A great example of the difference between true denialism and basic ignorance

I and the readers of this blog would probably be better off if I just ignored this guy, but I’m repeatedly drawn to his mad scribblings because I can’t help but be curious about what sort of ill-informed attacks on reality he’ll produce next.
Anthropomorphicgenic (thanks, people) climate change is an extremely fertile issue for wingnuts to till. They seize upon it for a number of reasons: There exists plenty of legitimate uncertainty as to both the extent of its effects and what should be done about it; they neither care about nor understand the underlying scientific particulars, making the trumpeting of stupidity that much easier; and most importantly, they judge to be something invented and upheld solely by liberals intent only on defrauding the public for purposes of financial gain.
A look at the post in detail:

While scanning The Drudge Report for newsworthy items that inspire me to comment on,

Okay, that’s a bright red flag right there, but every house of loonycards needs a foundation.

I came across 2 articles bracketed together. The first that the federal government is contemplating instituting a “cow tax” to combat the harmful environmental effects of raising cattle. The other headline? ‘Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979′ The sea ice headline has disappeared while contemplating writing this post. However, the original story is still on the web – HERE.

Leaving aside the fact that headlines, disappearing and otherwise, do not engage in contemplation, the idea behind this imaginary federal tax plan–and I’ll get to that shortly–has nothing to do with the levels of sea ice today versus those in the year 1979. One could just as easily pick a recent year in which ice levels were lower–say, 2005, 2006, and 2007, when ice levels reached their three lowest points since satellite tracking was instituted 30 years ago (and that graphic is from the article to which Gribbit himself linked). The return to 1979 levels–reported, of course, by those lying liberal climatologists Gribbit hates so much–has occurred entirely in the past several months, largely in accordance with what happens at the same time every year.
But all of this is moot, because there is no such plan in the works. The idea that such a plan exists stems from a November press release supplied by the American Farm Bureau Federation. The EPA lacks the authority to impose such a tax even were that its aim and has never proposed such a thing, and the AFBF itself has admitted as much.
Gribbit would do well to consider why articles like the one that got him steamed are taken offline before deciding to use them as “newsworthy items” that inspire him to rant.

My question is, now that it is being widely reported that Global Warming actually stagnated in 1998 and global temperatures have actually decreased .5 degrees C in the past 2 years,

2008 was indeed the coolest year since the turn of the millennium. It was also the tenth warmest year since climatologists began tracking such data in 1850. This is just another misapplication of the term “climate,” which relates to trends. But Gribbit doesn’t know any better–he’s just swallowing and excreting what he reads on sites that serve up unremitting streams of nonsense.

why in the world would the federal government be contemplating a tax on cows?

As a purist and a nitpicker I’d prefer to see this worded as “a tax on owning cows.” The cows themselves won’t have to pony up a dime.

First the obvious. Those in charge in Washington are tax happy. They’ve never seen a tax proposal they haven’t liked.

Of course. But if you read the post Gribbit wrote six hours after churning out this one, you’ll see him complaining that Obama is promising tax cuts; rather than express relief, he calls this “hypocrisy.” Gribbit and his ilk never leave any doubt that they care very little, if at all, about the actual fate of the country; they just want to vent their spleens, consistency be damned.

Secondly, because no matter how much evidence you can slap them in the face with, they will cling to this moronic idea that man is solely responsible for the warming of the planet from 1750 – 1998.

Well, Gribbit doesn’t refer to any such evidence, but this is not surprising since he’s just given birth to a two-headed straw man. I know of no scientists who claim that human industry is solely responsible for climate change in any period, and I certainly know of none who reach as far back as 1750, when there were not a lot of cars tooling around the world’s highways and very few coal plants in operation. Hell, people like Gribbit didn’t even have Internet access 259 years ago.

They ignore evidence proving decreased sunspot activity is actually responsible for the recent decline in temps therefore they ignore evidence that the increases in sunspot activity between 1750 and 1998 actually contributed to the rise in temps.

Let’s assume there is an established “recent decline in temps” that contributes meaningfully to the body of knowledge in the area of climate change, and that “proof” that solar activity is (solely) responsible for this exists. How would this lead to the conclusion that scientists (or liberals, or both) ignore all effects of solar activity over the past two and a half centuries? A central problem in determining the effects of climate change attributable to human industry is the background variance owed to numerous natural factors. Scientists understand this and integrate it into their work. Gribbit, meanwhile, assumes nothing exists between the inky black of “man is responsible for all climate change” and the bright white of “it’s all about nature, baby.”
There are so many instances of bland misconceptions and toxic logical fallacies in this one passage that it seems certain that its draftsman will never sniff the remotest boundaries of educability on this and many other subjects.

And thirdly, admitting failure is not their strong suit.

Yes, because science is not self-correcting; ideology and staunch partisan misinformation campaigns propagated by and through the clueless rabble is always the surest route to a society’s progress. And no Republicans have ever been anything but forthcoming about their mistakes, especially Dick Cheney.

Admitting they are wrong won’t be happening. For the next 10 years or so, while their massively expensive “solutions” to man’s contribution to global warming (which they’ve recently re-named climate change) continue to eat up the world’s economies, they will cling to the notion that the cooling trend is some sort of blowback effect of global warming.

I’m not sure what these massively expensive proposed solutions are or who, exactly, is claiming that cooling is a result of warming. But Gribbit’s not big on citing sources when he’s on a roll, so this will remain a mystery.

Their recent generic term “climate change” is a change in semantics designed to make them right when they are actually wrong.

If Gribbit had the faintest grasp of what he so ardently rails against, he would know that this is far from an exercise in semantics. Scientists use the term “climate change” because it accounts for the fact that processes that can engender warming of the planet as a whole (such as melting polar ice) can produce local cooling effects.
Gribbit, in attempting to paint libtard climatologists as engaging in dishonest wordplay, may in fact be thinking of the countless semantic ploys executed by bibtard creationists (“Biblical creationism” begat “creation science” begat “Intelligent Design” begat “teach the controversy” begat “academic freedom”). Also, I think he should rename his blog “Designed To Make Me Right When I’m Actually Wrong” so as to spare the future destruction of countless ironographs.

Man’s contribution to the changing weather patterns of this planet is so miniscule that if we all ceased to exist today, the current trend would continue unabated until the cycle concludes. Then it will begin to warm just as it did in 1750.

Someone needs to deliver a Nobel Prize to an undisclosed address in Ohio. Immediately.

A “cow tax”? Why not. I’m sure the economy would benefit from an increase in the cost of food. And I’m sure that increasing grocery expenses, which would harm the poor most, will endear the Democrats with the American people.

Food prices have risen alarmingly in the past couple of years. What liberal policies, I wonder, are responsible for this?

Advertisements
  1. #1 by Dunc on January 6, 2009 - 11:13 am

    Anthropomorphic climate change? Now that’s something I’d like to see… ;)

  2. #2 by nas on January 6, 2009 - 4:11 pm

    Great post… I love when people take the time to respond to this crap just when I am feeling completely out of energy to do so.
    One small correction: in paragraph two you mention “anthropomorphic” climate change when you mean “anthropogenic.”

  3. #3 by Barry on January 6, 2009 - 5:22 pm

    The “they’ve recently started calling it climate change because…” meme has been passed around the right-wing blogosphere with zero evidence for a while now. I know, quelle surprise…
    The term appeared on my radar on the eighties, but it’s doubtless much older. A quick use of Google Scholar throws up this 1966 paper, Climate change impacts on forests.

  4. #4 by dean on January 7, 2009 - 5:41 pm

    Yes, but just tonight the “intrepid journalists” at our local television news station ran a story about the cow tax, complete with interviews with several concerned (understandably, since they were relying on information from the reporters) farmers.
    Since this is the same news organization that once ran these stories:
    “Man Killed by House on Snowmobile” (about some drunk snowmobiling at night who was killed when he ran into a house)
    and
    “Man on Track Killed by Train wearing Headphones”
    (about a man hit and killed by a train. I still maintain that had the train NOT been wearing headphones it could have heard the man and avoided him.)
    First they cut the copy editors, now they seem to have cut the “investigative” part from their journalists. What next?

%d bloggers like this: