Dumb Girl, Dumb Boy

The problem with the Internet is all the stupid people.

In the past day I have read people who have said that Global Warming isn’t happening, it’s just that the Sun is getting hotter because we only have a few more centuries left until it dies. Someone who tried to say that electrons orbiting an atom [sic] look exactly like stars orbiting the centre of a galaxy, so God must have created it. And someone, an American, an English speaker who said, “What you stupied fuck!!! The linement of the earth to the sun… Gobal warning moves the earth… Moving the Eqarer… Moving up to American’s and droping to the point of Afirica… Idoit… Look it up…”

I don’t know what that means either.

I also had someone get in touch asking to read all of my posts about Dumbgirl. It made me miss arguing with the idiots.

Comments
23 Responses to “Dumb Girl, Dumb Boy”
  1. Jas says:

    Tish pshaw Gia, don’t you know it’s not PC to call it “global warming” any more? You’re supposed to call it an “energy policy related planetary climatic variance”.

    Am I the only one who gets really annoyed at oil companies calling themselves “energy” companies? Oil isn’t energy and we should stop calling it that; it’s an immensely valuable feedstock for drugs, plastics, fertilizers, explosives and many other things needed to tame this weird wild world. Burning it to make heat ought to be illegal. It’s a crime.

    (enough tangent…)

  2. Jase says:

    If only the causes of rising temperatures also caused rises in IQ. They seem to be almost in inverse proportion right now.

  3. R.J. says:

    I guess it’s the price we pay for free speech and the uncensored internet, but I agree that the crap and drivel escaping from those with less than one brain cell inside their cranium can cause a bad attack of the cringes for the unfortunates who happen to read it – or, in the case of the American ‘writer’, decipher it!
    I note you’ve changed your blog address again, Gia. Recently back from Scotland, so I’m still catching up on events and just read that you were ‘spammered’. Bastards! If the big phone companies want to do something good for the internet (which they don’t) they could start by cracking down on those pratts.
    Still, in your case, I guess it’s the price of stardom ;-)

  4. Amy P says:

    The question is not whether global warming exists but if man caused it. A recent study showed that the earth is at its hottest point in over 400 years. So… 400 years ago Cadillac’s were causing global warming?

    Historically, the earth’s warming and cooling have naturally risen and fallen in cycles long before the industrialization of civilization. The earth was warmer in the 10th century than it is now, and it cooled dramatically in the middle of our second century (the “little ice age”), and then began warming again. Temperatures were higher from about 800 to 1300 AD than they are today, and the 20th century represented a recovery from the “little ice age”. Remember, Norsemen settled Greenland (which is now anything but “green”) a thousand years ago. The land was hospitable to agriculture and settlement, which inhospitable to it today.

    That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be as environmentally responsible as possible. Humans have an obligation to care for the environment if not for the earth herself, if not for ourselves, than for our posterity.

    I don’t think people are denying global warming, but many argue against the Al Gorish theories.

    Check this out:

    http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs169-97/

    “Kilauea Volcano on the Island of Hawai`i emits about 2,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2) gas each day during periods of sustained eruption. Air pollution caused by sulfur dioxide and other volcanic gases became a frequent problem on the island in mid-1986, when the volcano’s ongoing eruption, which began in 1983, changed from episodes of spectacular lava fountaining (shown here) to a nearly constant but quiet outflow of lava and gas. Left: U.S. Geological Survey scientists sampling volcanic gases from Kilauea.”

    In other words, mother earth produces more deadly toxic pollutants than man is capable of producing, and naturally cleanses and purges herself of the damage. We have more to fear from active volcanoes than human industry. But again, this is not to say we should be irresponsible in matters of man made pollutants.

  5. Jas says:

    Amy, that’s not what “the hottest point in 400 years” means. Studies have shown that the variation in solar constant can’t explain all of the warming we are seeing. The important question, then, is will stopping human-driven warming save our civilization, or will we end up at the same temperature anyway. I would guess that the sun is going to get hotter anyway (as it is burning hydrogen and becoming richer in helium) but that stopping human-driven warming will get us another few thousand years to work out a solution to the solar-driven warming.

  6. Amy P says:

    Jas, my point about 400 years has to do with assigning blame. Is it man’s fault that the earth has warmed to its highest point in the last 400 years? If so, how?

    This is the study itself. You have to scroll down a bit to get to the chapters.

    http://darwin.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=5

    The study says:

    “Widespread, reliable instrumental records are available only for the last 150 years or so. To study how climatic conditions varied prior to the time of the Industrial Revolution, paleoclimatologists reply on PROXY EVIDENCE such as tree rings, corals, ocean and lake sediments…..”

    What the National Research Council is trying to do is reconstruct the past 2000 years of global warming based on this proxy evidence. It’s faulty science. The industrial revolution and modern miracles of modern man make it impossible to accurately use, in my opinion, such proxy evidence. Reliable instrumental records according to the source itself only goes back 150 years.

    The earth itself causes more problem for the environment than man, according to cycles and data based on history, and what we know about climates that pre-date the 150 year ago “reliable instrumental records.”

    Again, man should be mindful and respectful of the environment. No doubt. But the issue itself is about whether man has caused global warming. Since the trend has been going on for thousands of years it seems highly unlikely.

    I’m not sure how this is a stupid Christian issue. Maybe it’s the perception that Christians reject the liberal politics that unfortunately accompany scientific issues? I certainly don’t think there’s anything dumb about evaluating the historical context and reliability of the earth’s patterns based on what we KNOW, not on what we suspect via proxy evidence. That’s NOT good science.

  7. Mark says:

    Amy is right: it’s not a stupid Christian issue. It’s political. Although, of course, with Bush being a stupid Christian you could argue either way.

    http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/27/luntz-gw/

    Which is why, as the animatronic front for the Republicans, Amy repeats it and reproduces all the correct studies by the correct people that show the correct – and by “correct” I mean unclear, incomplete, inconclusive, or wrong, of course – results.

    “But the issue itself is about whether man has caused global warming.”

    No. The issue is whether man is affecting global warming on top of natural cycles beyond the planet’s capacity to balance itself out. And that particular “issue” is pretty much not one among actual scientists doing actual science.

    From: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/print?id=2119971

    —-

    “I have said consistently,” answered Bush, “that global warming is a serious problem. There’s a debate over whether it’s manmade or naturally caused. We ought to get beyond that debate and start implementing the technologies necessary … to be good stewards of the environment, become less dependent on foreign sources of oil…”

    The President — as far as the extensive and repeated researches of this and many other professional journalists, as well as all scientists credible on this subject, can find — is wrong on one crucial and no doubt explosive issue. When he said — as he also did a few weeks ago — that “There’s a debate over whether it’s manmade or naturally caused” … well, there really is no such debate.

    At least none above what is proverbially called “the flat earth society level.”

    Not one scientist of any credibility on this subject has presented any evidence for some years now that counters the massive and repeated evidence — gathered over decades and come at in dozens of ways by all kinds of professional scientists around the world — that the burning of fossil fuels is raising the world’s average temperature.

    Or that counters the findings that the burning of these fuels is doing so in a way that is very dangerous for mankind, that will almost certainly bring increasingly devastating effects in the coming decades.

    One small group of special interest businesses leaders — those of some fossil fuel companies — have been well documented by journalist Ross Gelbspan and others to have been fighting a PR campaign for 15 years to keep the American public confused about the wide and deep scientific consensus on this.

    They’ve aimed, as Gelbspan explains, to keep us thinking that (to borrow the president’s words this morning) “There’s a debate over whether it’s manmade or naturally caused” — though no open and thorough journalism this reporter knows of can find any such thing.

    How can you keep the uncertainty of climate change steady in a world of information? Reduce the amount of information available!

    http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060625/NEWS01/60624030/1009

    The world’s largest collection of climate data and information, which often is used for monitoring long-term trends that might harm lives and property and the nation’s environmental, national, homeland and economic security is having its budget reduced. Scientists will have to be laid off. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is its biggest client.

  8. Jas says:

    Actually, proxy evidence is very good science. Maybe you should learn something about the background of climatology before trying (and failing) to critically read a biased report?

    No real scientist doubts that mankind has changed and is continuing to change the climate. (For a good example, look at Australia. It took only a hundred thousand humans a few thousand years to turn it from a continental forest into a red desert.) Here’s a link for that. The real questions are:

    i) In what way are we changing it?

    We have some pretty good simulations now that show that we seem to be making it warmer and windier. We continue to refine and improve these; after all, our computers double in power every eighteen months or so.

    ii) In what way is the change likely to vary in the future?

    Will it carry on as it is, or will it get faster? Will it stop? Is there a tipping point? Methane clathrates seem to present a worrying possibility of a permanent tipping point for global warming.

    iii) Is the change desirable? Should we stop it?

    Everyone likes warm summers (except farmers who like there to be some rain). Everyone likes snowy winters (except electricity companies who have trouble keeping lines up.) Everyone likes a farmable Greenland (except the residents of New York and London who will be flooded out.) Etcetera.

    iv) What could we do to stop the change?

    Now, I hate cars as much as the next granola-munching hippy but to suggest that we stop using oil completely is pretty much insanity. The “carbon sequestering” schemes proposed by Mr Bush’s oil buddies are complete garbage too, though- that’s like trying to catch the CO2 in plastic bags before it leaves the car/refinery/steelworks/power station/whatever, it’s just never going to work efficiently. Cars aren’t the big problem, either; it’s really mostly industry, agriculture and power generation that we need to deal with. I’m not sure what the best thing to do is here.

  9. Darcy says:

    The Al Gorish theories????

    Ummmm, they are NOT Al Gore’s theories. His information is coming from scientists…you make it sound as if he just thought it up himself.

    I guess we can see how much of a chance his movie or book has of being taken seriously by the fundies, eh?

    Al Gorish theories indeed. Wow….

    No..it is not the perception that ‘Christians’ reject the liberal politics….it’s the fact that ‘Christians’ reject science that is so frustrating to many people.

  10. Darcy says:

    Hi Jas….Just wanted to say I couldn’t agree more with your feelings about the Oil companies referring to themselves as “energy” companies.

    Then again…it’s all in the way you spin it.
    Reality…what’s that?

  11. Sally says:

    {Testing}

  12. Eddie says:

    Amy,

    I left your blog because of the mis-information and personal attacks you poster there. Now you are spewing lies on Gia’s blog. With the exception of fake reports that the oil industry pays for, there is NO scientific question regarding what is causing the rapid rise of Global Warming. It is man made carbon emissions.

    It does not matter what the facts are to you. As long as the Smirking Chimp says something, no matter how ludicrous, you will accept it as fact. You still maintain WMDs were found in Iraq, that Bin Laden had a connection to Saddam Hussein , and that the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse was not coordinated.

    Oh, does criticizing the Pretender and Thief on a British blog make me a traitor like the Dixie Chicks? If so, I am in good company.

    Please check out http://climatecrisis.org/

  13. mitchell porter says:

    This mctupperware guy (quoted above) is a classic! He hates: Chevy trucks, Superman, people over 6’5″ who don’t do sports, and reading (“a way to control people, just like TV and religion”).

  14. Tom says:

    In fairness, Chevy Trucks are complete shit.

  15. Jas says:

    Uh, why is my comment still in moderation?

  16. giagia says:

    Jas, I wasn’t around. It was set to moderate comments containing more than two links.

  17. Jas says:

    Ahhh, understood :-)

  18. giagia says:

    Dumbgirl said, “A recent study showed that the earth is at its hottest point in over 400 years”… what she didn’t go on to say is that the report actually said, “recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia.”

    The proper scientific thing to do is to say ‘I don’t know’, if the data isn’t 100% conclusive. The whackies, because they are so used to extrapolating from ‘we don’t know about this’ to ‘God did it’, can’t understand that ‘not knowing now’ doesn’t mean ‘never knowing’, nor does it mean ‘what we know and understand now is the only way it can ever be’…

    Dumbgirl doesn’t bother to point out that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are “higher now than at any time in the past 650,000 years“. But then whacky Bush-loving Christians don’t believe that the Universe existed 650,000 years ago… so clearly that doesn’t count.

    She mentions that volcanoes produce greenhouse gases and says, ‘In other words, mother earth produces more deadly toxic pollutants than man is capable of producing’. Wrong. According to her figures if that Hawaiian volcano were active for 365 days a year and producing 2000 tons of SO2 per day, it would be responsible for 730,000 tons per year (we’ll ignore the fact that it’s NOT active 365 days per year). That’s peanuts compared to the amount of SO2 produced by coal-fired power plants in the US- the top 4 alone produce more SO2 than a constantly active volcano in Hawaii. Clearly nature does NOT produce more toxic pollutants than we do…

    I wonder though, does Dumbgirl think that because *we* haven’t caused it that we shouldn’t try and do anything about it? If her child is ill – through no fault of its own- does she take him/her to the doctor or does she not do anything because it’s God’s will? Even Dumbgirl isn’t *that* whacky. Why then does she feel the need to dig her heels in when it comes to the health of the Earth?

  19. giagia says:

    And clearly if Dumbgirl was a ‘good Christian’ rather than a Bush Apologist, she’d be thinking along these lines

  20. Jas says:

    I would say that anyone who believes in God has to also believe that we were given this planet as a gift, and to destroy it is surely therefore an offence against God.

    Then again, I apply actual logic where none exists, so who knows?

  21. giagia says:

    Clearly it would be an offence against God to not take care of the planet… but then I think people like Dumbgirl have been hoodwinked by Bush and taken further away from their God than they care to admit. I mean, Bush has got them believing that killing, torture and destruction (of the planet and of people’s lives) are good… and caring for people and the planet are bad…

    Tsk.

  22. Darcy says:

    Such an excellent point Gia. Says all that needs to be said, and then some.