Do You Believe in Climate Change Now?

Earthquakes, hurricanes and October snowstorms, oh my! There’s been a lot of finger-pointing and outrage the past few days — toward PSE&G, hedge fund honchos, and Halloween reschedulers.

But maybe the old Pogo comic strip from Earth Day 1971 is right, and we’re just finally paying for the great American lifestyle we’ve all been enjoying. The Star Ledger’s editorial board, quoting a new study by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , thinks so.

Tell us what you think in this poll.

Click here to sign up for Baristanet's free daily emails and news alerts.

85 COMMENTS

  1. Cut an apple in half and note the thickness of the skin relative to the rest of the apple. Our atmosphere is as proportionally as thick as the apple’s skin to the apple. Since the dawn of the industrial revolution to the present, burning anything we can to fuel our cities, can there be any question that we’ve caused some problems, some changes in the balance of this delicate mix? I firmly believe that anyone who discounts the effects of our carbon-burning ways is only motivated by personal greed to further their own economic agenda, with little care for our planet that supports us all.

  2. This is what climate change looks like. It starts to get extreme and once in a lifetime floods become common, and long term droughts (listen to this Perry) are actually just part of the desertification process. Mathilda?

  3. Forgive me, but I was THRILLED that that dirty coal-buring plant, that produces my ‘lectricity was fired up and ready!!

    As for warming, technology will save us. Give it a few more years, and our kids will look at coal and oil, like some of us look at 78 records. I’m not sure what it will be, but some renewable will save us.

    Or natural gas if they can get it without poisoning our water and air….

  4. On Saturday during the storm MFD once again came to the rescue at a gas fed fire on 408 U. Moutain Ave,with no help from mutual aid because every town around us had their own problems, and as usual B-net doesn’t report it, as if it never happened. This is the third fire in the last couple weeks that B-net hasn’t reported. MFD is already understaffed and if MTC doesn’t renew the Glenridge contract there will be less F/Fs to come to the rescue. If climate change is to blame then you can bet there is going to more situations like this. MTC Is going to be on there own. By the way there were other smaller fires during the storm that MFD put out before they grew out of control.

  5. Like I said to JG the other day…why because we had one Oct. random storm in 100 yrs…talk to me when it happens on a consistent basis….

    This loop can reach 100+

  6. I predict that one day, scientists will be able to harness all the hot air spewed by politicians in order to create a renewable, sustainable source of energy.

  7. herb, I forgot to add that the article is from June, before Hurricane Irene and the past storm. Keep sticking your head in the sand.

  8. Amazing how so many Americans deeply WANT to believe that global warming doesn’t exist and/or that humans have NOTHING to do with it.

    Also noting that so many of the same Americans support Creationism and trash Darwin.

  9. So, Spiro and others, how do you explain the climactic changes that took place BEFORE humans (specifically humans from the industrial age) roamed the Earth? Dinosaur farts? Or do you believe that dramatic (and not so dramatic) climate changes occurred only in modern times?

  10. Martta, accepting overwhelming scientific evidence that we have impacted the earth’s climate in the past century and knowing that over eons the climate has changed on it’s own are not mutually exclusive ideas. If you leave water out in the sun, it will get warm. If you put it on the stove it will boil.

  11. What a bunch of bologna. CO2 is a requirement for life. In the past there has been more CO2 & less, life did fine. In Human history it has been warmer & colder.

    There are some real problems in this world, Global Warming ( I know you changed it to climate change to justify sometimes it is colder) is not one of them.

  12. What a bunch of bologna. CO2 is a requirement for life. In the past there has been more CO2 & less, life did fine. In Human history it has been warmer & colder.

    Ugh. What’s scary is that this ignorant line of logical reasoning was once spouted on the House floor by current Presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann. CO2 occurs naturally, it can’t be bad! How do you get dressed in the morning? The mind boggles.

  13. No Mike, what’s scary is there is there is only ignorance and no logical reasoning. But that’s what happens when you have a major party embracing ignorance over education. Because education is elitist. Why be smart when you can believe? What’s most alarming is that much of Perry’s state is in the process of becoming a desert. And he thinks he can pray for rain to make it go away!

  14. Deniers are to Climate Change Science what Intelligent Designers/Creationists are to Evolution Science.

  15. Global warming is a priority problem, Pete.
    Especially for heavily populated countries on the borders of expanding deserts and also in low lying areas. The costs will be large. Amsterdam is already making provisions.

    And, to your point, too much CO2 is like too much booze. It takes the place of oxygen with undesirable results.

    Nonetheless, there will be plenty of money to be made for the “job creators” as they trot out profit-making ventures spawned by the upcoming crisis.

    As a footnote, Wall Street should plan it’s big move now – it’s sitting too close to sea level, and probably should start looking at the Upper West Side or Washington Heights, all the while lobbying for a zoning change in those parts of town, so as to allow for office towers trading floors and happy hour eateries.

  16. I just don’t understand how modern conservatives have become anti-science and anti-education. Buckley is probably rolling over in his grave.

  17. I am not anti-science or anti-education. I don’t believe in Creationism and I embrace Darwinism. So much for painting me with that tired old brush.

    I also believe in climate change but that whatever man does or doesn’t do has very little bearing on it. The Earth will be here long after we are gone from it.

    This does NOT I don’t recycle, clean up after myself at a picnic or campsite, volunteer for trash cleanups, conserve energy and support conservation in general.

    If you are so concerned about the future of the planet, join me, my husband and our running club at our next trail clean up this spring, or organize your own (There’s plenty of trash to go around, unfortunately).

    Worry about the things you CAN change.

  18. Well deadeye, that’s because one side says “nonsense! ” and then offers nothing to back it up other than a couple of hack scientists who have been paid off by the American Petroleum Institute or the coal lobby. The other side says – wow, the vast majority of scientists around the globe have gathered a lot of evidence that indicates there is a big problem facing us, we just don’t know the extent. And the climate has already started changing. But the counter argument is -“but climate has changed before, therefore this is natural” while they completely ignore the evidence regarding the accelerated rate of change.

  19. The Earth is a closed ecosystem. Yes, to our eyes, it’s a vast world, seemingly limitless in size, but our atmosphere is but a thin envelope. How could anyone think that we can’t dirty it, shift the gaseous balance, and change its thermal properties? We know that certain gasses are heat trapping (such as CO2), and we know that we’re producing more CO2 than during the pre-industrial age. Oh, forget it. Look, this isn’t some freakin’ snow globe where everything is dandy and perpetually pretty. Don’t you get it, at least on some level?

  20. Well said Martta. It blows my mind that one either has to accept the whole global warming enchilada at face value or risk being called a “denier,” anti-science,” automatically branded a “creationist religious fanatic,” and candidate for membership in the Flat Earth Society. As the youth of today say “Its Complicated.” What is being served up for popular consumption is a stew of what is being touted as science and a massive political agenda. Skepticism or open mindedness are simply not to be tolerated. “The science is settled” Well, no it isn’t. Now, full disclosure, some members of the local coven have obviously put some sort of curse on me since I just got the word that my furnace has ceased to function…

    Oh, and Floyd, in the 50’s 97% of Doctors said that Chesterfield was the best brand of cigarette to promote healthy digestion and benefit one’s overall constitution.

  21. Floyd- look up Nobel winning Dr. Ivar Giaever and why he resigned from the APS.

    Also, look at this other Yale study, which is not from the “Director of Climate Change Communication.”

    https://reason.com/archives/2011/07/12/scientific-literacy-climate-ch

    Nice try all of you who say that people are either ignorant or straight out dumb for disagreeing with Al Gore. From the Yale study linked above, “In fact, their findings suggest more education is unlikely to help build consensus; it may even intensify the debate.”

  22. Deadeye – you cannot back up that claim. As early as the 1940’s the medical community was linking cigarette smoking to lung cancer. It was the tobacco companies who launched massive campaigns claiming that smoking was good for people, which is comparable to today with the oil and coal lobby campaigning to refute evidence that links burning fossil fuels to climate change. And yes, an exponentially growing population is part of the problem. At least you can acknowledge that ‘s a problem.

  23. Thanks, Deadeye. It’s Chicken Little all over again. So even if we were to acknowledge than man is the root of all evil as far as climate change goes, what do folks propose we do about it? Will we have to go back in time to when we were hunter-gatherers living off the land without any source of electricity, heat or nuclear power? Stop driving automobiles? Close down all plants and factories?

    Yes, it IS complicated, as you (and the youth) say. Instead of scaring people to death about global warming, I’d like to see more energy (pun intended) diverted to making us independent of foreign countries for our oil, for example. Or more money and research put into alternative sources of energy that don’t pollute.

    But I am not holding my breath.

  24. Oh not Glaever again! The handful of scientists who are in the pockets of the API or creationists are always brought out. Look at their affiliations, please. And 97% of the rest of the scientific community disagrees.

  25. Can I push my Nissan Leaf over to someone’s house and get a charge? You see, we had this storm and I really need to run some errands.

  26. Close down OUR factories and OUR power generation capabilities. You see, we need to let the developing world ignore all pollution standards, spew toxins into the air and water, and maintain Dickensian conditions for their workers. That’s how we achieve the goal of equality, so that we can ALL have a lower standard of living. It’s the fair thing to do. La la la…

  27. I’m not a creationist, and I don’t believe in Santa Claus, but how can you make the assumption that all creationists are anti warming??? I’ll bet a healthy percentage of them have bought in. It’s just neater to lump people together and make sweeping generalizations.

  28. I DO agree with this statement:

    “…we can also increase the amount of gases we take out of the atmosphere. Plants and trees absorb CO2 as they grow, ‘sequestering’ carbon naturally. Increasing forestlands and making changes to the way we farm could increase the amount of carbon we’re storing.”

    Especially the part about making changes to the way we farm. But I don’t know if the beef industry would agree with me. We can always fight back by purchasing only organic farm products (healthier, too).

    The other points are interesting but sound costly to implement.

  29. Do you have a Nobel prize jerseygurl? My point is stop calling other people stupid/ignorant, when you sound like a sheep at the alter of Al Gore.

    The group of scientist that you should all be looking at are the geologists.

    https://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm

    They actually looked at data longer than 150 years to come to the same conclusion. In my eyes they did the work and then came to a conclusion. They didn’t start with the conclusion and back-fill the data that confirmed their view. They are also from the same discipline as many in the API so it should carry weight for those still struggling with the historical geologic arguments you often hear against human impact on climate change.

    Finally, Giaever’s point wasn’t that the climateologist were wrong. He basically was saying that nothing is ever completely settled in science, so don’t act like it is. For example, this summer, Einstiens theory of relativity met a challenge from CERN (see below).

    https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/09/23/3324086.htm

  30. Not sure what your point is, nerd.
    They agree:

    Purpose
    This position statement (1) summarizes the strengthened basis for the conclusion that humans are a major factor responsible for recent global warming; (2) describes the large effects on humans and ecosystems if greenhouse‐gas concentrations and global climate reach projected levels; and (3) provides information for policy decisions guiding mitigation and adaptation strategies designed to address the future impacts of anthropogenic warming.

    I wont’ even discuss Glaever. It’s pointless.

  31. @gurl The use of the very word “believe” indicates to me an acceptance without question of said concept as truth. As with many dogmatic believers whether they support climate change or god, they not the doubters, see their belief without refute. To claim that the scientists who demonstrate some question as to the causes of climate change are being paid off by big business is weak. Almost every article that I’ve read about this subject indicates that the subject is NOT closed and more research is required.

  32. “Almost every article that I’ve read about this subject indicates that the subject is NOT closed and more research is required.” YES!

  33. It’s Giaever, by the way. My point is that people that disagree with you are not by definition less intelligent nor are they less informed than you.

    Also, with respect to the GSA, my point is that it is a great source. Yes it happens to agree with you, but it does so by something called the scientific method. They looked at Earths historical record and corrected for orbit, orbital eccentricity, solar a’ctivity, volcanic activity, plate tectonics… on and on. They didn’t just look at the correlation between C02 and temperature over the past 150 years and assume a causal link.

  34. Nerd, don’t waste your breath, it’s not worth it.

    These sheeple drank the Kool Aid years ago. Global warming was debunked so now they change it to climate change. Laughable. It’s just part of the attempt to control capitalism.

    Every so often when readership wanes on this site they throw out the same old topics to bring people back. Everything that could be said about this could be read in the previous 2,000 posts on it.

  35. I was driving through Maine a number of years ago and I stopped to watch a farmer digging rocks out of one of his fields.

    “Looks like hard work,” I said. “How did all those rocks get there?”

    “Glacier brought them 10,00 years ago.” He responded.

    “Digging them out must be a real pain,” I said.

    “Ayuh,” he said “But the worst paht is, the glacier went back north to get another load.”

    (To be continued in 9,990 years.)

  36. It’s Giaever, by the way. My point is that people that disagree with you are not by definition less intelligent nor are they less informed than you.

    Maybe not, but they are also ‘believing’ contrary to 98% of the climatologists in the world. If 98% of people who are paid to care about this stuff believe something, what do you think the chances are that we should pay attention?

    Yes it happens to agree with you, but it does so by something called the scientific method.

    Ooooh, tell us more about something we learned about in the 6th grade. And I suppose the climatologists have just been making stuff up, right? Isn’t the point moot, since it agrees that Climate Change is happening?

    These sheeple drank the Kool Aid years ago. Global warming was debunked so now they change it to climate change. Laughable. It’s just part of the attempt to control capitalism.

    Its called climate change because its effects aren’t just a warmer earth. An increase in the severity and frequency of hurricanes is also predicted, for example. Debunked. Hilarious.

  37. “@gurl The use of the very word “believe” indicates to me an acceptance without question of said concept as truth.”

    I don’t “believe” that the climate is changing, I accept the conclusions of the overwhelming majority of scientists who have a large body of evidence that proves the climate is changing at a rate that far exceeds any change that has happened in the past. It’s not dogma, it’s decades worth of review of research and data that has been compiled globally.

    “To claim that the scientists who demonstrate some question as to the causes of climate change are being paid off by big business is weak.”

    Actually, it’s not weak, it’s true. Of the almost insignificant fraction of those who “deny” that accelerated change is connected to human activity, the overwhelming majority of those are funded by the oil, coal, right wing think tanks and the Koch Brothers. Yes, you will argue that scientists who concur are also funded by those who might benefit from this information, but the vast influence of money and power does not flow from the small sustainable energy lobby to the 97% of scientists. That’s the weak argument. And absurd.

    “Almost every article that I’ve read about this subject indicates that the subject is NOT closed and more research is required.”

    I don’t know which articles you’ve read, but again, the vast majority of mainstream science agrees there is change, and human activity has contributed. You’re right, there is not a general consensus on the models that predict overall impact or which policies can lessen the impact. On how much and when, the subject is not closed. On whether or not it’s real, the conclusions based on data speak for themselves.

  38. “the vast majority of mainstream science agrees there is change, and human activity has contributed” I don’t disagree. The percentage of human impact has not been agreed to. Therefore I question what at times seems like hysterical or doom and gloom predictions. I don’t agree that the argument has a bases in capitalism vs.the State. But as noted Gore and like minded fellows have gained financially. So have the funded scientists.

  39. The percentage of human impact has not been agreed to. Therefore I question what at times seems like hysterical or doom and gloom predictions.

    The doom and gloom predictions are based on the current rate of change, not how much humans are contributing. I have a hard time finding anything to suggest that humans are not the most important contributors, especially since CO2 appears to be the biggest culprit, and we’ve been really good at producing that for the last 100 years. It stands to reason that curbing our production will improve the situation. We may be past the tipping point, however.
    Equivicating about what ‘percentage’ humans have contributed, especially when its evident that its the largest percentage, does absolutely no good.

  40. So you don’t “deny” the climate has been impacted by human activity, just how much. And Al Gore is not a scientist – and his climate organization is a not for profit, he earns plenty of money with other ventures – and he started beating this drum in 1976 while he was still a freshman congressman. So, he may be making money, but I find it hard to believe that in 1976 his devotion to environmentalism was based in greed or the desire to make a buck off it.

  41. Human caused climate change is the religion of the left. Ever since the fall of the Soviets the left has latched onto environmental movement to promote their hate America/capitalism first agenda. Now 20 years later as a resoult of a full generation of propaganda inculcated via the NEA & AFT sub moronic feckless teachers. It is so sad to see our grammar shool kids doing projects to “save the planet” and other such drivel. It is a 16 year imprinting that passes for education today.

    As far as the dufus’s apple analogy. If the skin is the atmosphere then our activities are microbial lesions measured in microns at best.

    As for prof’s coming tech, Mitsubishi is exploring micro, non meldowning, small, buryable fission reactor cartridges that can power 5000 homes for five years and then simply be replaced.

    But given the dinosaur brains in DC fueled by the environmental bozos the likelihood of any such solutions is slim and we can be like Kuttner’s Marching Morons.

  42. Where does this 97% of scientist claim come from? It’s an odd statistic, not sure it means anything. Not all scientists are of the same caliber. Suppose 50% of them are dimwits and they are just following the wisdom of the top 5%.

    There was only 1 scientist who believed the world was round and he was right.

    All we need to know about the environment came from a talking owl. “Give a hoot don’t pollute.” It would be a nicer cleaner world. Talk to my wife–cleaner is better.

    Why would Wall St choose to stay in NY? Maybe they’ll choose Bloomfield Center once it gets built. Plenty of new luxury apartments to choose from.

  43. It’s really pathetic that we are even having this conversation. There is insurmountable evidence that the climate has changed due to humankind. Exactly how much and what we should do about it is where the conversation should focus but instead we have to listen to the tired old garbage about the name used to describe the science. (“Oh, it can’t be true because it used to be called global warming and now it’s climate change!”)

    Bebop, there were also some scientists that thought that we could turn all metal into gold and some now think that homeopathy actually works and even some that think the Earth is 6,000 years old. Your logic is spurious–I call that line of thinking about the one scientist who thought the world was round so let’s not give credence to scientific consensus the “sh_tty scientist fallacy.”

    Now that I’m teaching, the comments from some of the above posters and people in general don’t bother me as much. I teach my students to demand evidence for what they accept or not. And the evidence is there. I also teach them that once money and power is involved, facts seem to not matter as much. Ah, the politicization of science. Sigh. I’m just banking on a good science education that focuses a lot on process will decrease the number of herbie thinkers in the world. It helps me sleep easier. That and some Ambien.

  44. Good one Tudlow. The sh_tty scientist fallacy is good to avoid. If the evidence is there that’s all we need. Totally agree.

    It’s not evidentiary to say 97% of scientists believe XYZ and therefore XYZ is true. It only means that 97% of scientists believe something.

    It doesn’t matter if 97% or 3% of scientists believe a conclusion or not. If the evidence says climate change is accelerating then that’s enough.

  45. Yes, bebopgun, I agree with you somewhat. Evidence is key. But I also put some stock in scientific consensus. Consensus is reached after a study is published and study after study after study (I could go on) validates the findings.

    Scientists can be arrogant pricks (I’ve worked for some–but there are some nice ones, too, of course) and they love to argue and prove each other wrong. This is a good thing. Consensus is not easily reached in my opinion, although there are some that are well-versed in science philosophy that would argue otherwise.

    Regardless, consensus and evidence go hand-in-hand.

    Now, go to sleep!

  46. “Exactly how much and what we should do about it is where the conversation should focus”
    Yes!

    Until those questions are answered legislation that has it’s foundation in doom and gloom should be avoided!!

    Congrats Tudlow!!! It’s a wonderful and rewarding career!

  47. DagT, I agree that doom and gloom should be avoided. But global warming believers might have selected the best choice of all the popular doom and gloom theories out there today. To wit:

    1. Christianity: Believe in Jesus or burn in hell !
    2. Judaism: Keep the 613 commandments or endure God’s wrath !
    3. Islam: Forsake Allah and you’ll never know those virgins in Paradise !
    4. Hinduism: Live a good life or you will be reincarnated as a roach !
    5. Climate Change: Do something now or your kids will be screwed !

    I’ll take #5, for the sake of my kids. And common sense.
    (As a backup, I’ll consider #4.)

  48. The majority of the naysayers are linked to oil, of course they don’t want anyone saying fossil fuels contribute to the problem:
    https://www.triplepundit.com/2011/05/nine-ten-top-climate-deniers-linked-exxonmobil/

    The rest are linked to right wing think entities. Just this week, one of the skeptics ( who had been funded by the Koch brothers) recants:

    https://news.yahoo.com/skeptic-finds-now-agrees-global-warming-real-142616605.html

    Actually, the comparison to the one scientist who believed the world was round is right – but in reverse. It was considered heresy, because during the dark ages science was strongly linked to religion and the earth could not possibly revolve around the sun. And we can not possibly have evolved from apes because the bible says the earth was made in seven days.
    We have volumes of evidence to the contrary. We have volumes of evidence that our climate is changing at a shockingly fast pace.

    Just like the tobacco companies did a half century ago, there is a very well monied campaign to deflect attention away from an honest dialogue about what or should be done with a complete denial that a problem even exists. So let’s start talking about how bad the situation might really be and what we can do about it.

  49. Thanks, Dag. It is rewarding but totally exhausting I have to say.

    The doom and gloom exists b/c there is no legislation. We need it! But we can’t get it b/c the Repubs deny the existence of climate change. They go crazy about the EPA regulating CO2. It’s absurd and to think it has anything to do with science is a joke.

    JG, we didn’t evolve from apes. If we did, they wouldn’t be here on this Earth. We do, however, share a common ancestor with apes. Sorry to nitpick but evolution is my thing.

    Off to work!

  50. Spiro, several years ago my daughter brought me back a T-shirt she’d found in New Orleans:

    RELIGIONS

    1. Taoism

  51. Try again:

    RELIGIONS

    1. Taoism shit happens
    2. Hinduism this shit happened before
    3. Buddhism it is only the illusion of shit happening
    4. Zen what is the sound of shit happening
    5. Islam if shit happens, it is the will of Allah
    6. Jehovah’s Witnesses Knock, knock. shit happens
    7. Atheism there is no such thing as shit
    8. Agnosticism maybe shit happens, and maybe it doesn’t
    9. Protestantism shit won’t happen if you work harder
    10. Catholicism if shit happens, I deserve it
    11. Judaism why does shit always happen to me
    12. Televangelism send money or shit will happen to you
    13. Rastafarianism smoke that shit
    14. Unitarianism who gives a shit

  52. Fortunately, those of us who distrust “authorities” in politics, science, business, government, education, the military, etc, live in a time when our ideological opponents are so tolerant of others, as long they fall in lock-step with their worldview. How thoughtful.

    Leftists, in spite of their obvious intelligence and pedigree, consistently fail to look beyond the Slogan and realize that it is not science, education or thinkyness that we hicks and rubes are opposed to. We just don’t believe what you believe, nor do we blindly put faith in the people you choose to. We know, for instance, that scientists are human, not dieties. They are fallible and corruptible, they have agendas (as we have seen).

    So no, it is not the idea of science that bothers us. The problem, to be honest, is what appears to be the motives of the priest class ( sorry to lump you in here Jerseygurl) of this new religion. The sermonizing, the smarminess and condescenscion is what turns people off, not lack of intellect. A good idea needs an equally good sales pitch. Calling people stupid because they don’t drink the kool-aid is not going to win over many adherents to the cause. The problem is one of tone.

    Any marginally observant person can see that the “climate” HAS changed since their childhood in some way. But some can look at that and not be panicked by it. This is our right. No one knows which way this will go, so we do not blindly accept an extremist view. That doesn’t make us “unedumacated”. It makes us cautious.

    One of my favorite quotes is “Never buy anything from someone who is out of breath.” That pretty much sums up the underpinning, I think, of many of us who do not buy into the “This is America’s Fault” mindset, as is evident in the article itself. Most of you have probably never been over to India or China, beyond the tourist traps. If you have, you might not be hammering the “American Lifestyle” so much.

    Sorry for the length, but there is nothing more indicative of a person’s intellect and abilities than resorting to personal attacks whn they cannot, for WHATEVER reason, convince someone of their point of view.

  53. nboney – you fail to understand that accepting the mountain of evidence of anthropogenic climate change is not an “extremist” view nor should it even need a gimmicky sales pitch. What IS gimmicky and elitist in my opinion is this approach that “deniers” (or hicks and rubes as you referred to them) are so intellectually keen that they don’t trust the authorities, who are scientists. You find the “tone” of climate scientists and those that accept their findings to be condescending. Interesting because I found your post to be off-the-charts condescending.

    It’s such a shame, although not surprising, that this has become a left-right issue, which is so clearly illustrated in your post.

  54. nboney, the definition of ignorance is to be unaware or uniformed. Not stupid. And to say that people who are aware of the compiled volumes of evidence, hard data, are blindly following authorities when they all pretty much come to the same conclusion while the “denier” side is listening to the handful of people in the pockets of authorities, is beyond disingenuous. Talk about condescending – “priest class of this new religion” is over the top. Contrary to what you think, blindly accepting lies from the one side of the political aisle isn’t being anti-authority. Quite the opposite.

  55. Jerseygurl, as an obviously well-informed and educated person you should know that in written form, absent the contextual clues present in verbal interation, calling someone (or an entire class of people) ignorant because they refuse to or cannot draw the same conclusions from a set of data that you do leaves MUCH open to interpretation. And having been through this “debate” many times face-to-face, I can say that I have never been called ignorant in any other way but to suggest that I am stupid, the technicalities of Merriam-Webster notwithstanding. For instance:

    POSTED BY jerseygurl | November 03, 2011 @ 10:28 am
    No Mike, what’s scary is there is there is only ignorance and no logical reasoning. But that’s what happens when you have a major party embracing ignorance over education. Because education is elitist. Why be smart when you can believe?

    See, I don’t think you can say that a person is incapable of logic and NOT be condescending, at which point you shut off any chance of actual debate. Additionally, you seem to give the false choice of either “being smart” or “believing”. So, if someone is not ready to see the data the way you do, they can’t “be smart”. theys one fo those believey folks, clingin’ to theys guns and religion.

  56. Tudlow, you might want to re-read my original post, and then consult Jerseygurl’s dictionary. OK, that comment was probably condescending, but my original post was not. Heavily sarcastic, but not condescending.

    As the reasident ig’nint anti-intellectualist on the board, I could not possibly condescend in reference to the scientific issues at hand. You cannot condescend UP the intellectual food chain. I can be indignant, but not condescending. On a personal level, as in the previous coment, I can be a condescending as hell. But again, my assertion that calling/inferring people to be stupid, lacking in logical abilities, blind and unthinking will NEVER win your point.

    Fortunately, I am not trying to win any points. I don’t care about global warming to the extent I am willing to insult someone over it. I just want to be left alone. I don’t want my taxes hiked through the roof because I leave my lights on too long. I don’t want the gov’t tracking how many miles I drive so they can impose a gasoline/mileage tax. See, I’m agnostic on the scientific questions here. But as angry as hell at the political implications being driven by the science on which I am not totally sold.

    So, you’re wrong. This isn’t a left-right issue. This is a Stupid People vs The Enlightened issue. An Educated vs Unwashed Masses issue. The only place where the politics of Left-Right come into play is in the massive tax and regulation regime being imposed based on science/research that many still believe to be unsettled. That fact that you (and X% of scientsts, politicians and reporters) believe it to be settled is irrelevant.

  57. What I find interesting, nboney, is how, in Europe, the right and the left are both on board with regard to addressing the implications of global climate change. As such, their infrastructure plans, urban design, land planning, architecture, landscaping and property management, and even product design leave the USA in the dust. The Europeans of differing political persuasions seem to have a difference of opinion with regard to how to manage the situation – via public or private sector. Classic left vs right fault lines.
    And thank goodness, rboney, they ( and some of us here ) have replaced ancient fairy tales about a distant and half-retired God who gave us dominion over the earth ( with no holds barred ) with a more salient religion, which could be described sinply as “save the planet”. Having been in awe of the majesty of our planet, from national parks right on down to the most modest meandering local creek, heartily approve of this change in priorities.

  58. So, if someone is not ready to see the data the way you do, they can’t “be smart”. theys one fo those believey folks, clingin’ to theys guns and religion.

    I don’t know what ‘seeing the data the way you do’ means. You seem to think that climate change cause by humans is a matter of opinion. It’s not, it’s a matter of fact. While I understand the distrust of authority, its not one or two climatologists promoting this theory. It is essentially all of them.

    It’s a brilliant message the right currently uses around this: “there needs to be more study!” It’s so neutral, of course its true. You may notice it also doesn’t dispute the science, does it?

  59. “That fact that you (and X% of scientsts, politicians and reporters) believe it to be settled is irrelevant.”

    It’s pretty obvious, nboney, is that the only thing that is relevant to you is your taxes. The science is solid (of course scientists will continue to refine their understanding of how we affect the climate because that’s how science works–it continues to ask and answer questions) but as I said originally, what to do about it is where the debate is.

    Instead of hiding behind this “the science isn’t settled” facade, why don’t you man up to the real issue here–you don’t care about the long-term effects of climate change enough to be inconvenienced in any way by the big, bad government.

    It’s a left-right issue in this country b/c the right thinks their individual rights of not having to pay taxes or being able to buy whatever inefficient light bulb they want and drive whatever kind of mammoth fuel inefficient vehicle is paramount to the climate and how it affects all the denizens of this earth.

  60. This is a Stupid People vs The Enlightened issue. An Educated vs Unwashed Masses issue.

    So you’re putting yourself in the category of the stupid and uneducated, nboney? Would you rather be treated by a doctor who never went to med school-you know, one of your own? If you got into a car accident and were bleeding but had no insurance, would you want to be left alone for roadkill?

    You’re not so much ignorant and stupid as anti-social. Fortunately, the docs and medics who would rush to your aid, god forbid you should need it, aren’t.

  61. “See, I’m agnostic on the scientific questions here. But as angry as hell at the political implications being driven by the science on which I am not totally sold.”

    Not sure how one can be “agnostic” on data. Not sure how you can be “sold” on the same data. It exists. Warming is happening at an accelerated pace.

    Clearly, what you have been sold on, is the “belief” that regulations and policies that begin to address environmental problems are “bad”. Guess who is selling you that bill of goods?

  62. Gee, a quarter decade and a superstorm later and climate-change-deniers still aren’t convinced . . . Not good.

Comments are closed.