CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
April 18, 2010 09:16 AM UTC
44 Comments
Therefore AGW is false. Clearly AlGore wrote the report, or muscled them into covering up their lies so that AlGore can get richer and the green socialists can make us all live in caves and eat raw meat.
Or that’s my best guess how this will go over among the non-reality based community.
From the Insane Clown Posse’s new video “Miracles”:
Glenn Beck is allegedly in talks with the band to rework the song into his show’s new theme.
I thought that SNL was just being crazy.
All my nerdy science friends have been talking about the ICP video for the past week, but I thought it was too obscure (and too stupid) to make fun of. SNL did a pretty good job though.
Here’s the original. It actually starts out kind of interesting, and seems like it’s going to go in the same direction as They Might Be Giants’ “Science is real,” and then it goes horribly horribly wrong…
…I’m distressed by the number of Jugalo babies I’ve delivered.
As a rap fan, I’m just embarassed…
Are they delivered already in clown makeup? Is this be the next generation of crack babies?
…the crack babies weren’t as bad as we thought.
“But but but the panel was as soft on the scientists as a military court investigating a civilian killing. It is nothing more than a cover up.”
You figure that they will continue to believe that there is a conspiracy among scientists rather than accept that an investigation was conducted and the findings exonerated the scientists.
The next thing we are going to learn is that the Death Panels that Laughing Boy was so afraid of don’t exist and never will. Once again we are subjected to manufactured hysteria and an all out effort to discredit science and facts that conservatives don’t agree with. This is another issue where LB is on the wrong side of history. The accusations were untrue but the conservatives will continue to act like they were. No wonder they fume over the fact that reality is notorious for having a liberal bias. It’s called the truth and when it isn’t what you are peddling than of course it is the fault of the evil other except we’re not evil and we don’t try to deny the truth.
Laughing Boy discounted the first of the two review panels. No reason why this one should be any different.
Never even wrote the term “death panels”, I don’t think.
AGW is dead. Get used to it.
Does that mean Republicans will be working with Democrats on a bipartisan climate bill this year?
If you have to lie about something to make a point, eventually people are going to wise up. That’s what’s happened.
Have fun in the Insane Clown Posse wing of the Republican party.
I knew he’s not a scientist, but I had no idea he was an R.
AGW isn’t dead? I’m confused.
Laughing Boy says that the earth isn’t warming in response to increased CO2 in the atmosphere. There is no such thing as Anthropogenic Global Warming.
He ought to know, he’s a blogger.
to justify your position. Your writing rut is totally predictable.
“Because they have been investigated and exonerated they are lying. The truth is a lie and the lie is a truth because I say so. Forget about the facts because they don’t fit my “see no evil” narrative.”
And you claim to be informed on the issue?
Wow! What a scientific stud. Not!
Maybe you should stick to commenting on just how awesome Republicans are going to do in November even though they haven’t learned humility over their bumbling past and haven’t a clue how to deal with our most critical issues except to ignore them. Lots of bombast and winner pronouncements are your signature posts. You should stick to writing something you have some expertise in.
by your logic, the allies were wrong and the axis powers right in WWII.
Presumably this is directed at Exxon-Mobil, Loch Industries, Tim Ball, etc.
Or did you not read the reports I linked to?
Don’t tell LB that anyone has ever been wrong; presumably they just have a different point of view. Unless it differs from LB’s point of view, in which case he’ll be the first to assure you that they’re wrong.
The RNC. I’m pretty sure they invented the concept. Some people have wised up, but most haven’t.
Mary rode a dinosaur to Bethlehem
The Earth is the center of the universe
Who needs science when you have Glenn Beck?
(the bit about Mary and the dinosaur, that is…)
I can’t find any post by you that says ‘death panels’.
On the other hand, this panel (and a previous review panel) both back up the climate scientists in their conclusion that AGW is real. Which to you means it must be dead, then… I must say that the Republican Religion is strong with you.
I thought that by AGW, LB meant Anti-Global Warming.
“Anthropomorphic global warming” – I see it more used by the deniers than by the proponents.
I think anthropomorphic means something different.
and yet you kept silent in the face of such disingenuous distortions. Makes me wonder what else you knew was a lie that you conveniently overlooked. It is obvious that the opponents of health insurance reform lied about a lot of things and you silently went along with all of it. This makes me very suspicious of your motives LB. Why do you condone lies about critical issues? What does it benefit you to believe in a lie? What strange behavior from someone who professes to possess the bigger picture.
Comments such as
only show your ideological blinders.
You haven’t provided any evidence that you know shit about the scientific version of climate change (though you do seem to have an astounding ability to repeat the cartoon version.)
If you kept your comments to policy options that may or may not be dead, you at least wouldn’t be mistaken for a teabagger with a penchant for angry misspellings. Really, you come across as one of the closest living relatives to a “birther” with your stupid comments about climate science issues.
I think you don’t understand how open my ears are to the scientific part of the argument.
What closes them is the knee-jerk “well, you’re too stupid to understand what’s really happening” line.
Additionally, the “Hockey Stick” graph that I’ve seen used to explain how significantly the temps have risen – why can’t he produce the original data he used to come up with this? I’m not a scientist, but wouldn’t that be important to demonstrate how correct one is?
Some of the East Anglia emails are very damning – I’m not so stupid that I can’t discern that they were attacking their critics and talking about how to game the peer-review system.
The Amazongate thing is another example of proponents of AGW being caught lying. He knew before the Copenhagen conference that the rainforest prediction wasn’t a good one, and intentionally held it back until he got busted about it.
To sum it up, and I mean this respectfully, Ardy – I really do –
A. To do what we are being told needs to be done, it will IMO pretty much destroy our economy. At best it will require a sea change for the way all Americans live their lives, and I don’t see it happening.
B. I don’t think it’s been demonstrated that anything we do will make a huge impact on global Co2 levels.
C. China and India have absolutely no intention of making the same sacrifices they are asking us to do.
D. for every reasonable AGW proponent I read, where I believe that they are interested in cutting Co2 to save the planet, I see a politician or charlatan that is more interested in global wealth redistribution or their own profit and is just happy to have a vehicle to make that happen.
So, coupling the way I feel about those things with some definite monkey business being perpetrated by the same group that’s telling me I’m too stupid to understand why I have to do what they want, along with the utter hypocrisy of folks flying around the world and living in mansions telling me the end is nigh unless I pay higher taxes, well, that’s where they kind of lose me.
I was at a conference at the Broadmoor a couple of years ago. It was the NHLPA meetings, and part of the evening was a guy that was Canada’s Mr. Science or something. I guess he had a TV show and all the guys knew him – he was a pretty beloved figure. He gave a speech on global warming, and coupled it with a new NHL charity to promote green-ness. He was very dark in his speech and Wagnerian about the end of civilization, etc. What struck me was that, if this was so totally dire, why the fuck do we have the NHL at all? What’s the carbon footprint of a sports league where they have to use equipment to freeze ice, buses and jets to fly guys around, gathering millions of people together over the course of a season to consume food and alcohol, print tickets, merchandise, etc?
Either it’s dire or it’s not. Which is it?
I really hope this clears up how I feel about this. I can be convinced, but it seems the pro-agw side of the street is clouded with some real shitheads (obviously, so is the anti-side) that are turning people off who would normally be interested in listening.
Do you not feel like some of the ‘scandals’ related to AGW in the last year have an effect? Is there any reason to question the conclusions of people who seem to have acted inappropriately with the process of relating data?
Whoa – sorry. That’s pretty much a “full Harvey” but I really want to dialogue with you on this.
your credentials as a climate science. Until you repost, and I mean this respectfully (I really do), I will go with what the vast majority (notice I did not say every single one) of the scientists, peer-reviewed studies, etc. support.
Look, you don’t understand the science, LB. There is nothing wrong with that – it doesn’t mean you are stupid. (I don’t understand much of the science either, so I’m not trying to belittle you or insult you. It’s a fact that most of us on this blog don’t understand the science. OK?)
However, I do know how to separate scientific issues from economic and policy issues. You keep getting these mixed up. THAT is why I probably sound like a broken record to you!
It just doesn’t matter whether the economy would take a hit (and this is really effin’ debatable – recall that having clean water and clean air were also going to destroy our economy too), or what China may or may not do.
It is stultifyingly straight forward chemistry and physics to document the effects that elevated CO2 (and other radiatively active gases) will have on surface temperatures of the planet.
These, and other, basic conclusions come from first principles that have been known for well over a century. It is also quite easy to document that the additional CO2 in the atmosphere is from the combustion of fossil fuels.
Just because you or I don’t know this, or understand it, doesn’t mean that there aren’t thousands of people who do. People who are well respected by their professional peers. Peers who try every day to shoot each other down because the road to fame in science frequently involves demonstrating that the famous experts got it wrong.
The “hockey stick” is real. There are umpteen data sets that support it. Less reliable data sets can (and have been) removed, and the trend still holds.
Etc. Etc.
On the other hand, there is an industry out there that is willing to spend large amounts of money to try to confuse the issue. They are very effective, I have to hand them that. But they have billions of dollars at stake and thus maintaining the status quo is in THEIR interests, not yours or mine. Follow the money of Loch Industries and Exxon-Mobil.
The CRU emails are much ado about normal human behavior. Consider what someone could claim about you (or me) if they read through all our private emails (or even our posts on CO Pols!). So far two review panels have exonerated them. What do you want, a confession under torture?
Scandals do have an effect. If they are real, they can really be damaging. But even if they are much tempest in a teapot, they do unfortunate damage because it’s often easier to remember the arrest and forget about the finding of “not guilty.”
As far as I know, there have been no findings of “bad” science in the first volume of the IPCC report (this is the one about the SCIENCE of climate change itself). The “amazon-gate” or “whatever-gate ver. 2.4” was about some of the potential ecological consequences following reasonable climate change scenarios (I think this is Vol 2 or 3). There is a lesson here, too. The ecological consequences are not well understood yet. So, to think that economists have a real handle on the economic consequences is not rational thinking at all.
But you are right, there will be behavioral changes required from all of us. I don’t want to make any of them. I like cheap fossil fuels as much as you. But the physics and chemistry of CO2, CH4, NOx, etc just don’t care what you and I like.
Politicians and charlatans jump on every bandwagon that might make a few bucks for them, you know that. I hope you don’t make decisions in your life based on what a Palin does any more than you would based on what a Gore does.
As to why we have the NHL? Fuck if I know. My life would be just fine if professional sports did not exist.
LB, I hope you can tell by my response (the “full Harvey” length, if not the content) that I too want to engage you with respect. This is an important issue. It’s difficult to separate the wheat from chaff. The wheat is really good stuff, even if the chaff has better sound-bites.
So, first cut out the “AGW is dead” crap and I won’t be tempted to imply you are stupid.
Second, please try really really hard to separate the SCIENCE from the potential political, social, and economic implications. We can discuss the latter on their own merits. But whether we like policy A or policy B has no impact on the SCIENCE of climate change.
Third, stay free.
If we’re all going to hell environmentally then we won’t have to worry about bundling up.
Thanks (I think). 🙂
In the interests of role reversal, here’s what it boils down to: The science is overwhelming, period. And, yes, lengthening the time horizon of our economic activity incurs short term costs in exchange for long term benefits (in this case, huge benefits, in the form of avoided huge costs), just as lengthening the time horizon for personal conduct does. In both cases, it’s called “acting responsibly”.
you must consider them significant, so I will respond directly to them:
A. 1) The world is more than the US economy. Lots more. Bucketfuls. 2) Our economy is on a path to destruction without climate change – think about it, every time someone has a heart attack, it is considered a positive addition to the economy. Likewise, every time there is an oil spill, it is also counted as a positive addition to the economy. There is something perverse about an economy that counts medical and environmental accidents, and even deaths, as a “good” thing. To use your terminology, we need a sea change on how we measure the economy, but that argument, like yours, is neither here nor there in regards to the SCIENCE of climate change.
B. Respectfully, it doesn’t matter what you think. Many really smart people have said you are wrong. And have proposed means for addressing the problem in small steps starting NOW. We (humans) are causing a problem. No other creatures are going to try to save our butts for us. It’s personal responsibility time. Your comment reeks of defeatism. It was probably not your intent, but that is how I read it. So, if defeatism gives you comfort, knock yourself out. If this is not what you meant, you might want to consider rephrasing this point.
C. Many in the US and the western world have absolutely no intention of making the same sacrifices we are asking others to do. You know it’s true. But again, it’s that personal responsibility thing. We have been the beneficiaries of criminally under-priced fossil fuels. We are poisoning everyone else and their backyard. And suddenly now WE are the victims if we have to clean up our own shit? Cry me a river.
I have had great fun being able to take advantage of the mobility and labor saving devices possible because of cheap fossil fuels. I consider myself fortunate to live at a time where I could dial in any indoor temperature I desired and travel anywhere in the world on short notice. This is an incredible wonderful time to be alive. Still, when I’ve learned that my actions contribute to harm, I try to minimize those actions. As a society, we do the same thing: we punish people who harm others. Sometimes even if they didn’t mean to. Do you have a problem with this?
D. I read that cigarettes are good for weight loss. That you can get HIV from talking to someone who is infected. I’ve read that just about every famous person was gay. I’ve heard you get better gas mileage if you drive with your lights off. Oh, don’t forget, the People of the Natural Gas Industry love puppies.
Really, LB?
Respectfully, if these sorts of “arguments” you included in “D” above are persuasive to you, you really aren’t trying very hard to understand the issues. And that’s OK. We’ve all got to set priorities. (No snark intended or implied.) But, don’t make statements in which you essentially claim to know more about the issue than the vast majority of the professional climatologists across the world.
It’s fine to not understand. Really. I don’t understand all kinds of things. However, it’s a different pony all together to project a personal misunderstanding onto others who are actual experts.
There are people who can help you understand. But they are not making 30 second commercials nor leaking “whatever-gate” to Faux News. They are busy working through the science and asking their peers to find the flaws in their reasoning. When they publish, they quantify the uncertainty of their findings.
There are others, who don’t want you to understand, who exploit this uncertainty. THAT is the scandal. Keep that in mind.
BTW, thanks for the great response.
I look at someone like Al Gore. He won’t debate anyone, he’s made $100 million since leaving office pushing AGW, he made a movie that’s won Oscars and Grammys that contains numerous inconsistencies and lots of scary, forboding stuff…
Yet he lives in a mansion, flies around the world in private jets, and says things like this:
DO you fault me for finding his advocacy somewhat suspect?
Disclosure: I don’t hate Al Gore. He’s never been a Dem that really got under my skin or said much of anything that angered me. Now, Tipper vs. Zappa was a classic, but that’s another story.
Thoughts?
Scientific issues are NOT settled via debate.
Consider how “useful” are the debates about creationism vs evolution. Mostly people are just talking past each other. Lots of passion, but often short on facts.
If you want to settle scientific issues, print really is the way to go. It’s important to look closely at numbers and graphs. Try to tweak things. Re-do an analysis or two. Change parameters here and there. Run a new experiment. Let your peers skewer you. Rinse. Repeat.
Debates might make mildly interesting theater, but they do not help in any way at all in settling scientific questions. Not at all. Really really not in the least helpful.
As for Al Gore … think of his role as that of a journalist. If a newspaper gets the story a bit wrong in a few details, it doesn’t change that 4 people died in a three car accident. The reporter might not be the best (or might even be the best, but still makes the occasional mistake), but it doesn’t change what has taken place to be 3 people dying in a two van and motorcycle accident.
Again, it’s important to try to keep the science separate from the policy implications. Activists are generally pushing policy. Just because you don’t like the policy they are trying to sell, doesn’t change the science.
OK?
= = = =
BTW, don’t keep repeating discredited talking points. Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” has been vetted by real climate scientists, in addition to a judge. (I’m leaving for dinner, so no time to find links.) All who actually know the issues have concluded that he got all the big stuff right and than he got some details off, but not by that much really. If he seems to say scary, foreboding stuff, it might be because the consequences of AGW could be scary and foreboding? Ever consider that the uncertainty in the scientific predictions could be off in a manner such that they UNDER estimate the consequences? This is as likely as the predictions being OVER estimates.
In other words, if you can find one gross exaggeration someone has ever uttered, everything else to which he has ever referred is discredited?
By this “logic”, since almost all human beings, knowingly or unknowingly, utter gross exaggerations at some point or another, and all human knowledge, by definition, has been referred to by human beings, then all (or virtually all) human knowledge has been discredited.
All knowledge is false, and the person who points it out has proven that their counter-knowledge, by default, must be true.
Uh-huh.
the evidence for global warming, and Congress finally passes some plan to deal with it, how long after that will it take the same nutjobs to claim Congress’ plan caused global warming? Five days? Six days? Seven days?
They’ll start the ads before the vote.
“Have you noticed that the atmosphere has been heating up since Obama took office? Call [insert representative] NOW and tell them to vote NO. Stop DGW*”
*Democrat [sic] global warming