AGW: The "In case you were wondering" Edition

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Saturday, June 26. 2010

AGW: The "In case you were wondering" Edition

The first time I heard someone say "global warming is dead" after ClimateGate hit the scene, I thought Oh, brother and started collecting headlines. As noted in Clarion Call, the juggernaut has continued apace.

Since ClimateGate, blog sites such as Pajamas, Townhall and Hot Air have moved on to other, juicier topics, such as heartily endorsing 'attack journalism' of distinguished senators as they casually stroll to their car on a Sunday afternoon, vilifying and excoriating a 90-year-old woman because she dared to venture her opinion on a sensitive subject, and citing The National Enquirer as a definitive news source for a 2-year-old story that everyone at the time agreed was completely bogus.

You know. Juicy stuff.

Well, in the interim, the juggernaut has not been idle. The energy bill is alive and well, and even if it doesn't get passed this year, there's still the EPA and its impending mandates. We're basically screwed, blued and tattooed every which way from Sunday.

One thing is true:

The people in charge of the (delicate cough) "science" sites, such as Nature, Scientific American, Popular Science, Popular Mechanics and Live Science, never, ever, read the comments in their AGW articles. Ever.

Because, if they did, they'd be aghast at how mocked and ridiculed the majority of their AGW articles are, and something would change. At least there'd occasionally be an article expressing "some doubt" over the current (another delicate cough) AGW "facts", but there haven't been. Not a one.

The mighty machine rolls on.

The good news is, it's amazing how few comments some of them get. For supposedly popular sites, it wouldn't be surprising to see their latest "Global Warming Alters Orbit Of Planet" article only receive five or six comments, most of them of the mocking variety.

So, the good news is, at least they're (hopefully) not reaching a whole ton of people with the continuing barrage of garbage they spew.

Exhibit A:

From the current home page of Popular Science:

And the juggernaut mercilessly inches forward.

Posted by Dr. Mercury in Our Essays, Politics at 14:09 | Comments (15) | Trackback (1)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

Global Warming Juggernaut Rolls On, But...
One thing is true: The people in charge of the (delicate cough) "science" sites, such as Nature, Scientific American, Popular Science, Popular Mechanics and Live Science, never, ever, read the comments in their AGW articles. Ever. Because, if they did,...

Weblog: Side-Lines
Tracked: Jun 27, 15:28

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

I graduated from high school in 1954 and I swear I saw that picture on the right in Popular Mechanics (it could have been Popular Science, too) during that period of time. I remember all those magazines had some people convinced there would be no automobiles by 2000, we would all have some type helicopter to ride around in. I remember thinking, "the way some people drive I wouldn't want to be in the air with them." Looks like the same type wishful thinking going on calling itself technology/science. Some people seem not to know the difference.

#1 Ruth H (Link) on 2010-06-26 15:06 (Reply)

One reason there are few comments at Popular Science and Popular Mechanics is because those magazines are similar to the National Enquirer in that no one takes them seriously.

Look though the Poplular Mechanics archives and try to find a single one of their predictions that has come true.

#2 bgarrett on 2010-06-26 15:31 (Reply)

The scary thing about Popular Mechanics is that many people consider it one of the 'good guys' because

1. They did that terrific post-Katrina article
2. Glenn Reynolds occasionally writes for them

yet they're the ones who have been most behind taking actual proactive measures, like dumping tons of iron oxide into the ocean to promote plankton growth or putting up a space blanket between the earth and the sun. Very disappointing.

#3 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2010-06-26 15:46 (Reply)

They dismantled the 9/11 'truthers', too --

#3.1 buddy larsen on 2010-06-26 17:13 (Reply)

Doesn't count.

Easy pickins. :)

Exibit A. (second vid)

#3.1.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2010-06-26 17:24 (Reply)

I remember back when I was a teen during the scare that we were all going to be wiped out by the next Ice Age, the number one proposal for

Averting Disaster

was to spread coal dust all over the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets. That was supposed to absorb more sunlight and heat up the world and melt the ice and avoid us all freezing to death.

#4 Jim on 2010-06-26 16:06 (Reply)

(1) They don't care what's in the comments, because they assume that the entire American public are drooling fundamentalist idiots.

(2) They're still as hard at work as ever explaining away any data that doesn't fit the narrative. Today's Science Daily has got a typical story on methane emissions and their effect on the climate 40,000 years ago. They concluded that it was a global warming episode way back then that triggered the methane releases, not vice versa. Then they throw in the usual caution not to draw any CONCLUSIONS, because the global warming situation today is totally different. There may be people who are skeptical that CO2 causes warming rather than that warming results in higher CO2, but that's TOTALLY DIFFERENT. Now change the subject.

#5 Texan99 (Link) on 2010-06-26 16:55 (Reply)

Texie -

Perceptive as always, my dear. I would have left out the word "fundamentalist", but otherwise you're on the mark. And I think it's a little more egotistical-driven, in the sense that not only do they assume we're drooling baboons eager for information, but they're the wise, omnipotent masters who will give it to us.

Like I said, aghast.

#6 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2010-06-26 17:03 (Reply)

I don't think fundamentalists are idiots, but these guys do.

#6.1 Texan99 (Link) on 2010-06-26 23:21 (Reply)

Texan99 ... There are always folks who have strange ideas about how the world works, but the 'warmenists' are among the most stubborn in clinging to their misconceptions. We had some of our friends who are dedicated Liberals visit us today, and we find that they get that blank-eyed stare when we differ with them, even when we cite chapter and verse. Then they do the 'there-there' thing and pat our hands, as if comforting us about our advancing Alzheimer's.

It's mostly the fault of "the sex-crazed poodle."

Marianne

#7 Marianne Matthews on 2010-06-26 18:46 (Reply)

Did you all see the Financial Post article that Glenn Reynolds linked to? The Dutch are saying that they offered us new-technology skimmers with massive capacity -- one of them can suck up more oil than the whole fleet that's been deployed into the Gulf so far. Brace yourselves for why we turned the Dutch down. Too expensive? No, offered free of charge. Jones Act or union problems? No, that's so yesterday. This time the problem is that EPA standards require any water discharged into the Gulf to contain no more than 15 ppm of oil. The skimmers separate out most of the oil, but not that much, then pour the water back in. Our skimmers suck up the oily water and take t back to port, which explains why their capacity is so limited.

They're holding skimmers to the standards that would apply to factory wastewater discharge. It's insane.

If I wasn't angry before, I sure am now. BP screwed up, but it's not clear to me they did anything deliberate. This seems deliberate -- or, if it's simple incompetence, it's off the charts.

#8 Texan99 (Link) on 2010-06-26 23:27 (Reply)

i think 15 separate federal bureaucracies are at work in the incident, and unless they are told to do speed it up, they'll each ''work-to-rule'' --which means, fully exploit a rulebook that is designed with an unwritten second channel of extra rigorous enforcement that is designed to create fear and obedience in the regulated.

"Work-to-Rule" --ask a federal bureaucrat what he or she thinks when a project is so designated thru the grapevine.

'Work-to-rule' isn't supposed to mean 'work in order to rule over people' --it's supposed to be just short for 'work-to-rulebook'.

#8.1 buddy larsen on 2010-06-27 07:02 (Reply)

Texan99 ... I wonder what the Feds and the Holier Than Thou EPA say about the Santa Barbara Channel, which has had natural oil seeps for hundreds of thousands of years. La-La-La-I'm not listening?

Marianne

#9 Marianne Matthews on 2010-06-26 23:41 (Reply)

RE: AGW - only the die hards are into AGW - it's all about preserving the ecology now - rare valuable species, plants and other things - like culture and stuff. Get with it will you Doc? :>)

RE: Oil spill. Because I lived, worked and fished the Gulf for a few years, I've been following the whole event with a lot of interest. We're in the middle of what could be a major ecological diaster. While skimming and sucking up oil is a major issue, the bigger issue is that if this keeps up much longer, the Gulf will be a classic "dead zone". Dissolved oxygen levels as monitored by NOAA bouys is dropping at an alarming rate all along the coast line from Texas to the Keys. I have a friend who works for Florida Fish and Wildlife and he's been telling me that there are curious indications of stressed fish populations - like large schools of fish in areas where they've never seen them before.

And now there are reports of oil in rain water along the coast - which makes sense because of the natural water vapor cycle.

BP and the Feds need to plug that freakin' hole and plug it now - screw AGW, Financial Reform or anything else - just plug the damn hole.

My solution to the leak? Stuff a basketball into the pipe. :>)

#10 Tom Francis on 2010-06-27 07:40 (Reply)

BP and the Feds need to plug that freakin' hole and plug it now - screw AGW, Financial Reform or anything else - just plug the damn hole.

Like the lady says, Easier Said Than Done, under five thousand feet of water. Perhaps now the company that billed itself as "Beyond Petroleum" and was a pioneer in cap and trade will now realize that there is a reason for doing the right thing in its core business. Labeling yourself "Beyond Petroleum" doesn't mean you get a cosmic pass when you cut corners.

Seems to me the Feds have been rather negligent in the cleanup part. But when we elect hopey-changey, we get what we pay for. I sometimes suspect that ?bama's desultory approach to the cleanup was done to give the shaft to a region that didn't vote for him. Get your beaches all oily and eliminate a major source of income in cutting off drilling. That's the Chicago way.

#10.1 Gringo on 2010-06-27 16:11 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Saturday, June 26. 2010

AGW: The "In case you were wondering" Edition