Just What Climatology Did NOT Need: Feminism

The journal Progress in Human Geography recently released a paper entitled "Glaciers, gender, and science; A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research".

Yup, you read that right, feminist glaciology.

Go ahead and click on that link above and read it, if you feel like having your brains leak out your ears. The blog whyevolutionistrue rightfully speculates on whether or not this is another Sokal-esque hoax. The Far or Regressive Left's political agenda has so thoroughly infiltrated academia, it is nearly impossible to distinguish reality from parody anymore, so who the hell knows? Poe's law strikes again.

If real, Thunderf00t can add another item to the list of things that feminism poisons.



And, yes, poison is exactly word I meant to use as well. Just read this troubling statement from the paper's conclusion:

Analysts and practitioners must recognize the ways in which more-than-scientific, non-Western, non-masculinist modes of knowledge, thinking, and action are marginalized.

Yeah, there's a great idea! When the cold, hard facts, and a consensus of thousands of scientists meets with furious resistance from climate change deniers, what you want to do is throw some "extra-scientific" nonsense like reading tea leaves, pap about female intuition, smoke tent visions, Orwellian feminist "Listen and Believe" propaganda, and who knows what else into the global warming advocacy works. Because that won't completely backfire or anything. I mean, it's just so hard to envision the usual suspects (Watts, Goddard, Limbaugh, etc.) jumping for joy at the chance to knock a few of those soft tosses out of Denier Park. They wouldn't at all seize on the opportunity to wave such studies around as examples of flawed, biased research. Nope, wouldn't happen. /sarcasm

Hoax or not, file this study with this curious pile of academic hogwash on "Carbon Fibre Masculinity".

*Sigh*...the Same Erroneous Crap Over and Over

ALL volcanic activity (not just Mt. Etna) releases ~1% (0.3GT/yr) of the total anthropogenic CO2 output (30+GT/yr). https://t.co/upgx39BoAU

— Planet Evans (@ExoplanetEvans) January 12, 2016

Speaking of Not Responding, Ladies and Gentlemen, I Give You the Suspicious0bservers

A couple days ago, I left the following comment, which has yet to be approved, on a Suspicious0bservers video:

This is the graph image I linked to in the comment:

Now, there are only about 1,000 "sciency"-sounding, cherry-picked points in that video which have little or nothing to do with climate change, and certainly don't add up to the nonsensical conclusions that Ben Davidson, narrator and owner of the YouTube channel, draws. For instance, at this point in the video, he claims CO2 is NOT the main driver of the observed modern warming, and, instead, our planet's diminishing magnetosphere combined with high solar activity are the real climate change culprits, since, according to him, we had less protection from the Sun's radiation at the same time we witnessed temperatures rising after the Industrial Revolution. While it's true the magnetosphere has been and is weakening slightly, here's the problem with teaming it up with the Sun to make some new global warming dynamic supervillain duo: the magnetosphere prevents charged particles from reaching the Earth, not visible light and infrared energy—that is, the electromagnetic radiation which has interacted with greenhouse gases to cause the greenhouse effect historically and modern climate change more recently. In other words, a weakened magnetosphere may cause more intense auroras at the poles, or endanger satellites and electronics, but it won't let in more sunlight, brighten the daytime hours, and create a spike in the sunglasses industry. Is anyone anywhere complaining of global brightening? When the magnetosphere strengthens again, which it will, will days grow darker? NO!

Almost all of the Suspicious0bservers' videos are like this. A classic case of "Jaezuz, there's so much wrong here, where do I even begin?" So I thought I'd pick just one mistake, rather than frighten Ben into blocking a comment with a barrage of counterpoints (besides, my personal ethics are against flooding...yes, even when the target is a flood of misinformation), but it seems like Ben is a little too skittish to let even one strong challenge fly on his channel. Click on the link to the video above, toggle the comments filter to "Newest first", and I'm pretty sure you'll see my comment hasn't been approved yet.

I even went so far as to tweet at him yesterday to no avail:

Will Ben @TheRealS0s approve this comment/challenge to the claims in his YouTube video? http://t.co/tnABSqhfb7 pic.twitter.com/7qvmLSajrp

— Planet Evans (@ExoplanetEvans) October 4, 2015

So how about it, Ben? Gonna allow some criticism and debate on your channel? Or are you going to block and hide from it?

Of Course Trump's Not Gonna Respond, but I Had to Ask

I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that his opinion has...ahem...matured in three years, but he did tweet this as someone with an Atlantic City, NJ casino named for him immediately after Sandy wreaked its climate change-intensified havoc on the area.

Mr. #Trump, do you still stand behind this opinion you expressed three years ago? @realDonaldTrump https://t.co/Ypv6oxgAEL

— Planet Evans (@ExoplanetEvans) September 19, 2015

Now, I'm a nobody, so of course he won't respond to me, but if enough people retweet it, who knows, maybe someone "important" (unlike yours truly) will have the guts to confront him about it. I have a feeling his response, whatever it might be, will be interesting. Even a typical politician-style dodge-and-weave evasion will tell us something about how the "Real Donald Trump", as his Twitter handle describes him, is or is not evolving as a candidate.

As Florida Floods, Governor Scott Sinks to Even Lower Levels of Denial

Way to go, Governor Scott and Florida officials.

LOL. As the #climatechange impacts become clearer, #deniers like @FLGovScott stomp feet harder & ramp up the denial. http://t.co/HOQhae9Pjn

— Planet Evans (@ExoplanetEvans) March 22, 2015

Exchanging Snowstorm Love Notes (Tweets) with Steven Goddard

Wherein I have a ridiculous pseudo-real-time Twitter chat with our favorite cherry-picker in chief:

Geez, this (http://t.co/F7yZHjEVbr) is hard to process, eh, @SteveSGoddard : "Warmer air traps more water vapor, additional water to fall."

— Planet Evans (@ExoplanetEvans) January 27, 2015

Full conversation, enjoy.

UPDATE: Deleted a tweet for spelling/typos and conversation got derailed to another chain. Grrrr.

FURTHER UPDATE: OK, conversation thread got broken several times, so you'll have to visit my Twitter account or Steven Goddard's to get the whole story. Turns out Steven Goddard believes in climate change, uh, I guess, but he just thinks being able to fry eggs on hot sidewalks in cities, not CO2, is the culprit. Uh, or something. Dunno, read the exchange and decide for yourself. The guy's out there, to say the least. Here's my own personal favorite tweet. I do crack myself up. :)

@SteveSGoddard @NOAA @NOAANCDC Someone tell Arctic liberals are secretly implementing Steve Goddard's plan to halt (his UHI) global warming.

— Planet Evans (@ExoplanetEvans) January 27, 2015

Let's Get the #WhatPause Hashtag Started!

Projections for 2014 global temp record (http://t.co/hWvWDFwaWV) now confirmed. http://t.co/ASHGnMUll9 #WhatPause

— Planet Evans (@ExoplanetEvans) January 23, 2015

Unde-NYE-able

Your bow tie-sporting, soon-to-be Universal Overlord wants you to understand why we humans are in fact changing the climate for the worse.



And before you screwball deniers carry on and crow away incessantly about Nye being a "GMO denier," he's really not. He knows they are safe to eat; he just has doubts about their effects on the ecosystem. And even if he were a true "GMO denier", here's the essential difference between his "denial" and yours: he's willing to change his opinion in the face of THE SCIENTIFIC FACTS.

Here's a Nye quote from the Science Friday interview linked immediately above:

"You can show with great confidence that these [GM] foods are safe to eat...But what you can't be sure of is if you messed with [the ecosystem]...What I plan to do is go to Omaha, Nebraska, and meet with [Rob] Fraley, who's...the chief technology officer of Monsanto, and he's gonna give me an earful, and if I'm wrong, I will write about it."

For the record, I, personally, am more concerned with the effects of neonicotinoid insecticides on the environment than that of GMOs. Mostly, what concerns me about GMOs is that their advocates trust them to "save us all" way, way, way too much. They ain't all that, people. Get over it. In fact, neonics probably deserve more credit for recent increased crop yields than they do. Problem is, they just might be responsible for the vanishing pollinator insects as well.

By Far the Greatest Issue Facing Our Species

2015. A new year. A new start. A new chance for all the deniers to...

Accept.

Reality.

So, let's take it from the top, people. Let's start again right from the beginning of the evidence chain, and return to the basics to kick off 2015. This video explains plainly and simply why...

CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL AND THE GREATEST THREAT WE FACE.

I dare you to watch this and STILL try to deny the existence and severity of the problem. G'head. I'll wait right here.

Ignorance That Just Won't Die

The sources for the video (most of which are of the shambling, undead, denier variety):

• The Scientific American article and NOAA's infographics.
• "Cold year: 2014 USA temperature record lows outpace record highs nearly 2-1."
• "Coldest Year On Record So Far In The US."
• "Global Warming Alert! 2014 coldest year on record."
• "Winter 2014 set to be 'coldest for century' Britain faces ARCTIC FREEZE in just weeks."
• "US Midwest Having Their Coldest Year On Record."
• "Summer 2014 is the coldest in a decade."
• "Coldest U.S. winter in a century."
• "UK weather: Is Britain braced for worst winter in 100 years?" (Note: I included these UK articles, because the fear seems to be that frigid eastern US weather will flow or be replicated across the Pond somehow...here's the UK Met Office's counter-assertion for anyone interested.)
• "Settled Science Update."
• "US Short On Greenhouse Gases Tonight."
• "US Temperatures Plummeting At Seven Degrees Per Century."
• "All 50 states have below freezing temperatures."

(Note: the images are from various news agencies that can be found by searching for "buffalo ny snow," and, well, "zombie," so they will not be sourced.)

Michael Oppenheimer Explains Importance of US/China Climate Deal

Michael Oppenheimer, a lead author of the IPCC AR4, Albert G. Milbank Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs in the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and the Department of Geosciences at Princeton University, and perhaps the person with the longest professional title and list of credentials in the universe, appeared on PBS's NewsHour recently to discuss America's latest climate agreement with China.

"This is huge, as far as I'm concerned...If you get China and the US in the room, you have about 45% of global greenhouse, global warming emissions. If you add in the EU, which is already on the downward, uh, direction in terms of emissions, you've got about 60% of emissions. Think about the leadership factor involved in that. Other countries will have a harder time avoiding dealing with climate change with the three 800 lbs. gorillas together."

For years we've been hearing the ridiculous excuse from climate change deniers that it doesn't matter what the US does, when China represents the real problem, and/or isn't interested in curtailing emissions. Declarations of this kind never really had much truth to them, but now, with China promising to meet more ambitious renewables and GHG reduction goals, they're especially specious. So, of course, deniers respond to being robbed of their favorite worthless, screwball excuse by gearing up to thwart the deal. Meanwhile, Watts and Goddard are still living in the 1950's, and continuing their sad and demented neo-McCarthyist ways. I mean, these people are just despicable infants.

Well, OF COURSE Bill Nye Agrees with Me...Uh...Mostly

About three months ago, I declared Bill Nye was worthy and capable of lording over our entire universe. He appeared on CBS This Morning to promote his book, and to further prove his worthiness to rule the cosmos by agreeing with me. Like, OMG, as if, whatever, like he had a choice, duh.

"It's not a coincidence that the, that the, uh, creationists also deny climate change."

Does this proclamation sound familiar? It should.



Of course, not every bow tie-sporting universal overlord candidate is perfect, mind, so perhaps it will come as a shock to no one, especially not my regular readers (all 2 of them), that I am gonna take at least some issue with Nye's glowing approval of the Pope's statement that evolution does not conflict with the "notion of Creation" (whatever the hell that is...I guess his Papalitude is trying to distance himself from creationism and creationists like Ken Ham), and that the Catholic head guy, as Nye puts it, has declared that the Church is "gonna join the mainstream of scientific thinking." Sorry, but I'm pretty sure you can search legitimate, peer-reviewed, biological literature from now till the end of time, and you will find nothing regarding a "notion of Creation" that applies to the God of Abraham and Pope Francis. Not a single, solitary reference. Nope, not one. Mainstream scientific thinking on evolution does not require Yahweh's assistance. If nothing else, scientists probably left Him out because they don't wanna make Zeus, Osiris, et supreme al, jealous, amirite?

On a related note, I recently had the pleasure of receiving an emailed reply from Dr. Steven Novella of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe regarding this very same subject of the Pope and his statements about evolution and God. I have asked Dr. Novella's permission to post the exchange here. More on that when I get his answer...

Getting back to this post, all things considered, serious kudos go to CBS This Morning for giving air time to people who agree with scientific consensus more often than not. Now, if the producers and hosts of the show would just work a little harder on their unfortunate gullibility...

Don't Deniers Get Tired of Being the Butt of Jokes?

"[Inhofe's book] is like Harry Potter for people who thought Harry Potter had too much science in it."

Ladies and gentlemen, Stephen Colbert on climate change deniers.

That is all.

"Even the IPCC Says..."

The IPCC recently released its latest Synthesis Report, so you can expect those in the deniosphere will be falling over themselves to win awards for making the most paranoid and ignorant remarks about it (because obviously the best way to rig elections is to produce climate assessments, dontchyaknow, or so says my giant tin foil hat, and flooding, dangerous heatwaves, ill health, violent conflicts, etc., are all ever so dull and boring anymore...just ask those whose lives are negatively impacted). That kinda brute force denier stupidity is just a given at this point, but there's a more insidious and underhanded approach they employ every now and then which involves trying to make it look like the IPCC itself refutes man-made global warming. It usually starts with the following four words or something similar...

"Even the IPCC says..."

Allow me to translate what starting a statement this way really means.



To give you an idea what I mean here, I'm gonna make some predictions based on previous personal observations about how deniers will misrepresent the report's findings. Here goes...

The denier version of the report:

"Even the IPCC says, 'It is virtually certain that globally the lower stratosphere has cooled since the mid-20th century.'"

What the report actually says:

It is virtually certain that globally the troposphere has warmed and the lower stratosphere has cooled since the mid-20th century.

The denier version of the report:

"Even the IPCC says, 'It is very likely that the annual mean Antarctic sea ice extent increased in the range of 1.2% to 1.8% per decade (range of 0.13 to 0.20 million km^2 per decade) between 1979 and 2012.'"

What the report actually says:

For the [Arctic] summer sea ice minimum, the decrease was very likely in the range of 9.4% to 13.6% per decade (range of 0.73 to 1.07 million km^2 per decade) (see Figure 1.1). It is very likely that the annual mean Antarctic sea ice extent increased in the range of 1.2% to 1.8% per decade (range of 0.13 to 0.20 million km^2 per decade) between 1979 and 2012. However, there is high confidence that there are strong regional differences in Antarctica, with extent increasing in some regions and decreasing in others.

The denier version of the report:

"Even the IPCC says, 'Since 1993, [rates of sea-level rise] for much of the Eastern Pacific are near zero or negative.'"

What the report actually says:

Rates of sea-level rise over broad regions can be several times larger or smaller than the global mean sea-level rise for periods of several decades, due to fluctuations in ocean circulation. Since 1993, the regional rates for the Western Pacific are up to three times larger than the global mean, while those for much of the Eastern Pacific are near zero or negative.

The denier version of the report:

"Even the IPCC says, 'For the period from 1998 to 2012, 111 of the 114 available climate-model simulations show a surface warming trend larger than the observations.'"

What the report actually says:

For the period from 1998 to 2012, 111 of the 114 available climate-model simulations show a surface warming trend larger than the observations. There is medium confidence that this difference between models and observations is to a substantial degree caused by natural internal climate variability, which sometimes enhances and sometimes counteracts the long-term externally forced warming trend (compare Box 1.1 Figures 1a and 1b; during the period from 1984 to 1998, most model simulations show a smaller warming trend than observed). Natural internal variability thus diminishes the relevance of short trends for long-term climate change. For the longer period from 1951 to 2012, simulated surface warming trends are consistent with the observed trend.

The denier version of the report:

"Even the IPCC says, 'Due to a low level of scientific understanding, there is low confidence in attributing the causes of the observed loss of mass from the Antarctic ice sheet over the past two decades.'"

What the report actually says:

Anthropogenic influences have very likely contributed to Arctic sea ice loss since 1979. Anthropogenic influences likely contributed to the retreat of glaciers since the 1960s and to the increased surface melting of the Greenland ice sheet since 1993. Due to a low level of scientific understanding, however, there is low confidence in attributing the causes of the observed loss of mass from the Antarctic ice sheet over the past two decades.

In the upcoming days and weeks, keep your eyes peeled for deceptive denier cherry-picking along these lines, because I can nearly guarantee it's on the way.

Woody Harrelson Urges Climate Action and YOU (Yes, You) to Vote

Yet another actor proves he understands scientific consensus better than professional trolls and cherry-pickers like Watts and Goddard.





If you want a rundown of climate change stances for the close US Senate races this Tuesday, click here. And get off yer rump and vote!

Climate Change Denial: A Model of Inconsistency

Image source: chadwickschool.libguides.com/greek_gods

If you're familiar to any considerable degree with the ongoing debate between monotheists and non-believers, you've probably seen or heard an atheist drop something akin to this startling bomb onto the conversation at some point...

"Truth be told, you and I agree much, much, much more than we disagree."

Now, why would anyone say something like that during an oft-heated back-and-forth lasting for hours, days, and sometimes even months (we do have the Internet and online forums these days to drag the argument out indefinitely, if participants wish, ya know)? To understand why this statement is in fact true, let's look at how modern-day religious people in the West and Middle East and non-believers answer the following questions...

Are/were Ra, Shu, Geb, Osiris, Horus, etc. real?
Monotheist: No.
Atheist: No.

Are/were Zeus, Apollo, Hera, Poseidon, Athena, etc., and their Roman analogs real?
Monotheist: No.
Atheist: No.

Are/were Odin, Loki, Freyja, Thor, Yggdrasil, etc. real?
Monotheist: No.
Atheist: No.

Are/were Tecciztecatl, Nanauatl, Huitzilopochtli, Quetzalcoatl, etc. real?
Monotheist: No.
Atheist: No.

Are/were Apu, Supay, Apocatequil, Ch'aska, Kuka Mama, etc. real?
Monotheist: No.
Atheist: No.

Are/were Ganesha, Vishnu, Shiva, Lord Brahma, etc. real?
Monotheist: No.
Atheist: No.

Are/were Gitche Manitou, Storms-as-He-Walks, Pah, Malsumis, Haashchʼéé Oołtʼohí, Angwusnasomtaka, Torngasoak, Sedna, etc. real?
Monotheist: No.
Atheist: No.

Is/was the Golden Calf real?
Monotheist: No.
Atheist: No.

Is/was Ba'al real?
Monotheist: No.
Atheist: No.

Is the Dalai Lama truly the enlightened reincarnation of all the lamas or tulkus that precede him (i.e.: a living god)?
Monotheist: No.
Atheist: No.

(And so on in a seeming unending loop until we finally get to...)

Is Yahweh (or whatever name you care to give the God of Abraham) real?
Monotheist: Yes.
Atheist: No.

Briefly and simply put...

"From a plurality of prime movers, the monotheists have bargained it down to a single one. They are getting ever nearer to the true, round figure."

- Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great

Similarly, despite the eyebrows that might raise over it, this statement is also true.

Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) advocates and deniers agree on the science about 99% of the time.

To see how this is the case, let's once again pose some illustrative questions to both sides...

Have you ever aggressively criticized epidemiologists for their usage of computer models to solve mysteries or make predictions in their field?
AGW Denier: No, never.
AGW Advocate: No, never.

Have you ever aggressively criticized geologists for their usage of computer models to solve mysteries or make predictions in their field?
AGW Denier: No, never.
AGW Advocate: No, never.

Have you ever aggressively criticized microbiologists for their usage of computer models to solve mysteries or make predictions in their field?
AGW Denier: No, never.
AGW Advocate: No, never.

Have you ever aggressively criticized hematologists for their usage of computer models to solve mysteries or make predictions/diagnoses in their field?
AGW Denier: No, never.
AGW Advocate: No, never.

Have you ever aggressively criticized oncologists or pathologists for their usage of computer models to solve mysteries or make predictions/diagnoses in their field?
AGW Denier: No, never.
AGW Advocate: No, never.

Have you ever aggressively criticized seismologists for their usage of computer models to solve mysteries or make predictions in their field?
AGW Denier: No, never.
AGW Advocate: No, never.

Have you ever aggressively criticized nuclear physicists for their usage of computer models to solve mysteries or make predictions in their field?
AGW Denier: No, never.
AGW Advocate: No, never.

Have you ever aggressively criticized mathematicians and physicists for their usage of computer models to assist the military in making battle predictions?
AGW Denier: No, never.
AGW Advocate: No, never.

Have you ever aggressively criticized neurologists for their usage of computer models to solve mysteries or make predictions in their field?
AGW Denier: No, never.
AGW Advocate: No, never.

(And so on in a seeming unending loop until we finally get to...)

Have you ever aggressively criticized climatologists for their usage of computer models to solve mysteries or make predictions in their field?
AGW Denier: Yes, all the time.
AGW Advocate: No, never.

Just like monotheists have very nearly narrowed it down to the real number of gods, but refuse to take that final, irresistible, and unavoidable step toward maintaining logical consistency, climate change deniers almost hit the mark on the real number of computer models that have proven useless to scientists trying to improve the predictive capacity of their chosen discipline, and therefore are indeed worthy of their ignorant criticism.

Zero.

And, FYI, deniers, no matter how much you really, really, really want it to happen, no one is going to stop attempting to predict future climate, mmmmkay? It's not going to happen. EVER. So, unless you have a better alternative than computer models to offer the world for its much-needed climatic forecasts, you can go ahead and shut yer ever-flapping, horribly misinformed, pointless pie holes until you do.

Thank you.

Peter Thiel and Glenn Beck Babbling Like Morons

This post is further proof that climate change deniers, especially of the libertarian variety, are seriously unhinged.

If you don't know, Peter "I no longer believe freedom and democracy are compatible" Thiel is a billionaire venture capitalist, PayPal co-founder, and co-author of Zero to One: Notes on Startups, or How to Build the Future. Glenn Beck, if you're the one remaining unaware person, is a conservative, on-air personality and the Internet's favorite running joke. Both are living proof that you don't need to be very intelligent to be obscenely wealthy.

Apparently, they recently decided to sit down, have a thoroughly mindless and unnecessary tête-à-tête, and record it. Here are the partial transcript and the video of the insipid exchange. The fun in the form of blithering stupidity begins at about the 2:22 mark. Their shared favorite word seems to be "monolithic," in case you wanted to make a drinking game out of it.

Peter Thiel: "We have all these monolithic debates about science or pseudoscience, like there's the climate change debate, and we're—"

Glenn Beck: "Is that science or pseudoscience?" (My note: It figures he has to ask...a libertarian venture capitalist, the best source on any scientific topic, dontchyaknow.)

Peter Thiel: "I think...ummm...I think very often...I think it's more pseudoscience, but, uh, it's often, uh, it's, again, whenever...whenever you can't have a debate, I often think that's...that's evidence that there's a problem. You know, when people use the word 'science,' it's, uh, it's often a 'tell,' like in poker, that you're bluffing. And, so, it's like, uh, you know, it's like we have 'social science,' we have 'political science.' We don't call it 'physical science,' or 'chemical science,' we just call them 'physics' and 'chemistry,' because we just know they're...they're right. And you can debate the periodic table of elements. No one will be upset if you ask questions about that. Call it 'climate science,' it's a 'tell' like in poker. It's telling you that, uh, that people are, um, are exaggerating and that they're bluffing a little bit."

Glenn Beck: "So..."

Peter Thiel: "But, um, but, uh...but I think...I think that, uh...you know, I think this monolithic, uh, culture is breaking down. People are asking questions. You know, the weather has not been getting warmer for the last 15 years. The hockey stick that Al Gore predicted, uh, in the early 2000's, um, on the...on the climate has not happened for the last decade. I think as this monolithic culture breaks down, you can have more real debates, and, and I think that's, that's...that, that would be a good thing on that."

These two dipshits actually thought it would be a good idea to record and upload this travesty of a pointless and vapid conversation? Oh, brother.

Let's forget Thiel's abysmally embarrassing mistake of thinking the "pause" that wasn't had the same timeline and therefore could be used to refute Mann's hockey stick graph (which stops before, not starts at or after, the year 2000, mind), and wrapping it all up together with a "lemme really confuse matters and blame it on Al Gore" bow on top. Instead, let's address Thiel's poker analogy that attaching the word "science" onto something somehow magically indicates you're bluffing or trying to exaggerate what you know.

Did rocket science somehow bluff its way to reaching the Moon and the other planets in our solar system?

Is Harvard trying to fool us all and inflate what it knows about medicine and health by naming its medical school "The Division of Medical Sciences?"

Is the entire field of neuroscience bluffing about its knowledge of the nervous system and the brain?

And, for fuck's sake, did computer science exaggerate the information and communication technology running on a worldwide network of machines that made your lucrative Web site and personal fortune possible, Thiel?

Jaezuz Cheeeeeroist, what an abject moron.

Using poker analogies to express ignorant, personal opinions about climate change is a clear sign someone's a science-denier idiot, bluffing about his understanding of legitimate climate research, and solipsistic and narcissistic behavior that could only be surpassed by being a Stanford graduate and part-time professor who dangles money in front of people to tempt them away from getting a higher education. Figure that one the fuck out, people. In fact, once you begin researching Thiel, you quickly become aware of a pattern of wanting to benefit as much as he can from a country's educational, economic, and political systems, only to fund efforts to undermine its taxation and regulation (without which those aforementioned personal gains probably could not have happened, mind), and then completely unplug into some bizarre, libertarian, anti-statist, seaborne utopia.

Peter, if you ever actually manage to make those ridiculous platforms work, can you do us all a favor and take Patrick Moore and Stefan Molyneux with you, please? Thank you. Oh yeah, by the way, if we're smart, we'll levy a massive exodus tax before you can sail off into the libertarian blue yonder. Do try not to cry too much about it, mmmmmkay?

Well, There's Your Problem Right There

Today, I saw this bumper sticker on a car:



I'm sure I've seen it a million times before without giving it much thought, but, for whatever reason, this time around it struck me that, despite being an atheist, I can actually endorse one particular interpretation of this Bible verse, which I'm nearly 100% certain Matthew didn't have in mind when authoring it 2000 or so years ago. See, since prayer and worship never seem to prevent tragedies or do anything or anyone any tangible, verifiable good, not even churches or churchgoers, and therefore God, if He exists, is nothing more than a negligent absentee slumlord at best, or a malicious universal tyrant at worst, this is kinda how I see things here.



When it comes to global issues like climate change, which require widespread public acceptance and understanding to gain any meaningful traction, the "all things are possible" bit is precisely the problem. Just ask this guy.



Unfortunately, belief in God, once again, leads to all manner of contradictory outcomes.

• Cornwall Alliance Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming: We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence—are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history...We believe mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, achievable mainly by greatly reduced use of fossil fuels, will greatly increase the price of energy and harm economies.
• Eden Reforestation Project: "In the United States, climate change is controversial, so I want to go on record that Eden Projects is not first and foremost about whether climate change is right or wrong."
• Southern Baptist Evironment & Climate Initiative: We have recently engaged in study, reflection and prayer related to the challenges presented by environmental and climate change issues. These things have not always been treated with pressing concern as major issues. Indeed, some of us have required considerable convincing before becoming persuaded that these are real problems that deserve our attention. But now we have seen and heard enough to be persuaded that these issues are among the current era’s challenges that require a unified moral voice.
• Katharine Hayhoe, climate scientist and co-author of A Climate for Change: Global Warming Facts for Faith-Based Decisions: "When I look at the information we get from the planet I look at it as God's creation speaking to us. And in this case there's no question that God's creation is telling us that it is running a fever."
• Tom Minnery, Sr. Vice President of Public Policy, Focus on the Family: "When we think about science, we think about the truth. Yet, in so-called global warming science, we've gotten a lot less than the truth many times."
• Rick Santorum: "We want to make sure we have a candidate go up against President Obama who...didn't buy the last environmental hoax, man-made global warming...The dangers of carbon dioxide? Tell that to a plant, how dangerous carbon dioxide is."

Faith is, after all, belief without evidence, so, even having never personally encountered religious thinking before, one would safely assume, based on the definition alone, that its application in matters of intellectual investigation will bring about a legion of unreliable, unrelated, unsatisfactory results, as the above list pretty clearly demonstrates. How could an examination which ignores evidence produce anything but helter-skelter diagnoses?

Quite the contrary, with scientific consensus, our most reliable, verification and evidence-intensive means of uncovering truths about the world around us, all things are not possible. In fact, more often than not, there can be only one conclusion drawn, when the majority opinion in any area of research is considered in an honest and open-minded way. This is why climate change deniers are so deserving of the title. They simply deny the mountains of peer-reviewed evidence in the attempt to sway the rest of us over to their dishonest, close-minded side.

Piers Corbyn: Climate Change Is Delusional, NOT Lightning Bolts Shooting between Planets

Apparently, a fairly unimpressive record of weather prediction somehow magically qualifies a single individual to overturn a scientific consensus consisting of thousands of climate experts by name-calling alone.

"And the idea itself that CO2 controls climate, and man's CO2 in particular controls climate, is actually delusional nonsense."

- Piers Corbyn, weatheraction.com

Delusional nonsense. Weird, Piers, because one would figure that if you are indeed so concerned about "delusional nonsense," you would steer clear of giving interviews to crackpots who think the worlds in our solar system trade lightning bolts so often and so vigorously that this exchange of electrical discharge leaves scarring on their surfaces.



I suppose there's nothing surprising in deniers having nowhere to disseminate their own demented and delusional nonsense that CO2 is not the main driver of the observed modern warming besides a bunch of similarly deluded crackpot sites. It seems to be the rule rather than the exception anymore.

"Stick It to Climate Change Deniers," Says President

This is a big moment in the fight against climate change—stick it to climate change deniers by adding your name: http://t.co/fkCzkiMhFw

— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) October 14, 2014

Jack Shapiro, Obama's National Issues Campaign Manager, is striking exactly the right tone here when he calls for aggressively taking the offensive on the climate change issue. For way too long, people with the science on their side have been on the defensive, playing catch-up to flat-out misinformation, and trying to politely right the unending stream of wrongs coming from climate change "skeptics." (Emphasis mine below.)

Deniers and deep-pocketed polluters make it pretty hard to get anything done on climate change—but here's one meaningful way you can fight them: The EPA is collecting comments on President Obama's climate plan, and it's our chance to show public support.

If you care about fighting climate change—or just want to stick it to the groups denying basic science—add your name to tell the EPA where you stand.

This is one of the decisive moments in the fight against climate change. Collecting comments gives the EPA a chance to see what ordinary people have to say about this important issue. (Don't worry—they hear from the special interests on every day that ends in Y.)

The other side thinks they can win this fight simply by shouting the loudest, and they have a lot of money to back it up. What they don't have is a whole lot of people—genuine voices standing up for what's right. And we've proved time and again that, when we raise our voices together, we can take on even the most powerful interests.

Now, that's what I'm talking about.







But, seriously, get clicking and add your support. After submitting your email, you will be asked to donate, which I encourage you to do if you can. However, if you can't donate, you will still be included in the list of sponsors. And we live in a world where numbers do count for something!