Jumping the Shark

January 14th, 2005 at 1:17 pm by David Farrar

I think The Grey Shade just jumped the shark by labelling those sceptical of the global warming theory holocaust deniers.

Normally he is one of the more reasoned bloggers.

No tag for this post.

28 Responses to “Jumping the Shark”

  1. Berend de Boer () says:

    He’s behind, the latest fad is global dimming.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Gordon King () says:

    I stopped reading him after that inane post. Back in December wasn’t it? Its one of those religious things with lefties, you have to believe this to be part of the annointed. I loved the way he quoted all the statistics like they’re canonical. The hubris to believe that the climate system can be modelled with any degree of accuracy is incredible. I wish some of these kids were old enough to have experienced the cycles this stuff goes round in. Butters good, butters bad, globe cooling, globe warming blah de blah.

    Anyway I hope global warming is true. It’ll be fantastic for one of my businesses, where the significant driver of costs is ocean temperature. If that steps up a degree of three year round I’ll save tens of thousands of dollars a year in water heating whilst (and here’s the great part) causing untold problems for my northland competitors where the water will become too warm! Super stuff.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. TomV () says:

    The average temperature on the planets surface is higher than it was a century or so back by about half a degree.

    I’ve no idea whether it’s part of a longer trend, is unusually fast or is just part of a century long cycle.

    I still have an open mind on the whole man made global warming issue. It makes sense to me that if you significantly change the percentage of C02 in the atmosphere over a short period of time, that there would be some effect, but I’ve yet to see conclusive evidence to show that is the cause of the limited warming we’ve seen and that it will continue to worsen.

    Anyway, I’ve been meaning to ask those who think the whole global warming thing is a load of tosh a question.

    What evidence would have to be presented for you to believe that the claims made by greenies were valid. ie that the earth is warming rapidly as a direct result of human activity and that urgent action is required to avoid significantly harming the ecosphere. Would you only accept this as fact after the event , or would there be a standard of evidence that would cause you to accept that prediction and act?

    I’m concerned that we lack the capability to accept and act on predictions we don’t like. I base this on the fact that a significant number of people still don’t accept evolution because they think it has implications that contradict their belief systems, even though it’s about as certain as gravity. What chance people will ever accept man made global warming as proven if it requires them to change how they live.

    …tom

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Kimble () says:

    What would it take? Good question. A few unfiskable studies would be nice. Some proper historical perspective. Improved or more advanced modelling. The absence of UN involvment (I just dont trust them anymore).

    The thing is Global Warming became the accepted “consensus” in the “scientific community” before any real critique was undertaken on the studies involved. The media picked it up and ran with it before these studies were truly put under the microscope, so to speak.

    You have to understand that people have been screaming “the world is ending” for thousands of years. Whilst previous outcries have been primarily based on religious sooth saying, more recently science, or rather bad science, has been used as irrefutable proof of an eveitable armageddon.

    Anyone remember the ice-age just around the corner? Anyone remember Paul Elrich saying the the 1980’s will be a decade of global starvation? Anyone remember the scientific studies which proved that the world would run out of oil in 1992?

    Noone has yet provided me with a believable scenario that shows that, even if there is man made global warming, that it is a bad thing. Earth has been hotter than it is now previously. Do you know what happened? Plants grew faster and life flourished. What do wehave to be so afraid of?

    And dont be fooled, evolution has not been proven. I personally think it makes sense, as it fits nicely with what I know, but apparantly there are a few problems, and it wasnt a religious kook who told me about them BTW.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. jackal () says:

    The Un created the global warming story so they could distract people from Nuclear sciences, whilst cold-fusion energy production (fission= bad as radioactive material is the outcome; fusion good as the by-product is inert). However the monkey has grown into a very big gorilla, and people believe the crap no end.
    The research that has been produced was produced to make it look like the world is warming too fast (a bit like research performed in public health divisions of medical schools- where the outcome is always nasty capitalism, close the gaps, redistribute the wealth).
    Why can’t the greenies explain why the Hebrides (off Nthn Scotland) have verifiable evidence that they grew plants suited to a temperate/ warmer climate than NZ only 6000 years ago?
    It’s like Gordo stated above, the world has a cyclical warming cooling pattern, which is estimated to last 15-25000 years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Gaz () says:

    One only has to look at the places that the temperature readings have been taken to realise that they are flawed – the 0-2 degree average increase is recorded mainly at weather stations in the US. And these stations are predominantly on the outskirts of cities. So no wonder temperature increases – the cities are warming up as they industrialize!
    Global warming really is a myth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. dim () says:

    ‘And dont be fooled, evolution has not been proven’

    Uh . . . what exactly do you think ‘hasn’t been proven’ about evolution?

    If you mean there are debates about which evolutionary models are correct, or that there is still no mathmatical way to demonstrate how complex macromolecules could have evolved through random selection, or something along those lines, then yeah, evolution has not been ‘proven’. If you mean the jury is still out on whether life evolved naturally over billions of years or was created by an all powerful being in seven days then evolution has very definitely been ‘proven’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. JR () says:

    Dim you are dealing with flat earth creationists here who truly believe global warming is a UN conspiracy. What do you expect rational debate?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. reid () says:

    I agree exactly with Kimble, evolution is the best bet so far, but I too am starting to hear there are things that don’t gel in evolution theory. My understanding is very light on this, so I’ll just leave that issue there, other than to say there is no evidence to establish our current science is the whole truth so why be instantly dismissive of challenges to the status-quo?

    Re: global warming. I view it like smoking in the 70’s/80’s – someone says it’s not good but Rothmans says it’s not a prob so no worries. Does anyone know where anti-global-warming scientists get their major funding from? (I don’t, I’m asking.)

    What scares me is that according to ice core samples, descent from normal climate into global ice-age conditions happens very rapidly, within 10 or so years, and once it starts even if one instantly changes behaviour, it won’t help.

    One looks at extrapolations of emissions arising from (e.g.) the Indian and Chinese vehicle fleets, the concurrent reduction in the ability of natural vegetative absorption, the inexplicably un-coordinated efforts of vehicle manufacturers and fuel providers to develop non-hyrocarbon alternatives, and one wonders if everyone on the planet is a fucking moron. Apart from us of course.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. reid () says:

    Sorry I got so excited by imparting my wisdom I forgot to paste the link that started the thought train in the first place.

    http://www.rense.com/general61/CONCERN.HTM

    D’oh

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. JR () says:

    Reid, truth is never absolute. The point is that there is actually some evidence to support whatever the dominant paradigm might be. In the case of global warming this is reasonably substantial evidence and I’m sure those that subscribe to it are usually open to looking at alternative theories that question it. I don’t get this feeling from others in this debate. They seem determined to lock it into an ongoing culture war where everything is viewed thorugh the prism of left/right, conservative/liberal, UN/ fuck knows what they see as a workable alternative.

    Climate change and global warming is something I would have thought is open to continual debate and not something we should think about in terms of ‘values’.

    It really is about the survival of the species so we should at least be serious about it and not reduce it to the partisan point scoring that Gordon and others seem to be locked into.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. TomV () says:

    The phrasing I’ve seen from scientific types ( not general media) has tended to be cautious about global warming, for example the University of Otago geography departments website cauiously supports human influenced global warming on ” the balance of evidence “, which is scientist talk for we think so but are quite prepared to be wrong. The problem is that general media tends to be averse to *maybe*

    BTW the evolution not proven thing is like saying gravity isn’t proven. There are numerous parts of the mechanisms of gravity that we have less than complete understanding of, and it’s likely our thinking in that area will change over time as our understanding improves, but that doesn’t make gravity any less real. Our understanding of evolution is at about the same point. It does happen, but we’re still working out the fiddly bits and some underlying mechanisms.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. jackal () says:

    OK JR, can you explain to me why the last ice age was 30000 years ago, and yet the Hebrides had a temperate climate 5000yrs ago, and it is now a hostile periarctic environment today?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Gordon King () says:

    What a load of crap written in this thread, especially the BS about threats to the species survival. Fucking girly men seem to think we’ll all sit on the beach for years, slowly drowning as the the sea level slowly rises over our feet.

    What proof would I accept? A climate model that when applied against CO2 (etc) data from past centuries explains with a high degree of accuracy the temperature records that actually occurred. Until they can do that, they’re just the modern equivalent of inspecting entrails and tea-leaves.

    As I said before, I hope that there is global warming. It will make NZ a far more profitable producer of primary produce and speed up the growth of my radiata plantations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. sagenz () says:

    gordon i will do my bit to help your business by pissing in the sea next time i swim in auckland.
    it should have about as much effect as humans have had on global warming

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. JR () says:

    Yes but as an avid skier it would be a disaster for me Gordon. Love the term girly men. Misogyny and reaction are an evolved combination

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. dim () says:

    ‘What proof would I accept? A climate model that when applied against CO2 (etc) data from past centuries explains with a high degree of accuracy the temperature records that actually occurred.’

    Here you go Gordon – the American Meteorological Society statement on global warming should help set you right: http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html

    The gist of the global warming debate at a scientific level is this – the earths temperature has risen over the last two centuries. So has the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Everyone accepts this (except Gordon, and sundry other ‘global warming? Great – I can wear a tee-shirt and shorts all winter’ types. The scientific community is still arguing over (a) what if the rise in temperature was caused by some other non-human factor – which is possible, probably CO2 is the major factor but there are others; and (b) what will the effect of a global rise in temperature be on the earth.

    Question b is where people get stupid. Various environmental groups have been predicting the end of civilization in six months time since the late seventies, Gordon guesses that our forests will grow faster, and there are various dire predictions of extreme weather and glaciers wiping out cities, but the most likely scenario is the melting of the polar caps – which is already underway – resulting in a rise in sea levels. It’s true that humans are a resourcefull species and will find ways to work around the gradual drowning of our coastal cities, but wouldn’t it be preferable to try and stop global warming and not have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars moving Wellington and Auckland a few miles inland every couple of decades?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Gordon King () says:

    JR I have carefully considered your disasterous loss of skiing time and on balance, I believe that my gains outstrip your losses, so in the brutal world of utilitarian calculus, I win and the world will in fact be a better place. We thank you for your sacrifice to the greater good.

    Calling someone a girly man is not mysogyny and you’d have to be some sort of faggot to believe otherwise.

    Dim I have read the link you provided and far from setting me straight I can only conclude that you grant it authority due to its reliance in the UN IPCC conclusions. As I have stated before, when those models can accurately model the climate as we know it to have been over the past centuries, then I will grant it the credibility you seem to give it sans evidence.

    I invite you also to quote where exactly I denied that the globe was warming, indeed I have done nothing but pronounce enthusiastically that I hope it is so. But apart from this use of strawmen arguments, you summarise the debate well. What, if any, of the warming, if any, is human induced. What is the best way to deal with the results of the warming.

    As I have so decisively demonstrated above, we must carefully weigh costs and benefits and rightly conclude that whatever is good for me personally, will be fine for mankind (oops excuse me jr, wouldn’t want to offend your inclusive spirit) personkind.

    Are the icecaps reducing? What period of time are we talking about, 100 years, a millenia, an eon, an epoch? How many standard deviations from the norm are they? If it isn’t us causing it how are we going to stop it, could we stop it even if it was?

    Almost all the global warming industry is driven by higher superstition and an incredible hubris as to the extent of our truely pitiful footprint. Again I demand models with proven predictive merit, then I will take you seriously. Until then you’re all just the latest manifestation of the worry-warts and doom-mongers that have graced humanity for at minimum the length of written human history.

    As Tertullian said in 200AD, “We men have actually become a burden to the earth

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. JR () says:

    So pleased to have stimulated such eloquence and certitude. You got the faggot bit right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Gordon King () says:

    Ah yes, that would explain not only your hilarious pretense to open-mindedness and your certainty as to the lack of certain truth, but also your utter inability to recognise a style of humour that doesn’t begin knock-knock.

    My tame homosexual over at NZPundit suffers the same character flaws. In fact I told Akbar just the other day if he doesn’t stop writing like a 1st year philosophy student he can go and start posting over at the site of that other great limp-wrister, David Farrar. (Although David is still in the closet and shelters shamefully behind incredible claims of virgin deflowerings and lothario levels of one night standings. Still he won’t mind me outing him, it being a small sacrifice for me being able to make the point I want.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. David Farrar () says:

    I’m just waiting Gordy for the right man of course, being you. You’ve tried wives so you must be ready for a husband.

    And if Ackbar is your tame homosexual, does that make Other Pundit your untamed homosexual?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Emily () says:

    Oh David, here I am casually browsing your site, only to find you propositioning Gordon. While I understand only too well the lure of his attraction I must insist – for the good of humanity you understand, you leave him free to improve the gene pool:)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. jackal () says:

    ah ms pundit, how nice to see you, does gordo know that you want top provide more junior pundits?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. David Farrar () says:

    Holocaust denial is not morally neutral. It is in fact a criminal offence in many European countries.

    Denial of 50 year old history, to which there is an over-whelming amount of evidence, is totally different to having contrary opinions on how much the world is warming and why, consideirng the huge amount of expert scientists on both sides of the debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Kimble () says:

    I am hardly a flat earther, and I stand by my statement, evolution has not been proven. Or at least not to the same level as gravity. Physical laws are always proved with greater certainty than archeological and biological laws. The problem with evolution is that it is not always clear how a species goes from one state to another, particularily when the intermitent steps are either illogical or dont keep with the natural selection theory. A quick example is the elephants trunk. Right now it is useful, but previously when it was smaller, how much use would it have been? How would a really small trunk have helped elephants dominate their niche?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. David Farrar () says:

    Emily – I am happy to leave you the job of improving the gene pool with Gordon, as long as you consider naming one of them after me :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote