Climate change denial, or, commenters are an (in)breed apart

Global warming

Not only has the Times-Picayune run an alarming article on the rapid pace of climate change, but they’ve also posted it to — which means it’s been opened up to comments. And as much as I love New Orleans, I have to admit that we have some really, really stupid people living in south Louisiana. What’s worse: they’ve learned to type. After the second page of numbskullery, I had to close the tab. (There are five pages of comments in all. So far.)

Of course, I know that climate change denial takes place across the globe. On the network news, on Fox “news”, on talk radio, on websites, people refute volumes of university studies with Dan Brown-esque flimsy evidence that global warming is some kind of conspiracy. Of course, none of these knuckle-dragging, armchair meteorologists can explain why the world’s best scientific minds would collude on such a scheme — what they’d have to gain, what they’re trying to prove. These are the same people who’d like to see creationism and it’s slightly buffer cousin, intelligent design, taught in classrooms. Their agenda is solely political and solely laughable.

Look, I understand that science can be used as a weapon (cf. the American Psychiatric Association’s former categorization of homosexuality as a mental disorder), and I don’t claim that science is apolitical, but how can anyone — left, right, center, or libertarian — argue that pollution is a great thing? I mean, we all understand those “Your mother doesn’t work here” signs in breakrooms, right? Isn’t this the same thing on a slightly larger scale?

Damn, I think we need to bring that stereotypical-but effective crying American Indian back.*

* Is it just me, or does the narrarator in that spot sound a lot like Ken Nordine?

14 Comments so far

  1. kfizzle (unregistered) on November 24th, 2009 @ 11:42 am

    While I completely agree with you (and so does every other person I’ve ever talked to) about the comments, after accidentally stumbling upon some at a local nyc paper, I am slightly relieved to know that it is most definitely not limited to nola, it’s pretty much everywhere. Just sayin’

  2. GladIleftNO (unregistered) on November 27th, 2009 @ 2:08 am

    People who are convinced there is a consensus among “the world’s best scientific minds” concerning global warming only read the drivel which affirms their self righteous views.
    Perhaps the American Psychiatric Association was unto something and had only studied closed minded non-breeders of the ultra liberal fascist bent.
    Oh what could be gained from colluding? How about enormous loser Al Gore going from net worth under a million dollars in 2000 to a net worth of 200 million in ’09? Forget the Noble Prize and the Oscar and an actual career that doesn’t include censorship of the arts.

  3. Richard (unregistered) on November 27th, 2009 @ 5:49 am

    @GladIleftNO: Thanks so much for illustrating my point about conspiracy theorists and how completely stupid they sound to sane people. Keep up the great work!

  4. GladIleftNO (unregistered) on November 27th, 2009 @ 11:22 am

    If you are the arbiter of sanity global warming is real! The Mississippi boy in the big city of New Orleans who once drove past Tulane. Yeah he knows how the world works.

  5. Richard (unregistered) on November 27th, 2009 @ 12:00 pm

    I’m so very sorry. Since you’ve been posting anonymously, I had no idea that you were an acclaimed climatologist. Perhaps you could share some of your findings with our readers — maybe something that compellingly contradicts 95% of the world’s scientific community and 100% of scientists who aren’t crazy? Because as much as I like the banter, bashing my own educational background (which unfortunately includes more than driving past Tulane) isn’t all that persuasive.

  6. Have a Degree (unregistered) on November 27th, 2009 @ 3:56 pm

    In your opinion I am one of those “knuckle-dragging, armchair meteorologists” albeit one with a doctorate in Science who actually reads the scientific journals, etc. It seems that the majority of scientists that actually have graduate degrees in metiroology and related subjects do all agree. Man Made Global Warming is not occuring!!!!

    The best minds at MIT have now concluded that CO2 is not even a global warming gas! It is usually very obvious when someone has little education and less understanding of a subject by their emotional arguments as opposed to reasonable ones. Keys are words like “All” “Everyone” and “knuckle-dragging, armchair meteorologists” are dead giveaways.

    If you would actually research you would find that MOST of the best minds, including those dummies at MIT, do not believe in man made global warming.

    Yes polution is bad. Contaminated water is bad, but even worse if falsifying the truth. As the old sayiing goes “When you have to lie to prove your point, your point shouldn’t be proven.”

  7. richard (rico) on November 27th, 2009 @ 4:23 pm

    Interesting to hear that you possess a doctorate in science. I’d be curious to hear more about that.

    As for the “best minds at MIT”, I have no idea whom you’re talking about. Presumably, you’re referring to Dr. Roy Spencer’s attempt to discredit MIT scientists, but Spencer is a pretty fringe figure (and that’s putting it VERY kindly). The man is a scientist who refuses to believe in evolution and prefers to teach the non-science of intelligent design. Not the kind of guy I’m going to go to for scientific knowledge.

    The fact of the matter is this: there is widespread scientific consensus that atmospheric temps are on the rise. There is similarly widespread consensus that mankind has some influence on those temps. Whether they are part of the problem or the sole source of the problem is pretty irrelevant.

  8. GladIleftNO (unregistered) on November 27th, 2009 @ 6:34 pm

    Bitter, bitter misguided lefty. Did you accept the conclusion of 95% of the neuroscientists’ “homosexuality is a mental disorder”? Does a limp wrist cause knuckle-dragging? The irony of your name calling is well ironic.

  9. Bob (unregistered) on November 28th, 2009 @ 1:23 pm

    GladIleftNO, the only question is whether you are a paid astroturfer or one of their useful idiots.

  10. GladIleftNO (unregistered) on November 28th, 2009 @ 11:30 pm

    Neither. Just a former New Orleanian who does not let his education interfere with his ability to think.
    Perhaps this could be discussed with courtesy. South Louisianans have already been labelled with the foulest of invectives. All for allowing the 95% of brilliant engineers and scientist design a waterway and levy system which has twice flooded the most interesting city in this boring country. If you wish to deride my home, don’t do it over misinformation and not on a frigging metblog I read.

  11. Laurie (unregistered) on December 5th, 2009 @ 9:44 am

    Earth is cyclical: it evolves we evolve.

    Earth is in a Cooling period.

    When the Sunspots hit their hottest point in late December 2012

    our sun will restart its Great cycle at day one-that’s why the Maya call it year zero.

    There is no Global warming-a more proper tag is Earth Evolution.

    And Climate Change? The earth is a dynamic property never the same any where’s ever.

    We are made of Carbon. When we die, rot, or are turned to ash we will still be composed of Carbon.

    Earth is a Carbon based planet.

    As for the C02 snake oil:

    Photosynthesis: 6CO2 + 6H20 enzymes, chlorophyll/light energy yields C6H1206 +602

    or how plants convert carbon dioxide into oxygen.

    Stop Copenhagen!


  12. Laurie (unregistered) on December 5th, 2009 @ 9:47 am

    Geaux to youtube put in Bob Breck he has something very interesting on I can’t say those words! global warming.

    Seriously, cheque it out.


  13. Laurie (unregistered) on December 8th, 2009 @ 8:21 am

    President Obama has declared The natural compound Carbon Dioxide to be a toxic gas!

    No one breathe!


  14. Laurie (unregistered) on December 8th, 2009 @ 8:27 am

    p.s. on Copenhagen, they are assuming that the IPCC science and the EPA are separate entities, they are not.

    The IPCC(intergovernmental panel on climate change)which falsified the numbers to make the results come out the way they were being paid to show science is in question-the Copenhagen summit is following the EPA’s science which is using the IPCC’s science.

    I feel bettre’ now.


Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.