Rush Limbaugh: Hurricanes are a liberal conspiracy for promoting climate change

[Leonhard]

So your "refutations" basically amount to, "I don't entirely disagree with the way the numbers were fudged." But you don't disagree that they were fudged to one extent or another.

More like "I looked for the fudgings and couldn't find any, and in the one where I could find something"

[Leonhard]

(Saw your edit, waiting for a bus thankfully )

I mean, don't you find it just a little suspicious that all the "adjustments" are only ever in favor of the "global warming" hypothesis?

Actually one of them was very light 'against' global warming. The -0.3mm/year adjustment to ocean level rising mildly decreases our expectations of those ocean level risings. I seriously couldn't find them adding a fudge factor of +0.3mm/year to cancel that out, unless they simple felt that because it was less than the uncertainty of the data and so left it out.

If these were really random variations then you would expect to see an equal number of "adjustments" in both directions.

There might be a bit of a cherry picker fallacy here. Its not like Breitbart or Forbes are interested in the hundreds of completely neutral changes. Its only when something happens that contradicts a story they've run with for a long time like the whole 'Pause' story they were sold on. So we should expect Breitbart and Forbes mostly to talk about those changes that look very favorable to the Global Warming hypothesis... which might give the false impression that all the changes are like that.

Personally I haven't been a part of all that data hunting so I wouldn't be able to tell if it was the case that most of the changes favor global warming, vs many just being neutral, or like that -0.3mm/year change, being indifferent.

[One Bad Pig]

Three reasons, I think.

1. There's more corruption / big money controlling the politicians and propaganda media outlets in the US than elsewhere in the world, so the oil industry has more scope to push its climate denial narrative in the US than elsewhere in the world.

2. There's a tendency among US Conservatives to say "up" for the sake of it if democrats say "down". Al Gore was a Democratic presidential candidate. So his choice to subsequently try to bring attention to the global issue of climate change may have backfired somewhat in the US because it leads conservatives to think "well if Al Gore says it, it must be false".

3. US Conservatives have fostered a climate of anti-intellectualism for decades. They have told themselves that the nasty scientists are lying about the age of the earth and evolution, that universities and colleges are liberal propaganda institutes, that the media is a bastion of liberalism, and Wikipedia is unreliable because anyone can edit it. They have essentially been convinced themselves that the only valid sources of information are the bible, their pastor, and ultra-right-wing and/or christian fundamentalist conservative talk-show hosts.

Frankly, this says rather more about you than it does about US conservatives.

[seer]

The idea that there was an actual pause in need of explanation was not the dominant hypothesis at the time. The main hypothesis was that it was just a statistical fluke, which is what it has turned out to be. There's no sign that the pause was anything other than an El Nino year in 2004, followed by a relative lul in the temperature rise due likely to our lack of instrumentation. If you see the reconstructed graphs the period where the 'pause' ostensible is has about the same width as the random fluctuations, so it was never rendered likely to have been an actual pause. Granted if it had kept up into 2025 then that would have cried out for an explanation.

That just isn't true Leonard, even the IPCC agreed that there was a pause in global warming from 1998-2013

[lilpixieofterror]

Three reasons, I think.

1. There's more corruption / big money controlling the politicians and propaganda media outlets in the US than elsewhere in the world, so the oil industry has more scope to push its climate denial narrative in the US than elsewhere in the world.

And the only evidence he has ever given for this bald assertion is an opinion poll in which perceived corruption was the question. How perception makes reality is anyone's guess, but this is Starlight's world and the rest of us should be blessed to be allowed in his presence.

2. There's a tendency among US Conservatives to say "up" for the sake of it if democrats say "down". Al Gore was a Democratic presidential candidate. So his choice to subsequently try to bring attention to the global issue of climate change may have backfired somewhat in the US because it leads conservatives to think "well if Al Gore says it, it must be false".

Al Gore hasn't been a player in US politics in nearly 20 years. Anyone that thinks many 'US Conservatives' pay much attention to him are seriously out of touch. The real issue is global warming advocates use it to push their own politics and pretend as though science supports their big government solutions and disagreeing with big government solutions is science. Want 'US Conservatives' to get on board? Stop pretending big government is the only solution.

3. US Conservatives have fostered a climate of anti-intellectualism for decades. They have told themselves that the nasty scientists are lying about the age of the earth and evolution, that universities and colleges are liberal propaganda institutes, that the media is a bastion of liberalism, and Wikipedia is unreliable because anyone can edit it. They have essentially been convinced themselves that the only valid sources of information are the bible, their pastor, and ultra-right-wing and/or christian fundamentalist conservative talk-show hosts.

It's interesting that Starlight flat ignores conservatives who don't reject science, but reject socialism as being the only solution. Yet again, why bother to understand your opponents when broad brushing them as science rejecting YECs is much easier? As its already been said, this post speaks more about Starlight than it does about his opponents.

The rate of natural temperature change is negligible on the scale of a century. The rapid temperature changes we're seeing are ~100% human caused, so somebody talking about "preventing [human-caused] climate change" is functionally equivalent to talking about stopping climate change. I also think you are being disingenuously willfully blind to the implied presence of "[human-caused]" that typically is present as an unstated implication of such talk.

Climate works over thousands of years and not over a few decades. Trying to claim human activity is totally responsible for current weather patterns is like observing 3 minutes of a movie and trying to extrapolate the entire plot.

[Mountain Man]

That just isn't true Leonard, even the IPCC agreed that there was a pause in global warming from 1998-2013

Yep... of course that was before the data was tampered with to artificially cool the past and warm the present. Instead of changing the hypothesis to support the data, they changed the data to support the hypothesis. This is known as "consensus science".

[Roy]

It's OK, I know a substanceless response when I see one.

So do I - it's one like yours, where you ignore specific criticisms in favour of vague gibes and links to articles you haven't read.

The thing is, there aren't "old earth" facts, and "young earth" facts. There are simply facts.

And the fact in this case is that there is no contact plane between the Redwall Limestone and the Tapeats Sandstone at the Grand Canyon. A fact that you have just ignored, and will continue to ignore.

I just love how you "open-minded" types strike the pose of an indignant toddler when your ox is being gored.

Of course you pulled that quote from here and pretended that's all they had to say about it,

That is all they had to say about it. Neither the article referenced from there nor any of the other links you provided without reading even mention the Redwall Limestone.

[Mountain Man]

Neither the article referenced from there nor any of the other links you provided without reading even mention the Redwall Limestone.

No, but they explain how the same phenomenon happened at other places in the world.

[Roy]

And the fact in this case is that there is no contact plane between the Redwall Limestone and the Tapeats Sandstone at the Grand Canyon. A fact that you have just ignored, and will continue to ignore.

No, but they explain how the same phenomenon happened at other places in the world.

Fact ignored as predicted. All that ruckus about facts but the truth is you don't have the knowledge, experience or even energy to determine what is fact and what is not. You linked to some YEC claptrap, and now you're frantically trying to avoid admitting that your so-called 'referenced facts and theories' were nothing of the sort.

[Mountain Man]

You linked to some YEC claptrap, and now you're frantically trying to avoid admitting that your so-called 'referenced facts and theories' were nothing of the sort.

Sure, if that's how you want to interpret it.

But like I said, not everybody is going to agree with you.

[rogue06]

It's OK, I know a substanceless response when I see one.

The thing is, there aren't "old earth" facts, and "young earth" facts. There are simply facts. I've seen time and time again where old earth proponents will simply narrate their point of view and then point to one fact or another as if that settles the debate, except that young earth proponents have access to the exact same facts and are able to explain how, say, a worldwide flood followed by rapid runoff can account for many of the geological features we see in, say, the Grand Canyon.

So, do the YECs have a case? Or are they merely engaging in the denial of contrary evidence to prevent disparity between what is believed and the implications of the evidence (i.e., Cognitive Dissonance).

To start it should be acknowledged that assumptions doFirstSecond

teach_both_theories.jpg

Third, the claim that it is merely a matter of seeing the evidence from a different worldview, assumes that the YECs really doquote-mining, or misquoting in an attempt to provide evidence in support of their views by misrepresenting the position of others so that they appear to say the opposite of what they really said.

quote-mining1.jpg

http://www.fsteiger.com/creationist-quotes.html). Pay particular example to the bottom one for an instance to what I was referring to. Ken Hovind cobbles together a quote out of lines from a book that were separated by at least 91 pages!

It is very difficult to believe that such butchery of the text as was displayed by Hovind could be done in any other way that was not a deliberate attempt to mislead people by severely distorting the evidence. And when you are doing such things as this you can hardly be claiming that it is simply a matter of having a different interpretation of the evidence.

And this is far from the only source showcasing creationist quote mines. Here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quot...e/project.html^[1]

methods.gif

1.I have posted about this particular issue bit in more detail and will continue with that in the next post

[rogue06]

Dealing with the trustworthiness of the major YEC sources given their policies that oblige those that write for them to cherry pick data:

In science you're supposed to follow the evidence to where it leads not try to build a trail to a pre-determined conclusion. The problem with the latter method is that you end up cherry picking through the evidence discarding what you don't like.

Incidentally, that is precisely what those who write for the largest YEC organizations are required to do. Allow me to explain.

Every^[1]statement of faith required by CMI (which is nearly identical to the Statement of Faith that AiG demand you sign). And here is the oath ICR forces their people to sign.^[2]

When you are required to sign a statement of faith or oath like this that requires that you ignore all evidence that shows evolution taking place or that the Earth or universe is older than a few thousand years old, then you aren't doing science but only pretending to do so.

In science one should be prepared to, in the words of Thomas Henry Huxley, "Sit down before a fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing."^[3]

But if you set up a preconceived notion and then declare that "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts" it then you are merely doing an imitation of Carroll's Queen of Hearts when she declares in Alice in Wonderlandad hoc rationalizations that are wholly internally inconsistent and more often than not mutually contradictory.

There is nothing1. And their material filters its way down to the lesser/smaller YEC groups where it is often copied and repeated verbatim

2. Actually there are several points which I heartedly agree with but if you swear in advance to come to a certain conclusion regardless of what the evidence reveals that is your right to do so but don't try to pass off what you're doing as science.

3. This view has been expressed repeatedly by legitimate scientists. For instance:

• Unearthing the Dragon)

Recently after the discovery of a 14 myo fossil of a type of honey bee in North America Michael Engel of the University of Kansas and co-author of Evolution of the Insects excitedly said "I got to overturn some of my own stuff"

When I brought this up to Jorge he hand waved this requirement to exclude and ignore evidence that contradicted their presumptions by saying that the authors agreed with these presumptions so it doesn't matter.

My reply:

While I'm sure it is accurate to say that those who work for groups like AiG, ICR and CMI do agree with their positions that does not change the facts that these groups still require them to sign oaths and statements of faith to make sure that they outright dismiss and ignore anything and everything that might contradict their preconceptions before they write anything. They must not be allowed to confuse the rubes with an impartial, balanced examination of the facts. Only one side alone is allowed to be presented.

That what they then produce for publication is represented as science is laughable in the extreme. It is anything but science. It is a parody or mockery of actual science. In legitimate science you don't get to cherry pick only the data that you think might support your presumptions must must also examine the stuff that appears to contradict them.

And that is exactly what does happen. I already mentioned the example of the noted paleontologist and entomologist Michael Engel and how he reacted when shown that he had been wrong about honey bees weren't in North America millions of years ago but had (relatively) recently migrated here from Europe or Asia. He didn't throw a fit. He didn't ignore the evidence that refuted what he was sure was the correct view. Instead he was thrilled that he "got to overturn some of my own stuff."

And this is far from some isolated instance. Scientists reject cherished beliefs if and when enough evidence can be amassed against it.

As Carl Sagan noted back in 1987 in a speech:

In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day.^[1]

Donald Prothero in his book "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters" cites a couple examples of just such occurrences taking place, such as with the issue of continental drift and plate tectonics. He notes that

"The Old Guard" who had a lot of time and research invested in fixed continents tended to be skeptical the longest, and many held out until the evidence became overwhelming. Eventually, they all had to concede their cherished beliefs were wrong.

Prothero revealed how the famous geologist Marshall Kay, who had spent his entire life explaining the complexities of geology based on the assumption that continents did not move (even publishing a major book on the topic), ended up embracing plate tectonics when the evidence for it started to amass. Even though he was near retirement age Kay began redoing his life's work using the new concepts and his work ended up providing a good deal of the geological evidence used in support of the theory.

Everybody's favorite Richard Dawkins has repeatedly recounted one instance that he has witnessed:

I have previously told the story of a respected elder statesman of the Zoology Department at Oxford when I was an undergraduate. For years he had passionately believed, and taught, that the Golgi Apparatus (a microscopic feature of the interior of cells) was not real: an artifact, an illusion. Every Monday afternoon it was the custom for the whole department to listen to a research talk by a visiting lecturer. One Monday, the visitor was an American cell biologist who presented completely convincing evidence that the Golgi Apparatus was real. At the end of the lecture, the old man strode to the front of the hall, shook the American by the hand and said--with passion--"My dear fellow, I wish to thank you. I have been wrong these fifteen years." We clapped our hands red.

I can continue giving example after example of this including debates over whether humans were in the Americas prior to the Clovis culture; the megaflood in eastern Washington that resulted in the formation of the Scablands; how a champion of the idea that whales arose from mesonychids abruptly changed his mind and agreed they actually arose from artiodactyls (an idea he had adamantly opposed) when he discovered a bone that contradicted his presumptions.

And yes I can include examples specifically relating to evolution.

There have been numerous examples of what were initially considered to be controversial theories (as they accounted for observed biological changes that did not correspond to the expectations of the neo-Darwinian models derived from the New Synthesis -- which itself over-turned pure Darwinian thought and theory -- that was developed in the mid 1930s through the mid 40s) that have been accepted.

• Like when Conrad Waddington proposed developmental evolution (evo-devo) in 1942

• Like when Willi Hennig proposed phylogenetic systematics (cladistics) in 1950

• Like when Motoo Kimura proposed the neutral theory of molecular evolution (genetic drift) in 1968

• Like when Lynn Margulis proposed Endosymbiotic theory in 1970

• Like when Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould proposed punctuated equilibrium in 1973

• Like when Carl Woese proposed horizontal gene transfer in 1977

What none of the scientists who initially opposed any of the above mentioned items ever did was automatically reject the evidence that showed that their cherished ideas had been mistaken. They didn't dismiss it because they had signed an oath demanding that they unconditionally dismiss any and everything that didn't support what they had already concluded. And they certainly didn't throw a hissy fit and threaten those who questioned them with going to hell for daring to disagree as YEC John Baumgardner did as he ran off during a discussion about the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) project with Kirk Bertsche and several others after just a few exchanges here at Tweb a few years back.

ETA: Another example of what I'm talking about can be seen in the different replies that Bill Nye and YEC leader Ken Ham provided during their debate last year when asked if there is anything that could get them to change their mind. Nye responded that evidence could whereas Ham intoned that nothing could.






1. As Sagan notes it doesn't happen enough and I'll add that there will always be holdouts but in general science advances when new information demonstrates an old view does not reflect reality. If it didn't we would still think that the earth was immobile and the sun revolved around it or the elements consist of air, earth, fire and water.

[Mountain Man]

Yeah, I've seen those rationalizations before and don't find them particularly convincing (although the strawman fallacies in cartoon form were at least amusing, but probably not for the reasons you suppose). What it comes down to, I think, is that both sides simply don't trust the other to be fair, objective, and honest, which is unfortunate because that in and of itself can interfere with the scientific process.

Curiously, your taking YEC organizations to task for requiring a "faith statement" while ignoring that the peer review process at popular science journals is effectively the same thing exposes a curious blind spot.

[Starlight]

The best way to solve a problem is not with fear, but with incentive to create something better and/or more profitable.

Where do you think those incentives are coming from? The 195 countries who signed the Paris agreement are all looking at what can be done in their own countries. For many of them, that has been to create financial incentives surrounding the development of new electricity technology.

If we can make electricity easier than having to dig up coal or oil, then the market will move to that technology.

Yes. Who do you think is pushing and funding research into such technologies? Mainly governments concerned about climate change.

Forcing the issue just ticks off everyone and puts people out of work. Invent better technology and the market will solve the problem naturally.

Inventing better solar panels will put precisely those same coal miners out of work as if the government had clamped down on coal. You're bizarrely treating technological development and the market as if they are 'natural', as opposed to things that the government actively pays for or manages.

You're also leaving out the issue of what if the better technology doesn't happen soon enough, isn't good enough, or doesn't fix things fast enough? Your whole attitude amounts to "well let's do nothing to address the problem right now, and let's just live with the negative effects of climate change continuing to accumulate in the present and over the next decade, and while we do that we can optimistically hope that technology that doesn't yet exist might be invented and thus in a few decades time that climate change might eventually plateau if we're lucky and stop getting worse." That's just a dumb approach - it relies on an uncertain future in order to refrain from taking any concrete steps in the present.

Furthermore it's important for governments and councils to incorporate climate change models into their future plans. To give an example, one of the effects that the earthquakes a handful of years ago had on my city was that the parts of it nearest the rivers & coast were lowered slightly and this made them flood-prone. A recent government report here has highlighted that this is going to be a huge problem for the city with regard to any amount of climate-change-caused sea-level rise as it will make the flooding in these areas substantially worse. Obviously that is important information for the council to have as it thinks about whether to try to move people out of those areas of the city or to build better flood protection systems. For countries like the Netherlands, Bangladesh, Kiribati and the Maldives that have large low-lying areas, they have a lot of planning to do with regard to any amount of sea level rise.

Photo taken by me a few years back. This is the local river, which is tidal this close to the ocean. Its height being above that of nearby houses during high tides or heavy rain = problem. If the ocean gets higher due to climate change = even more problem.

IMG_3581.JPG

[Starlight]

Three reasons, I think [as to why US Conservatives do climate denial to an extent not present in other countries].

1. There's more corruption / big money controlling the politicians and propaganda media outlets in the US than elsewhere in the world, so the oil industry has more scope to push its climate denial narrative in the US than elsewhere in the world.

2. There's a tendency among US Conservatives to say "up" for the sake of it if democrats say "down". Al Gore was a Democratic presidential candidate. So his choice to subsequently try to bring attention to the global issue of climate change may have backfired somewhat in the US because it leads conservatives to think "well if Al Gore says it, it must be false".

3. US Conservatives have fostered a climate of anti-intellectualism for decades. They have told themselves that the nasty scientists are lying about the age of the earth and evolution, that universities and colleges are liberal propaganda institutes, that the media is a bastion of liberalism, and Wikipedia is unreliable because anyone can edit it. They have essentially been convinced themselves that the only valid sources of information are the bible, their pastor, and ultra-right-wing and/or christian fundamentalist conservative talk-show hosts.

Frankly, this says rather more about you than it does about US conservatives.

It obviously says I am an astute and informed observer. But that isn't "more" than what I observed about US conservatives.