Image: Matt Collins
I don’t know how many e-mails I have received from children who are terrified that 2012 will somehow involve the end of life as we know it, all because of an unfounded fringe religious prophecy that has received mass-market exposure with the release of a recent Hollywood movie. I have tried to reassure those children (and not a few adults) that this date represents nothing more cosmically special than the year of the next presidential election.
Having said that, however, I just realized there might be a genuine connection between 2012 and an end-of-days menace!
On the conclusion of the less than stellar Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change in December, ex-governor and former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, who many think may make a White House run herself in 2012, twittered the world with the following:
“arrogant&naive2say man overpwers nature”
Although the Copenhagen conference could have been criticized on many fronts, it is hard to imagine that Palin’s remarkable statement represents anything other than a misplaced religious end-of-days argument of the type that asserts confidence in human dominion over the earth—and that God will ensure the planet remains fine in the face of human progress, until God decides to end it all and the worthy ascend to heaven.
As we look around the world, there is hardly a place where humans have not “overpowered nature,” if I take that phrase to mean affecting the large-scale features of our natural environment. Global transportation allows me to circumnavigate the globe in less than three days with jet planes. Modern medicine has eradicated the once unstoppable scourge of smallpox, allowed in vitro fertilization and freezing of embryos for women who would otherwise be barren, and developed prenatal surgical techniques for correcting fetal heart defects in the womb. We are living in an era with one of the greatest extinction rates in recorded history, which began with wholesale slaughter of entire species for food and has progressed as we have dismembered a large part of what was the dominant incubator of life on earth, the rain forests. The nature of commercial fishing, something the ex-governor should know about given the importance of the Alaskan fishing fleet, has changed as we have literally fished out whole regions of the world’s seas.
These are just a few obvious examples, but because the future Fox News pundit was talking about climate change let’s consider something that is indisputable: the measured rise of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere is numerically consistent with that predicted from the output of human industrial activity.
This fact is not in dispute. What is in dispute, apparently by Palin, is whether this rise will have any effect on “nature.” It already has. Forget the change in temperature over the past decades. Increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere boosts, by gas-liquid equilibrium, the amount of carbonic acid in the ocean, which in turn lowers the marine pH level. And measurements of the pH level in the ocean over the past two decades show precisely the slow reduction that is expected from such a rise in carbon dioxide. As that pH level continues to fall on its present trajectory, it will eventually reach a point where calcium carbonate—a dominant component of shelled animals and coral reefs—will dissolve in seawater.
One should be free to question the detailed nature of model predictions about the future, but the evidence that humans can, do and will continue to “overpower” nature is so incontrovertible that to deny this fact is to live in a fantasy world. That reality is what we most need to grapple with to address environmental challenges and stimulate the economies of both the developing and the developed worlds. The thought that anyone whose beliefs could so override the evidence of those realities might be a serious contender for the White House scares me more than any Hollywood disaster movie could.
This article was originally published with the title End-of-Days Danger.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
76 Comments
Add CommentVery interesting reflection, Lawrence. But just a pity that most of those deniers with so much influence don't mind the evidence. They just want what they believe to be true. It is even possible that they know scientist are right, but they prefer to lie to people to keep going with their sinister agendas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHopefully there is still many people who trust science, and those are voters who will avoid Palin and her tribe get to the White House.
As in many other things, the key is to provide people with tools that let them think for themselves and make well informed decisions. Evidence-based decisions.
Here we go again -- the credulity of the public regarding global warming -- sorry, 'climate change' -- having been just about exhausted, we cast around for a new source of convenient and profitable panic; and what do you know? The oceans are acidifying.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you control the data you can make any claim whatsoever; but fortunately steps are being taken to get the data out of the hands of AGW credulists and subject them to some independent and objective analysis. With any luck this will give us results we can trust.
@jonjermey: Presumably by "results we can trust" you mean "results that I like"; and I'm also guessing "independent and objective analysis" is just your way of saying "analysis that yields results that I like".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the credulity of the public has been exhausted (and I personally see no sign that it has) then it because of the intellectual pollution - propaganda - being emitted by the armies of denialists, conspiracy theorists and lobbyists, not because climate change has been revealed to be a scam.
It the worlds climate scientists are so smart that they can fool the whole world (with the exception of remarkable individuals like jonjermey) into believing a lie - all for the sake of "profitability" - then why aren't they doing something other than climate science? There are far easier ways to make money - and far more of it - than science. Like... mining and burning fossil fuels, for example...
CaCO3(solid) + H2O + CO2(gas) --> Ca++ (aqueous) + 2 HCO3- (aqueous)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisor: shells + water + carbondioxide gives aqueous solution of chalk.
This I still remember from my lessons chemistry!
What chemistry did Palin follow? Homeopathy?
@jonjermey: Presumably by "results we can trust" you mean "results that I like"; and I'm also guessing "independent and objective analysis" is just your way of saying "analysis that yields results that I like".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this__Look in a mirror and say that, dude!
"...If the credulity of the public has been exhausted (and I personally see no sign that it has) ..."
That explains AGW! The blind are leading the blind!
"...It the worlds climate scientists are so smart that they can fool the whole world..."
Who said it was the climate scientists! The real ones doing real work are not so united on it anyway, and it looks like they're letting the real consensus out...
...into believing a lie - all for the sake of "profitability" - then why aren't they doing something other than climate science?..
Yeah with so much faith in the superhuman morality of climate scientists you should start a Gullibles Anonymous...
Trutherator, you fail.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am a Knight of the Order of Sarah, and to defend our lady I will say this. Being as man-made CO2 is all of .00385 by weight of the atmosphere and the "numeric correlation" of increase of this trace gas with an average world temperature trend that now appears to be in limbo, well this average was calculated by somebody from IPCC data maybe?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo I trust that all involved did their jobs ethically and unemotionally? Oh, I won't say they are deliberate liars, but I will say that the real task of AGW proponents has been to rule out all other possible factors.
That's not an easy task, ruling out all other possible factors in something as complex as climate change, and really, that's what Mrs. Palin says in text msg.
So beware, Krauss, (who I note is no more a climate scientist than I am) ere I leave off tilting at the windmills in order to have a go at a pinhead windbag.
Palin's twitter "arrogant&naive2say man overpwers nature" is stated by Krauss to be in the context of Copenhagen, i.e., global warming. Yet he attempts to discredit her statement using examples from transportation, medicine, and biology -- all totally irrelevant to climate change. Finally, he focuses on CO2 as the cause of climate change, and how Palin is wrong because human activity is increasing CO2. However, the seldom-stated but obvious fact is that global climate change is a natural consequence of ice age cycles, with the current planetary warming trend being a natural consequence of the last ice age ending about 12,000 years ago. Thus, the cause of ice age cycles is also the cause of current global warming. Current scientific consensus is that the culprit is not atmospheric greenhouse gases -- the atmosphere simply does not have sufficient heat capacity to drive ice age cycles -- but astrophysical phenomenon, such as variations in the earth's orbit around the sun and precession in the earth's axis of rotation, which in turn drive changes in ocean currents -- because oceans DO have sufficient heat capacity to drive ice age cycles. Because man cannot change the orbit of the planet or the flow of ocean currents, man is powerless to affect climate change, including current global warming, in any significant way. These facts totally vindicate Palin and debunk both Krauss and the man-made global warming community in general. To recast his conclusion: the thought that anyone whose beliefs could so override the evidence of reality can be a columnist for Scientific American scares me more than any Hollywood disaster movie could.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEND OF DAYS DANGER! Great title demonstrating the 'GOBBLY-GOOK' that follows. One more professor that has to taint science with "political mumbo jumbo". Your words Lew are classic secular progressive bull, full of half truths, and scare statements. The earth has been in one very big "feedback control system" since the beginning of time and if you were capable of understanding history instead of physics you would know that your discussion is totally meaningless! Also, you could have easily written this gobbly gook without the use of Sarah. Sarah can sure rile-up a secular progressive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisArticles like these detract from the purpose of Scientific American and belong in failing progressive magazines like Time, NewsWeek and Us News and World Report. Scientific American should be ashamed of politicalizing their magizine.
This article exemplifies one important aspect of the climate change debate: politics do not belong anywhere in objective science. The 1000 year old scientific method outlines a 4 step process for validating (not proving) a theory: observe, hypothesize, predict, test. Einstein stated that any test failure invalidates the theory - "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." Whether or not you believe that man is influencing the climate, it is clear that there is no formal published theory that satisfies these 4 steps; especially the TEST step. It is astonishing that the scientific community did not accept Einstein's theory of General Relativity for 15 years until the eclipse experiment confirmed gravitational lensing, yet politicians would have you believe that there is overwhelming consensus in the scientific community that man is influencing the climate. Where is the all encompassing formula that accurately predicts climate change and where are the conclusive results of the experiments? The simple fact is that it doesn't exist, so why aren't all legitimate scientists exhibiting the same degree of skepticism that Newton and Einstein faced with their theories? Instead, we are told that a culmination of certain statistical samplings (observations, not predictions) should put all skepticism to rest. Apparently it hasn't. Obviously, the next step is to overtly (or covertly) belittle those that disagree (corporate America's middle management politics paradigm) as opposed to refining the theoretical model to accurately predict the outcome of legitimate experiments, thereby validating the theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'll be the first to admit that I'm not the smartest person on the planet. Mr. Krauss, perhaps you can help me to better understand some of your statements in a follow up.
1. Sarah Palin's comment: arrogant&naive2say man over�powers nature followed by your comment "Palins remarkable statement represents anything other than a misplaced religious end-of-days argument of the type that asserts confidence in human dominion over the earthand that God will ensure the planet remains fine in the face of human progress, until God decides to end it all and the worthy ascend to heaven." - where in Ms. Palin's statement is any reference to divine intervention? Isn't it possible that her statement merely suggests that we might think we are smarter than we really are?
2. Your statement "As we look around the world, there is hardly a place where humans have not overpowered nature, if I take that phrase to mean affecting the large-scale features of our natural environment." - it is true that, with the help of energy, we have found some ways to exploit nature, but, on a macro scale, can we control the weather, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanos, drought, tsunamis, lightning, the tides, disease, famine?
3. Your statement "We are living in an era with one of the greatest extinction rates in recorded history" - exactly how long have we been tracking extinction rates? How does the extinction rate compare to the rate of new specie discovery? What percentage of extinction is either directly or indirectly caused by humans?
4. Your statement "As that pH level continues to fall on its present trajectory, it will eventually reach a point where calcium carbonatea dominant component of shelled animals and coral reefswill dissolve in seawater." - when do you anticipate that this will happen. We are currently at 1.4x the pre-industrial carbon dioxide level. Trilobite fossil shells date back 500 million years and at that time the atmospheric carbon dioxide level was 16x the pre-industrial level, yet there was adequate undissolved shell to fossilize. How is this possible?
This article exemplifies one important aspect of the climate change debate: politics do not belong anywhere in objective science. The 1000 year old scientific method outlines a 4 step process for validating (not proving) a theory: observe, hypothesize, predict, test. Einstein stated that any test failure invalidates the theory - "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." Whether or not you believe that man is influencing the climate, it is clear that there is no formal published theory that satisfies these 4 steps; especially the TEST step. It is astonishing that the scientific community did not accept Einstein's theory of General Relativity for 15 years until the eclipse experiment confirmed gravitational lensing, yet politicians would have you believe that there is overwhelming consensus in the scientific community that man is influencing the climate. Where is the all encompassing formula that accurately predicts climate change and where are the conclusive results of the experiments? The simple fact is that it doesn't exist, so why aren't all legitimate scientists exhibiting the same degree of skepticism that Newton and Einstein faced with their theories? Instead, we are told that a culmination of certain statistical samplings (observations, not predictions) should put all skepticism to rest. Apparently it hasn't. Obviously, the next step is to overtly (or covertly) belittle those that disagree (corporate America's middle management politics paradigm) as opposed to refining the theoretical model to accurately predict the outcome of legitimate experiments, thereby validating the theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'll be the first to admit that I'm not the smartest person on the planet. Mr. Krauss, perhaps you can help me to better understand some of your statements in a follow up.
1. Sarah Palin's comment: “arrogant&naive2say man overpowers nature” followed by your comment "Palin’s remarkable statement represents anything other than a misplaced religious end-of-days argument of the type that asserts confidence in human dominion over the earth—and that God will ensure the planet remains fine in the face of human progress, until God decides to end it all and the worthy ascend to heaven." - where in Ms. Palin's statement is any reference to divine intervention? Isn't it possible that her statement merely suggests that we might think we are smarter than we really are?
2. Your statement "As we look around the world, there is hardly a place where humans have not “overpowered nature,” if I take that phrase to mean affecting the large-scale features of our natural environment." - it is true that, with the help of energy, we have found some ways to exploit nature, but, on a macro scale, can we control the weather, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanos, drought, tsunamis, lightning, the tides, disease, famine?
3. Your statement "We are living in an era with one of the greatest extinction rates in recorded history" - exactly how long have we been tracking extinction rates? How does the extinction rate compare to the rate of new specie discovery? What percentage of extinction is either directly or indirectly caused by humans?
4. Your statement "As that pH level continues to fall on its present trajectory, it will eventually reach a point where calcium carbonate—a dominant component of shelled animals and coral reefs—will dissolve in seawater." - when do you anticipate that this will happen. We are currently at 1.4x the pre-industrial carbon dioxide level. Trilobite fossil shells date back 500 million years and at that time the atmospheric carbon dioxide level was 16x the pre-industrial level, yet there was adequate undissolved shell to fossilize. How is this possible?
Ok I could spend time addressing the assertions of this idiot about "Climate Change" but other are doing that. I would address his belief that he understands her beliefs and therefore can devalue them when his own statements show he doesn't know squat. Case in point:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Although the Copenhagen conference could have been criticized on many fronts, it is hard to imagine that Palins remarkable statement represents anything other than a misplaced religious end-of-days argument of the type that asserts confidence in human dominion over the earthand that God will ensure the planet remains fine in the face of human progress, until God decides to end it all and the worthy ascend to heaven."
This is a common view by science types of religious types. Both sides say the other just doesn't understand and wouldn't things be better if they just abandoned thier faith or lack there of. It's easy to demean what you dont understand. So in an effort to enlighten I will address two points made in the above quote.
First point: "that God will ensure the planet remains fine in the face of human progress"
The Bible clearly teaches man was given dominion over the earth and THAT WE ARE TO BE GOOD STEWARDS OVER IT. Yes folks the Bible teaches us that it is our responsibility to care for our planet. The Christian God is not a thunderbolt slinger like Zuse who controls all aspects of the planet and weather and uses natural disasters as punishment on the wicked no matter how many deluded fools with supposedly Christian tv shows say that kind of garbage.
Point two: "the worthy ascend to heaven."
That statement reveals a fundamental flaw in his understanding of Christianity. The bible teaches that none are worthy. It uses those exact words "None are worthy, not not one, so that no man can boast". True enough there are and have been plenty of so called Christians throughout the ages who felt they were holier than thou.
What it boils down too is that there are plenty of people who claim to be scientists who aren't. There are peer reviews and accredidations that weed these kinda crack pots out. Likewise there are plenty of people who claim to be Christians, but there is no peer review because it is not our place to judge another's salvation. We can call sin for what it is but we can't judge another's relationship with God. Thats between God and the individual. There is no accredidation. The Bible says of men "By thier fruits will you know them" meaning you can judge a man by his teachings. If it doesn't square with the Bible it isn't true.
For one thing trilobites presumably had casings of chitin not calcium carbonate. Not even remotely related substances. I'm not going to argue the other points...this debate has become a belief game. The scientists do have some evidence to support their claims. While the evidence may not be enough to prove man's role in global warming, it is prudent to mitigate its possibility. I'm amazed by the intensity of those who don't think humans play a large role in ecosystems in our world. Being a microbiologist, I'm well aware of the interactions of the various species of plant, animal, and bacteria. It is certainly possible we are causing some of the problems associated with GWing....the Earth is a limited resource and should be treated as such. Lest while I doubt that every living thing will die due to overpopulation, GWing and destruction of habitats...its safe to say that sometime down the line science may not be able to come through and the whole ecosystem as we know it will come crashing down. Life is resilient and humans may survive this but at a much reduced number. Regardless if GWing is caused or influenced by humans it is a smart thing to do to prepared for the climate change. Farming areas will likely be relocated and contention plans needs to be in place. If humans are involved it, will probably be too late before we come to a meaningful consensus to do much about it. Kind of reminds me of Noah...funny how the tables have turned.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom the article "unfounded fringe religious prophecy"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm sure glad the author put the word "unfounded" in there. I don't think I could have quite caught his drift with only the "fringe religous prophecy" part.
Why does anyone pay any attention to what a hockey mom says. Her knowledge of science is relegated to that of a highschool kid. While arguments for or against climate change have resulted in debates over the value of scientific data that suggests we humas carry the burden of guilt for global warming, the detractors from this scenario should perhaps take a good look around in our world af melting glaciers and polar ice caps, not to mention shrinking sea ice and rising sea levels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo state that the ice ages have been controlling facors in our climate history is hardly a new theory. To say that the we have had a post-glacial warming during the last 12000 years is grade 8 science, but to say that this trend should all of a sudden take a giat leap forward during the last 200 years without some form of unnatural intervention is pure chimera or too simplistic.
The political disinclination to curb polution has distinct relations to economics. The fact that life will go on as usual with only minor attempts to reduce levels of CO2 and other, even more potent environmental polutents, will result in diminished suvivability for future generations of man. Reducing the worlds population by more than half would go a long ways toward stabilizing our environment and it may indeed become a reality if nothing is done to change the course of global warming.
Good riddance to dumb species.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat climate change won't fix, can easily be fixed virally.
Humans are arrogant. How many times has it been said that "we are destroying the world!" Really? Earth has been around for at least 4 billion years. It's survived asteroid impacts, cataclysmic earthquakes and volcanism that makes anything from modern times seem like a hiccup.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not arguing for or against (A)GW, but it seems to me that the Earth will be just fine one way or the other.
Humans on the other hand...
But somehow we equal human life to the Earth's existence. Sorry, but not the same thing.
Sometimes I wonder why scientists even bother telling us about our world; and about ourselves. And yet, he we are, paying them to do that very thing. LISTEN to them, people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEasy there , Ragerardi. You might just offend Lawrence and his pointy-headed compatriots with actual fact-based common sense. The phrase "educated beyond their intelligence" seems to apply to the man made global warming enthusiasts. Extreme arrogance explains the conviction of such men.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYaay!! Another dimwit producing article. I'm so glad to see the Palin-supporting denialists here in full-force, spewing the exact same, already debunked by actual evidence failures to understand the reality of the situation. OF COURSE, this is all a conspiracy by Al Gore to sell more...um...well, I'm not sure how Al Gore is getting rich off of this, but it doesn't matter if there's evidence, I feel it MUST be so, therefore it is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWelcome, dimwits, we always love to hear the stupid crap you spew. It's fueled research that has been successfully disproving it for decades...or the last five minutes, because climate change is something that was cooked up by scientists extremely recently in order to ensure Obama won the election. Isn't that how the theory goes?
Please note: yes, I used ad hominems to describe you. No, that doesn't mean AGW is false. I don't have to be nice to you, I don't want to be nice to you. You're religious fanatics who aren't swayed by evidence, facts or reality. If I thought for half a second there was any chance you'd even listen to the other side, I'd speak cordially. You don't, therefore I can enjoy myself and call you names.
Spoonman- Why do you believe that if someone doesn't adhere to your view, which is based on tenuous science at best, they are religious? I don't follow any religion or believe in any higher power whatsoever. I question things and have to use logic and reason to come to a conclusion. Not faith or blind belief.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs far as Palin goes...
I highly doubt that there are many Palin supporters who read SA. A slight minority at best.
To all you non-believers in global warming... People like Palin, Bush, and Chaney have you so dumbed down that you refuse to accept the facts when they are right under your nose. The earth can handle anything we humans can throw at it and survive. Like one commenter said, "it has been doing that for billions of years." The question is, "can the earth correct what we are doing to it before what we are injecting into our water, air, and land kills us?" We are a cancer on this planet and when we become so overburdening that we criple all its ecosystems...it will eliminate us. Look at what the earth is already doing to control these over populated, with human, areas. The earth used, in a short period of time, three earthquakes to cut down on some of the population and over crowding areas, and there will be more. So, you do not have to believe in global warming just because Vice-president Al Gore brought it to your attention...believe in it when you see the earth start correcting the damage we are doing to it, and like it will after the soltice of 2012. Whither you believe the soltice of 2012 will happen or not is not important, this is real and the changes will take place like it has been doing every twenty-six thousand years since the earth formed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoes Dr. Krauss realize that we already have someone in the White House who knew nothing about science before he was elected? Or is it because Mrs. Palin is a woman, so he thinks a woman could not know anything about science? Mrs Pailin has probably spend more time in direct contact with wild nature than he has and is the daughter of a scientist. Male Chauvinist Dr. Krauss!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe news media is dying due to misplaced loyalties, and as a result are "selling" anything with a catastrophic headline! Now would be a good time for a Stalin, Hitler, or Mao to come on the scene for the Media to embrace and sell more ad time! In the meantime, they are feeding us Al Gore and his best selling climate farce . Science, indeed!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpiff
"Why do you believe that if someone doesn't adhere to your view, which is based on tenuous science at best, they are religious? "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Tenuous science" that was done by hundreds, if not thousands, of scientists across multiple disciplines from different countries over the last four or five decades? My views are built on a mountain range of evidence. Where's yours come from? If you've got a single shred of contradictory evidence, I'd love to see it.
"I don't follow any religion or believe in any higher power whatsoever. I question things and have to use logic and reason to come to a conclusion. Not faith or blind belief. "
Who says you have to believe in a higher power in order to be religious? All you need is a firm commitment to ignoring evidence and reality...
Don't worry you will never walk alone atleast me along your side I promise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFunny how it was just another science, until it was politicized and vilified by the historically pro-science group of critical thinkers, the religious conservatives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy now, if you don't understand some aspect of the evidence, you have proof that it's all just made up by the latest politician to take an interest in it.
God on the other hand, and his childish desire to have wealthy americans become even more special simply by believing in him, is very real.
As the frightened villagers light their torches and chase down the maaaad scientists yet again...
JamesDavis - I forget the periodicity of the Solar system's alignment with the galactic plane, 24K yrs. or whatever, but if it is to produce apocalyptic event here on Earth, there should be some dramatic evidence of its periodic recurrence. I'm not aware of any precisely cyclic apocalypse that is aligned with the galactic alignment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm sorry but I have to address this. You seem to be saying that the so-called "Mayan Prophecy" really means something major is going to happen, when we have no read evidence to suggest it. You say that no human alive has been here when the Earth lined up with the sun and the galactic center, and while that may be correct in the most literal sense, the fact remains that such an alignment means absolutely nothing, it won't cause anything to happen. People have this weird idea that this is something special, when in reality at any given time you can draw a straight line between the Earth, the sun, and countless other objects in the universe. Using a simple calculator I just calculated that the acceleration the Earth feels from the black hole in the galactic center is 6.63E-15 m/s^2, which is one tenth of a quadrillionth of the acceleration the Earth feels from the sun.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are really grasping at straws here. I assume the previous president you are referring to is Bush, and we all know how that went south real-fast, so I can't really see what your point with that statement is. Also, Palin being a moron has nothing to do with her being a woman, just look at footage of her from before the election (or after it, although that's less popular), it doesn't take a genius to figure out that she's the antithesis of genius.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just say that it's a simple thing, mankind are exterminating another kinds of life ... can you see??
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJamesdavis,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour message is almost biblical. The "non-believers" in global warming will be smitten by the all knowing all powerful earth. Sounds like you believe in global warming with a religous ferver. Perhaps this explains the irrationality of your posts.
By the way, Bush accepted global warming. The Democrat controlled Senate, not so much. The Senate failed to enact Kyoto. The Senate has not passed Cap and Trade. Sarah Palin has nothing to do with any of that, so I'm not sure why you are so fixated on her. Maybe in West Virginia women should be in the kitchen pumping out babies and not engaged in any serious discussion.
Gov. Palin's comment, and indeed the whole AGW debate, are about politics, not science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAGW alarmism reduces to schemes for transfer of wealth and full-time employment for those writing alarmist books and articles. Palin is almost certainly right that these efforts will not control global warming.
Scientific American would be well served by being more scientific.
To science daughter: When you say that Palin might know more science because "has probably spend more time in direct contact with wild nature" is the same kind of reasoning she made about knowing foreign policy because she sees Rusia from her window. Are you Palin?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo science daughter: You suggest Palin knows more science because "has probably spend more time in direct contact with wild nature". This is the same kind of reasoning Palin herself made about knowing foreign policy because she can see Rusia from her window. Are you Ms. Palin?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthis spark a few (dozen) comments on TreeHugger
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/03/2012-end-of-days-menace-real-sarah-palin.php
The author knows Sarah Palin's comment was in regards to the climate only - she wasn't saying that man hadn't made any difference in the numbers of various species around the world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs this what is meant by the use of a "straw man"?
As a hunter who knows that if a species is hunted to extinction, this is bad for hunters, Mrs. Palin would probably want to do more to save wildlife than the average person.
Terrible article!!!!!
I think the writer has a very vivid and absolutely idiotic liberal fossilized brain with a wonky imagination if he takes this comment by Palin...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"arrogant&naive2say man overpwers nature" and somehow takes that as a statement to ignore everything scientific and that God will determine all...
what an ignorant idea by Krausse, but then we have to remember his brain is polluted by the liberal mantra and he has no voluntary choice but to try to smear Palin.... it is like a fungus that liberals have growing in their psyche...
you know what I read in that comment by Palin? that puny humans can not overpower the suns rays, or earthquakes, or tides, or the rhythm of nature...
we all know that man's affect on climate change is a fraction of that of natural causes... so her comment is absolutely true..
to take her comment and try to create the idea that she believes in some religious end of days is typical of the wacky liberal bullcrap that the left wing socialists try to pin on Palin even though their own lies about global warming are shown to be full of holes and a rip off by greedy liars like Al Gore, who is aiming to make billions off of green investments, along with his buddy and socialist financier, George Soros, the man who wants to destroy the US dollar for profit just like he did with the British pound. George Soros, the Nazi guard who confiscated Jewish property during World War II and now is a leader of the Arianna Huffingtons, Daily Kos and all the other socialist idiots.
You have a knack for obtuseness, Mr Krauss. Probably Ms Palin was pointing to facts such as that human activity yields only 6 of the 189 billion tons of CO2 entering the atmosphere each year. And your examples actually further fail to address her point. But you may want to note that the extra CO2 appears to account for our steadily increasing planetary plant life as detected by satellite monitoring.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think it's pretty obvious that Mr. Krauss is an anti-Christian bigot. Why else would he read all of that out of a small tweet?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBTW, JamesDavis >> Bush believes in global warming
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI hate how political this magazine has become. Not only do you give up a lot of subscribers (myself included), but we've lost what used to be a tremendous asset for educating the public about science. Now there is so much bias - more in subject matter choice than in articles like this for that matter - that it can no longer be trusted to give the objective truth. And don't think I'm the only one whose noticed, the comments regularly tell the story.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry, but this just saddens me. I used to love it.
Sigh. I remember when Scientific American was about science, not politics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have to confess my shock at this article. If Dr. Krauss constructs his research methodologies with the same shoddy foundation that he displays here then he is not to be trusted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see no definitive correlation over time between the statements of politicians and the legislation that they enact. How many Obama campaign promises have fallen by the wayside? Yet we are supposed to assume from this article that a tweet from a politico is incontrovertible evidence of impending doom? Are we supporting the idea that Palin is more honest than Obama about her legislative agenda?
Please spare us this insipid intellectual elitist posturing. This entire article reeks of derision being heaped on the public for their rejection of AGW arguments. The truth is that if the scientists doing the research spent a bit more effort assiduously proving their scientific position instead of playing stupid political games then you would have a lot more credibility with the public
Articles like this do not help the cause. They only serve to show that our supposedly learned scientific community is more prone to temper tantrums than doing their work. If you want to prove AGW is real then you have to get back to work and prove it again. That is the position that you are in because of previous political maneuvering, so don't repeat the mistake.
Honestly, if you had a scrap of intellectual integrity you'd be ashamed of this post. You set up a straw man about "deniers" — not to mention the whole use of the "denier" code word — you resort to the whole "consensus" argument when it's quite clear at this point that there are serious issues with the basic science, and just for lagniappe apparently, to toss in the notion that Palin, a Christian, is connected to the New Age 2012 notion, which is not based in Christianity and for which I defy you to cite any actually Palin reference.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm old enough to remember when Scientific American was, primarily, a science magazine, instead of another political advocacy magazine. I really miss that magazine.
Holy shit!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou flat earthers are AMAZING! Global warming is a hoax morons. A Hoax! The e-mails from East Anglia, and others prove it.
Then you have that crook, Al Gore, the Bernie Madof of the climate change hoaxers.
It's all about scamming stupid people out of their money. The same liars who are pushing this crap were telling us all to worry about a coming "ice age" 30-35 years ago!
Co2 is not a pollutant morons, Plants REQUIRE it to live.
Losers.
Yes, humans can create and/or destroy hurricanes, at will. Tsunamis and earthquakes? Nothing to it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvery now and then I think the AGW skeptics go over the top, especially when they paint periodicals like Scientific American as "in the tank for global warming alarmists". But then I read an article like this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat kind of objective scientist reads "arrogant & naive 2 say man overpowers nature" and conclude that it represents, " a misplaced religious end-of-days argument of the type that asserts confidence in human dominion over the earth"?
I presume the author is of at least average intelligence or he would not be writing columns here. But how does he read Palin claim that it's arrogant and naive to say man overpowers nature and conclude that she means just the opposite, that she's claiming human dominion over the earth? This is politics, not science.
"it is hard to imagine that Palins remarkable statement represents anything other than a misplaced religious end-of-days argument of the type that asserts confidence in human dominion over the earthand that God will ensure the planet remains fine in the face of human progress, until God decides to end it all and the worthy ascend to heaven."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrankly, it's hard for me to comprehend that you pulled that conclusion from only 8 words! She might very well believe that, but you need to present more evidence. I thought that's what science was about: go where the evidence leads you BUT NO FURTHER. I guess I was wrong. This essentially ad hominem argument proves nothing and only makes you look bad.
But the central problem is that global warming "science" was "settled" on data now clearly shown to be biased and the result of biased peer review. The trust people put in scientists has been betrayed. The hypothesis must be shown to be true from the ground up in public. It's a long road, but it's the only way.
FYI, I only have a BS in math, I'm an atheist, I accept evolution and I don't believe in ESP, talking with the dead, astrology and other nonsense.
It looks to me that AGW enthusiasts are shifting the basis for their assertion that humans are warming in two ways:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, to re-designate the whole proposition as "climate change" and then to argue that any deviation from "climate normal" must be the result of human activity. We AGW deniers will immediately object that there is not a "climate normal" and there never has been, further there is no real evidence that anecdotal weather events are the product of anything other than today's much more dramatic TV coverage of what in the past would not have been extraordinary events.
Second, this winter AGW proponents are now admitting that Northern Hemisphere temps and blizzards seem to have been worse nearly everywhere, but that the Southern Hemisphere has been frying.
Since the start of the whole AGW hypothesis the Southern Hemisphere has loomed large because the S.H. is sparsely populated and is mostly ocean. In fact, it is mostly oceans that do not contain the busiests seaways since the Suez and Panama canals were built, so the temperature records down there are relatively sparse.
This sparseness of data has lead some "researchers" to fill in data voids with their own suggested numbers as to what the numbers might have been or ought to have been. I believe that the net effect of this estimating has been to make the pre-1970 climate in the S.H. appear to be cooler than it really was, which thus makes it easier to claim that recent decades were warming.
This "let's make up numbers" game has even been extended to data voids across Antarctica, where it resuls in AGW enthusiasist being able to claim that pre-1980 things were very cold in Antarctica, and lately the temps are definitely warming up.
Don't believe any of that. Also be wary of claims that S.H. temperatures for the last year up until today are warmer than normal, or that bigger summer ice break-offs around Antarctica mean anything given that Antarctica always experiences massive ice shrinkage in summer, but the ice replacement seems to be as vigorous as ever.
Mr. Krauss pedals intellectual dishonesty for which the pages of the Scientific American ought not provide a market.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo intellectually honest person can question the truth of the statement: "It's arrogant and na�ve to say that man overpowers nature". Sure, Mr. Krauss attempts to propose a fatuous definition of overpowering nature, i.e. "affecting the large-scale features of our natural environment." Is "affecting" the same as "overpowering"? Of course not, which is why airplanes still fall out of the sky, new viruses kill tens of thousands, new plants and critters and formerly extinct ones are discovered in their hundreds, and no honest scientist willing to subject his work to the scrutiny of skeptics (i.e. abide by the scientific method) really believes that mankind can control global warming/cooling. But then such facts do not matter to an intellectually dishonest hack like Mr. Krauss.
You know, progressives who twist, spin and invent facts to attack leading conservatives demonstrate a fanatical detachment from reality. Mr. Krauss' chicanery is on par with Maureen Dowd's, who in a recent column accused Rep. Joe Wilson of racism based on something he didn't say but Ms. Dowd heard. Rep. Wilson said to Pres. Obama, "You lie!" Ms. Dowd heard him say, "You lie, boy!" Thus, on the basis of things conservatives don't say or do, progressives heap all manner of calumny on them. No wonder they're credibility is all but gone and Americans are disassociating themselves from the progressive movement in droves.
Mr. Krauss pedals intellectual dishonesty for which the pages of the Scientific American ought not provide a market.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo intellectually honest person can question the truth of the statement: "It's arrogant and naïve to say that man overpowers nature". Sure, Mr. Krauss attempts to propose a fatuous definition of overpowering nature, i.e. "affecting the large-scale features of our natural environment." Is "affecting" the same as "overpowering"? Of course not, which is why airplanes still fall out of the sky, new viruses kill tens of thousands, new plants and critters and formerly extinct ones are discovered in their hundreds, and no honest scientist willing to subject his work to the scrutiny of skeptics (i.e. abide by the scientific method) really believes that mankind can control global warming/cooling. But then such facts do not matter to an intellectually dishonest hack like Mr. Krauss.
You know, progressives who twist, spin and invent facts to attack leading conservatives demonstrate a fanatical detachment from reality. Mr. Krauss' chicanery is on par with Maureen Dowd's, who in a recent column accused Rep. Joe Wilson of racism based on something he didn't say but Ms. Dowd heard. Rep. Wilson said to Pres. Obama, "You lie!" Ms. Dowd heard him say, "You lie, boy!" Thus, on the basis of things conservatives don't say or do, progressives heap all manner of calumny on them. No wonder they're credibility is all but gone and Americans are disassociating themselves from the progressive movement in droves.
humans have not overpowered nature, ... wow Palin never heard if Indian rain dances.... of course man can control the weather... thank Gawd we elected the smart ones.... they represent all 57 States in this great country.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisroflmao
AHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! LOL! You guys are so funny!! Wait the sky is falling! OH NO Mr. Bill!! Help help!! Global warming !! OH NO!! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh. wait. Your serious. What a bunch of MAROONS. bugs bunny GLOBAL WARMING IS THE BIGEST SCAM IN HISTORY!
Al Gore invented the internet also!!! The sky is falling!! oh no!!! help we will all burn up!! OHHH NOOOOO!!!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbunch of progressive libratard dumbocrats. AHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! so funny. this is one of the BEST comedy sites around!!!! what a bunch of moroons!!
End of Days may get some validation, as there are a whole lot of looming natural disasters that could whack humanity infinitely harder than what man-caused problems (other than all-out nuclear war) are likely to do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSuper-volcanoes and asteroid or comet strikes demand to be considered as extinction-level events, as do more subtle things like the Earth's magnetic field reversing and leaving us at the mercy of the sun if we get cascades of solar radiation unexpectedly. Also gamma ray bursters if they are aimed our way can do much the same thing, with no warning.
A repeat of the New Madrid earthquake event circa 1805 would kill tens of thousands and could result in castastrophic flooding across the mid-West. Similarly, the La Palma tsunami which would originate in the Canary islands would drown much of America's East Coast. You can never rule out some type of influenza or plague coming along that moves quickly and kills nearly everybody.
My money, however, is on a New Little Ice Age, which can come on quickly enough to disrupt grain production in Canada, Ukraine, the Dakotas, and Montana and thus immediately cause famine world wide. More acres of farmland in Montana are devoted to feeding Japan that there is farmland in Japan. If Montana quits producing, Greenpeace will notice immediately that the Japanese Navy is escorting whaling vessels and they not be playing around with water cannons and acoustic harassment, they will be sinking ships.
Mr. Krauss begins his commentary by relating how his email inbox is -- we are to believe -- teeming with notes "from children who are terrified that 2012 will somehow involve the
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisend of life as we know it, all because of an unfounded fringe religious prophecy that has received mass-market exposure with the release of a recent Hollywood movie."
To which Hollywood movie is Krauss referring? "Left Behind" or "The Omega Code," based on the apocalyptic novels of evangelist Tim LaHaye? Maybe "End of Days," a thankfully
forgotten pre-gubernatorial Schwarzenegger flop? No. Obviously, Krauss meant director Roland Emmerich's "2012," a deafeningly loud, CGI-laden popcorn-munchfest that is loosely based on the belief of the moribund human-sacrifice Mayan culture that time itself ends in 2012.
Regardless of the fact that 2012 prophecies have *nothing* to do with the stated beliefs of Sarah Palin, Krauss constructs a rickety bridge to the I Hate Sarah clique with this line: "[I]t is hard to imagine that Palin’s remarkable statement [i.e.,“arrogant&naive2say man overpwers nature”] represents anything other than a misplaced religious end-of-days
argument of the type that asserts confidence in human dominion over the earth—and that God will ensure the planet remains fine in the face of human progress, until God decides to end it all and the worthy ascend to heaven."
It's "hard to imagine" anything but that, Mr. Krauss? You somehow (if you will pardon the expression) divined all of that out of a "tweet" that didn't mention a single word regarding prophecies of the rapture?
One wonders what Mr. Krauss' reaction was to two other movies that terrified children with "unfounded fringe religious prophecies" about catastophic world situations: "The Day After Tomorrow," written by self-described extraterrestrial abductee Whitley Strieber & conspiracy theory maven/radio talk host Art Bell, and Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" (which appropriated CGI depictions of eroding glaciers from "Day After Tomorrow" and passed it off as factual).
This column is a is a glittering, sparkling example of bitter political rhetoric disguised as scientific debate, unworthy of Scientific American or any serious thinker (much less a
credible scientist).
Mr. Krauss begins his commentary by relating how his email inbox is -- we are to believe -- teeming with notes "from children who are terrified that 2012 will somehow involve the
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisend of life as we know it, all because of an unfounded fringe religious prophecy that has received mass-market exposure with the release of a recent Hollywood movie."
To which Hollywood movie is Krauss referring? "Left Behind" or "The Omega Code," based on the apocalyptic novels of evangelist Tim LaHaye? Maybe "End of Days," a thankfully
forgotten pre-gubernatorial Schwarzenegger flop? No. Obviously, Krauss meant director Roland Emmerich's "2012," a deafeningly loud, CGI-laden popcorn-munchfest that is loosely based on the belief of the moribund human-sacrifice Mayan culture that time itself ends in 2012.
Regardless of the fact that 2012 prophecies have *nothing* to do with the stated beliefs of Sarah Palin, Krauss constructs a rickety bridge to the I Hate Sarah clique with this line: "[I]t is hard to imagine that Palin’s remarkable statement [i.e.,“arrogant&naive2say man overpwers nature”] represents anything other than a misplaced religious end-of-days
argument of the type that asserts confidence in human dominion over the earth—and that God will ensure the planet remains fine in the face of human progress, until God decides to end it all and the worthy ascend to heaven."
It's "hard to imagine" anything but that, Mr. Krauss? You somehow (if you will pardon the expression) divined all of that out of a "tweet" that didn't mention a single word regarding prophecies of the rapture?
One wonders what Mr. Krauss' reaction was to two other movies that terrified children with "unfounded fringe religious prophecies" about catastophic world situations: "The Day After Tomorrow," written by self-described extraterrestrial abductee Whitley Strieber & conspiracy theory maven/radio talk host Art Bell, and Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" (which appropriated CGI depictions of eroding glaciers from "Day After Tomorrow" and passed it off as factual).
This column is a is a glittering, sparkling example of bitter political rhetoric disguised as scientific debate, unworthy of Scientific American or any serious thinker (much less a
credible scientist).
Sarah Palin NEVER said "I can see Russia from my window" or "I can see Russia from my house."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's always funny when people who get their news from Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and "Saturday Night Live" call Sarah Palin dumb.
not much of an article....but a lot of the comments have had me laughing more than i can remember....keep it up...thanks...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPalin or no Palin, the fact that the major contributors to the current AGW fad had to hide and/or fudge their data, and actively seek to suppress contrary data, is tacit admission that their hypotheses and theories could not withstand scrutiny. That means it is lousy, or to be kind, incomplete science, currently unworthy of being considered as the basis to overturn the economies of the world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust one question: who is responsible for the 15-18 foot rise in sea level during the last interglacial, approximately 120K years ago? Keep in mind that the AGW fanatics are crying "wolf" about a few centimeters of sea level rise...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat Sarah Palin says is actually a non-issue. She is just a mouthpiece of her handlers and I liked her better anyway when Tina Fey did her. But what concerns me more is the menace that Kraus reads into the rising partial pressure of carbon dioxide. We know that the rise has been essentially linear since 1958 but the warming attributed to it is anything but linear. Lets take a look. In the sixties and seventies climate was stable, perhaps cooled a little to raise fears of a coming ice age in some scientists. Then starting in the late seventies and in the eighties and nineties there was a warming trend that was dubbed the "late twentieth century warming." Right in the middle of it, in 1988, Hansen stood up in front of the Senate and testified that global warming had started and that its cause was carbon dioxide we were putting into the air. If carbon dioxide really was the cause of that warming then it must have wakened up sometime in 1977 and decided that this was a good year to start warming up the world. As a physicist Kraus should know that such behavior from a gas that had been in the air for twenty years without causing any warming is simply physically impossible. And it is proven impossible by the fact that this warming simply did not happen. That is because satellite measurements show that temperature oscillated in the eighties and nineties, up and down by half a degree, but did not rise for twenty years. This means that the temperature rise shown by NASA, NOAA, and the Met Office during these years is cooked. As in falsified. "What Warming?" which is available on Amazon.com, shows how it was done. This makes Hansen's testimony false. And since IPCC, Kyoto, and Copenhagen were all built on the assumption that what Hansen said was true the entire global warming movement is built on false premises and should be abandoned.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I don’t know how many e-mails I have received from children who are terrified that 2012 will somehow involve the end of life as we know it, all because of an unfounded fringe religious prophecy that has received mass-market exposure with the release of a recent Hollywood movie. I have tried to reassure those children (and not a few adults) that this date represents nothing more cosmically special than the year of the next presidential election."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile I find it unlikely that children are writing to Krauss in any significant numbers, much less even know who he is, the most likely scenario is that these children were forced to watch the fact starved "Inconvenient Truth", and were likely frightened by "Chicken Little" Gore, recipient of the Nobel Peace prize, an Academy award, and C-'s and D's in the few science courses he took in college.
come on guys the world as we know wont end if we manage it properly
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe facts are very much in dispute, as is the veracity of the climate hysteria community. If indeed the increase in CO2 corresponds to the measured industrial discharge of CO2 then it folloows that industrial discharge cannot possible solely responsible. The author seems to forget that photosythesis is the primary cause of CO2 emission and it has been conclusively measured that such plant life is increasing more rapidly than it is dying and has been doing so since the end of the Little Ice Age.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen their is the ocean problem, where climatologists talk out of both sides of their face. One moment they are telling you that the warming of the earth is causing a positive feedback that releases CO2 out of the ocean, the next moment they are telling you the increased CO2 concentration is lowering ther ocean's pH. Which is it? Is the CO2 dissolving into the ocean or evaporating out of it? If you're going to make nonesense up to fit your anti-Western political agenda, try not to contradict yourself.
I think Palin's comment states exactly the opposite of Krauss' interprestation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe statement
arrogant&naive2say man over�powers nature
to me translates as: "[It is] arrogant and naive to say [that] man overpowers nature."
"FYI, I only have a BS in math, I'm an atheist, I accept evolution and I don't believe in ESP, talking with the dead, astrology and other nonsense."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven if you were a Bible thumping, young earth Divinity major who believes his star chart gives him the ability to talk to animals (i.e. a typical Presbyterian), your point would still be valid. The AGW theory lost credibility because its proponents got caught cooking their data while extending the imprimatur of "science" to political hyperbole and fear mongering via the UN IPCC.
This is not "science", it's political activism, and therefore it has the authority of political activism. And what does the AGW movement want to do to us? Jack up our taxes and the prices of everything we buy, thereby crippling our already weakened economy, in order to ... well, to do what? Demonstrate global leadership in economic suicide, or perhaps show moral superiority through self-imposed austerity and eventual economic death? No thanks.
The story of the AGW movement is very much like the story of ObamaCare to date. (1) A dubious premise is raised (the health care system is broken and needs radical reform), (2) political activists and politicians take an already dubious premise and varnish it so thickly with lies, disinformation, cooked data and hyperbole that the folks lose faith in the varnishers and the premise, (3) legislation to "fix" the theoretical problem is proposed that is so over-the-top in terms of economic impact and the expansion of state control that the folks reject it, (4) politicians and political activists respond to the folks' rejection with contempt and political/parliamentary chicanery, believing that they can rely solely on the authority of their elected offices to force their own will on the folks.
Now, how should one suppose chapter five in this sordid tale will play out?
I, after 53 years, just realized the difference between fiction and reality. Fiction, including what Palin says about us not overpowereing nature, is a form of communication and must abide by the laws of communication. It must relate to something known. It must taste like chicken. Reality does not have to taste like chicken. The ancient writings she calls the word of God, The Bible,(I'm a believer) says God will destroy those that destroy the earth. According to the ancient writings, Jesus' own people did not give him a fair trial when Rome did. According to a teacher at MIT school of business, even graduate students don't get it. I believe it. This means politicians don't either. My studies say the teacher doesn't get it either. I say the cognitive limitation is due to selfishness and arrogance. The world rests on the back of a turtle. I tried telling my friend this and he said something about gravity, etc, etc, but I said "THINK ECOSYSTEM!" No man knows the date, because it is directly related to population density and nobody knows the exact density at any given point, but we can make educated guesses. The parable of the seeds in the Bible is Nurtural Selection, every bit as important as natural selection and the cornerstone of EVOLUTION! THE BEAST (ANIMAL) IN REVELATION 13 IS ME. I AM CARBON BASED, ATOMIC NUMBER 666. duh.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe animal that came out of the caves and destroyed Nagasaki was NOT CAVE BEARS, MS. PALIN! All living things are machines (mechanisms). The one that nearly killed me is recognized by mainstream as alive, H. pylori. The one that gave me life is recognized (by some) as alive. the earth. I call her Terra Amor. Her proper name is the same as mine, Mary Magdalene. I can feel you raping me, Ms. Palin! Weeki Wachee Springs is now Meeki Machoe springs! Matrix means womb. Jesus impregnated Mry right in front of her sister! Mary chose the better part!
Before Ms. Palin can possibly understand the Bible, she must undrstand what it is. It is a bunch of little MARKS. My name is not only on you, Ms. Palin, it forms your MIND. My name is literally in your forehead. I tell people I'm the chosen one according to the Dead Sea Scrolls, the King of Kings according to the Bible and people argue. What they are effectively saying is God is not mysterious. I have a dollar that sya I know god better than anyone on earth. Palin, you are an obamanation. You are a house divided.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am the devil incarnate, my wife told me so before she died, but evil is NEVER ME! It is my duty to tell my children, the parisites of earth, they are little devils. Yes, I spelled that right. Humans, by nature need role models. It is illusion that there are more than two. McCain helped me to put one of the last pieces of the puzzle into place when he called Obama a celebrity. All politicians are! I am scientifically correct. Hughie Thomasson died here and Ms. Paris Hilton got kicked by a horse here. On the 3rd anniversary of when I killed my big brother on June 3rd, 1974, a black cloud followed me to the Led Zep show and rained it out. The result is history. A rain of water made a mob mentality go down like a Led Zeppelin. The yellow pages are filled with Paris Hilton wanna bes. Sad but true. On any given day, a child is being sodomized. SODOMIZED!!!!!! And the perpertrator was once a perfect little angel like Ms. Palin used to be!!!!!!! What gives????? This is a glaring flaw in the education system. Woe to the teachers and preachers. Some things never change. MANagement is the toughest job on earth. That's why God gives man an early death relative to woman. Crap runs uphill and downhill. The politicians have all cheated on the test. Everybody knows when one cheats on the test, they cheat themselves out of BRAINS. The politicains are our senile fathers. People throw money at them and expect them to do the impossible. Don't blame them, king customer. Take the keys away! They aren't fit to drive! Be kind! There is only one good way to do this. Plant gardens, bring income below a taxable level, and pay them with food! Beat your weapons into plowshares! I love you little devils. MEEK STUDENTS MAKE GEEK STUDENTS. I've never met a meek Christian. Not one. Translation: I've never met a Christian!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI forgot to mention that ghosts are real. Shortly after the death of Eileen J. Garrett, Judy Garrett, a country bumpkin form Brooksville, Florida, started seeing ghosts. I didn't believe. I do now. My big brother is watching ya'll. When he left earth, he was a 22 year old angry young WHITE MALE, with flaming red hair and beard and a lazy eye. He is now in eternal torment. He died over our little sister. It is a complicated story. Life ain't Simple, Parisites. He will never get his rage out on John Couey types. He'll spend eternity trying. Like me, George Washington, and Galileo Galilei, he had a mutation on his melanocortin 1 receptor gene. "When Prince Michael stands for the children........."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHell's warden had to be a junkyard dog. Now I know why Dad stabbed him. He was the toughest dude in town (debateably). Earth's king had to be an eldest SURVIVING MALE CHILD. YOUNGER BROTHERS HAVE A MORE FEMININE SIDE, STUDIES SHOW. Jesus had one. It is evident when he said "oh Jerusalem, how i'd have taken you under my wings as a hen does HER brood."
On 9-11-99 my only begotten son was hit by a truck on his bike. On 11-9-99 I was hit. I fell off in slow motion and have been studying time ever since. It occured to me there has to be someone else. There is. He is in March's Pop Sci Mag. He had relatively big money and modern texts backing him. I had big honesty and ALL texts backing me. Checkmate! Then I found out it was destiny and I am now at square one!!!!!!! I reckon I'll always have more questions than answers. I truly have eternal life!
Never in a gazillion years did I dream that in trying to build a time machine I would be led to Ponce De Leon. He obviously did not come far enough up Florida's West Coast. No matter. He would have never understood that the earth was a woman that needed to be coaxed to produce the chemical that would slow aging tremendously. Look at progeria. If it can go one way, it can go the other! There is a modern day Gordian knot. The day I soved it, was the day I discovered it existed! You CAN push a car with a rope! I tell people that if they want to go to the year 3,000, they must learn the language and it will take a thousand years, and they tell me they don't want to live that long. I'm surrounded by liars! When they get a life threatening disease or injury, they are the first to call 911! They are the first to get cosmetic surgery when a wrinkle appears. Liars!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientifically, a religion is a strategy to cope in a harsh environment. Even here in Brooksville, Florida it can get harsh for a homeless guy. Witness the recent cold snap and the snow in 1977. Attitude is part of the climate. (Attitude is merely an arrangement of particles and fields).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientifically there are only two religions. The tyranny that the so-called communists had during the cold war and the socialism that America exhibited during the cold war. America allowed Christ, the only true socialist into the country. A lady with my initials was instrumental in taking Him out of the schools and the same year the best President ever was killed. Money is not bad, Love of money is.
The tyrants are coming to an end. Why? Becuase the strategy is self-defeating.
Modern adults multi task without taking into account the side effects of their actions. The librarian just told me I have too much time on my hands. The proper way to multi-task is to slow down and think about the side effects. All I wanted to do was save the planet and it's inhabitants. I figured if the adults could see Har Megiddo and it's aftermath the kids wouldn't have to. It appears the geek is gonna get the girl, too!!!!!!!
Soylent Green. The oceans died, the food chained collapsed, and we were left with just each other to eat....also, The Road....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSoylent Green's premise was that the ocean died and the food chain collapsed and we were left with one remaining food source...each other. Also consider Cormac McCarthy's The Road. The GOP's slavish devotion to big business is going to destroy us all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this