Originally posted by Long Lance
keep patting on one another's back, but don't forget that not all people who read this thread will post and to most it will be obvious that using the creationist slur is quite revealing. as for previous fisking, whenever i stooped to use a similar smear i backed it with a couple of directly linked posts. funny advice, huh?
Who was patting Rizla on the back?
I disagreed with him, lol.
A slur? Not really, it's actually a fair comparison. Lets see, an obvious one....oh yeah, the disco institute have a list of random people with degrees and PhDs that question evolution, and the climate deniers have a couple. They each try to use it to suggest there is some sort of debate, when there isn't. And another, Dembski's website shows the crank magnetism - they love a bit of climate science denial as a sidedish to their creo-waffles. You'll be surprised of the overlap. One of Inhofe's list is represented as a meterologist, but has no degree and is just a TV dude, but he does think we'll be fine as god wouldn't let us mess the earth up - lol, science in action. Spencer is another creobot.
Both tend to be right-wing conservative types. Both tend to be big in the US. Both focus on minor issues that are blown out of all proportion. Both tend to drag up zombie issues which are spouted repeatedly. Both tend to claim their bugbear is some sort of religion. Both have a handful or so of people who actually do science in the relevant area, publishing things that don't really support their claims, but suddenly metamorphise into 'global warming is dead!' or 'evolutionz is dead' in the media and blogs.
Both talk crap. Their methods are very comparable, the overlap is significant.
'Must. Stop. Now. At. Any. Cost.'
But no-one really thinks that we can stop now. It will take time. No-one thinks that today we burn all the carbon we like and tomorrow we stop. It requires a gradual and determined change towards lower impact behaviour. Jeez, the talk is about how low we can keep it at - 450ppm is that gonna be OK? Who knows? But there are real risks, and like I've pointed out already, the uncertainties go both ways - 560ppm could be 2'C warmer or even 4.5'C warmer, probably 3'C though.
For example, the consequences of losing glaciers that large populations depend on for fresh water is a good thing? There will be real consequences to significant warming.
You know, I've said it often, I don't know the best approach. Sometimes for all I care, we can as a species decide to take the risk because we're lazy, myopic, and slightly retarded. Will be one big earth-sized experiment. Should be fun to test science against the reality. I'll miss much of it, though. OMGWTFBBQ!
Anyway, try 'Six degrees' by Mark Lynas. Because we are risking 6'C worth if we follow the inactivists lead. Perhaps read Nature this week, prepare for 4'C, because we are too busy navel gazing. The longer we wait, the harder the brakes will need to be hit and the bigger the potential wreck.
Are you happy to take that risk for your sproglings? You bettin' against science?
If you're a prude, do not watch. If you're anti-science, do not watch. Or you generally hate nerds, do not watch. You haz been warned:
"marie curie's ass is fine"
[edit on 30-4-2009 by melatonin]









