Book of Revelations, and a few mentions of the disgraced non-scientist Bjorn Lomborg, that have been mentioned.
So much of the anti-MMGW or more accurately the GWIG (global warming is good) crowd plays with nonsensical optimism, a la “The death estimates presume that humans cannot adapt” or that “The temperature estimates presume that we will not invent better energy technology”. Well, duh. You don’t do that kind of baseless BSing in real science.
5 February 2007, on 9:39 pm
I think this whole assessment is pretty disingenuous. Religious references aside, There are plenty of highly credentialed scientists who disagree with the so-called consensus (Richard Lindzen (MIT), S. Fred Singer (George Mason Univ), William Gray (not sure of affiliation), Roger Pielke Sr and Jr (Univ of Colorado, Boulder), Prof Philip Stott (Univ of London), Patrick J. Michaels (Univ of Va), etc…). Why is Bjorn Lomborg “disgraced”? I’m sure you can come up with some ad hominem attacks on all of them, or somehow show that funding can make science right or wrong.
Any response on those links I posted previously, the ones which summarize peer-reviewed papers which do NOT support catastrophic globla warming? Let’s discuss the science and forget about the individuals involved.
6 February 2007, on 2:43 am
It’s interesting about deniers of mainstream science that it seems like their identities get more attention than, say, the average pro-MMGW scientist (of which there are legion). It’s the same handful of names, who would otherwise not be remotely notable outside their field, that keep coming up — especially Lindzen, Gray, and Lomborg.
Speaking of Lomborg, he was only disgraced in that his own country’s science ministry found his book to be scientific fraud. When this was appealed, the conclusion was instead that he simply was utterly unqualified to present climatology science. Even in the appeal, his book was represented as *social science* — *not* earth science. It’s an economist’s rant (by a non-economist), being passed off as alternate climate science.
Anyway. All this aside — the main point of my last post was in re Federal Way School District, where none of the names you list (other than Lomborg). who are at least scientists at *something*, though not necessarily climate science, ever came up during the course of the ongoing controversy.
6 February 2007, on 8:44 am
LOL! What climate scientist WOULD be noticeable outside their field? FYI, “Climate Science” is the culmination of many different fields of expertise, as with any scientific endeavour.
Example: It was found that Mann’s “hockey stick” graph showing unprecedented 20th century warming was statistically invalid, when proper statistical methods were used. Thus employing statisticians (Hey, Lomborg is a statistician!) when dealing with statistics is always a good idea. Yet the “hockey stick” graph is still used by alarmists, and the IPCC as legitimate science. And because someone gets “kicked out” of an organization because he doesn’t hold the same views isn’t what I would call disgraced. Just ask Chris Landsea (though he resigned from the IPCC scientific team)
Again, I can’t speak for the current story, as I’ve said all along (you’re expecting me to make sense of a religious nut?)
I can name more names, and you can continue to call them a handful, and continue to NOT present scientific evidence that CO2 is a primary driver of climate, but that would be fruitless wouldn’t it?
As for the “legion” of pro AGW scientists, there aren’t as many as you think. Many are afraid to speak out lest they have no more funding, or jobs, as has been witnessed first hand by the likes of Richard Lindzen, who IS one of the pre-eminent climate scientists in the world.
I’d suggest that people read through these series of short articles:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0