Those Insulting Anti-Equality Arguments


Scott Shackford writes at Reason.com — yes, those evil libertarians — that straight people really ought to be insulted by the arguments being made against marriage equality, especially those that say straight couples are suddenly going to change their behavior if gay couples are allowed to marry. He quotes this passage from a ruling by Judge Robert C. Jones:

Human beings are created through the conjugation of one man and one woman. The percentage of human beings conceived through non-traditional methods is minuscule, and adoption, the form of child-rearing in which same-sex couples may typically participate together, is not an alternative means of creating children, but rather a social backstop for when traditional biological families fail. The perpetuation of the human race depends upon traditional procreation between men and women. …

Should that institution be expanded to include same-sex couples with the state’s imprimatur, it is conceivable that a meaningful percentage of heterosexual persons would cease to value the civil institution as highly as they previously had and hence enter into it less frequently, opting for purely private ceremonies, if any, whether religious or secular, but in any case without civil sanction, because they no longer wish to be associated with the civil institution as redefined, leading to an increased percentage of out-of-wedlock children, single-parent families, difficulties in property disputes after the dissolution of what amount to common law marriages in a state where such marriages are not recognized, or other unforeseen consequences.

And responds:

I’m gay, so I see the marriage fight in certain ways. But I’m also a libertarian, so, isn’t that argument extremely insulting to straight people? The judge actually suggests that straight people would be so upset about gay people getting married that they’ll stop doing it themselves!

What were you straight people doing before the government came along to tell you how to breed properly?

Getting married. As we (okay, probably not me, but that has nothing at all to do with gay marriage) always have and will continue to do. I know several people who have decided not to get married until their gay friends are allowed to do so because they consider that to be the equivalent of joining a whites-only country club. Does anyone know of a single straight person who has ever decided not to get married because gay people can get married? I don’t either. I suspect no one else does either, though I wouldn’t be surprised if this becomes one of those legendary tales in the conservative mythos, like their Canadian friends — every conservative I know claims to have one — who died while waiting for health care because of — egads! — socialism.

Comments

  1. says

    But I’m also a libertarian, so, isn’t that argument extremely insulting to straight people?

    That’s a pretty silly non-sequitur — do you have to be a libertarian to find such arguments insulting? I don’t, and neither, I suspect, do any of the TENS OF MILLIONS of liberals who also find such arguments insulting. Yes, liberals can be right too — a verifiable fact that too many libertarians seem desperate to ignore.

    Seriously, is this guy trying to pretend that ONLY libertarians have reason to reject anti-gay-marriage arguments?

  2. says

    What were you straight people doing before the government came along to tell you how to breed properly?

    Does he actually believe that anti-gay-marriage arguments come from “government?” If so, he’s dead wrong: they come from gut-level bigotry, with a good bit of help from authoritarian religions — and these days, it’s “government” (specifically, courts and legislatures) fighting AGAINST such arguments.

  3. timberwoof says

    “I’m a Libertarian, so…” sounds just like, “I”m a Christian, so…”: it introduces ideological thinking. I guess that’s easier than logical analysis.

    The problem with ideological thinking is that it often gives you opposite results just as easily. A perfectly good Libertarian argument for banning gay marriage is that the government should not be in the business of legitimizing personal contracts, and that would be “a good start”. (That is based on the argument a Libertarian told me for why laws permitting discrimination against gay people are okay.)

    And he wrote “I’m gay, … But I’m also a libertarian….” How does being Libertarian contradict being gay?

    Libertarianism is just another ideology and therefore doesn’t always lead you to the truth.

  4. slc1 says

    The percentage of human beings conceived through non-traditional methods is minuscule,

    Is that true? I was under the impression that in vitro fertilization was rather widespread (two of Rmoney’s sons who had low sperm counts had to resort to the practice to have children).

  5. Ben P says

    The problem with ideological thinking is that it often gives you opposite results just as easily. A perfectly good Libertarian argument for banning gay marriage is that the government should not be in the business of legitimizing personal contracts, and that would be “a good start”.

    I think you’re giving that short shift a little bit. This is a blatant “no true scotsman,” but I think the true libertarian argument is that there really isn’t any really good reason why the government has to be involved in validating religious marriages. If we want civil records of partnership for tax reasons and inheritance reasons and next of kin reasons fine, but there’s no valid reason to limit those to men and women.

    On the other hand, if people want to get a religious marriage fine, but that’s solely a ceremony performed in the eyes of the church and the government ought have nothing to do with it.

    That said, it is important to remember there are at least two very different camps of libertarians.

    Reason Magazine is the home of the “drugs and sex” variety of libertarians. They see their political outlook as being primarily opposed to both Christian right morality legislation and liberal nanny state legislation. Property factors into this, but doesn’t take a prime spot.

    The other camp are the Cato Libertarians. They view property rights and economic freedoms as paramount. They also tend to believe in legalizing drugs and allowing moral freedoms, but those take a distinct backseat to arguing that the modern regulatory state is a moral evil, and that private property rights ought to trump legislation. These are the libertarians that like to argue there shouldn’t be minimum wages, and that prohibiting discrimination in a “private business” is beyond the scope of the government’s power.

    The former group skews a little conservative but is split. The latter group is almost uniformly conservative and seems to find reasons why its better to vote for the Republican candidate over the libertarian candidate every election cycle.

  6. eric says

    it is conceivable that a meaningful percentage of heterosexual persons would cease to value the civil institution as highly as they previously had…

    Yes, and its conveivable that my reading of Jones’ ruling will have some butterfly effect on my life that will result in me dying in a fatal car cash in the next few years.

    We don’t prevent the exercise of basic things like marriage because of some conceivable future harm. If there’s no actual harm and no clear, immediate danger of harm, then there’s no good reason to stop it.

    Although it doesn’t strictly apply outside of speech, you’d think a judge would understand the general concept of ‘prior restraint bad.’

  7. says

    I think people are reading the “I’m also a libertarian” line in pretty uncharitable ways. I suspect that the line was just meant to insinuate that Shackford’s stance is generally pretty laissez-faire when it comes to civil liberties, so he’s considering the issue on those lines rather than simply on the basis of being gay (and thus being inclined to support gay marriage efforts). I don’t think that’s unreasonable.

    Seriously, is this guy trying to pretend that ONLY libertarians have reason to reject anti-gay-marriage arguments?

    No, and it would be absurd to think so. He’s dealing with one element of anti-SSM efforts: governmental involvement. As a libertarian, he’s not going to support those anyway, whereas a liberal might in theory be okay with the intervention but not in practice on this issue (since most social liberals and civil libertarians agree on this issue).

    Does he actually believe that anti-gay-marriage arguments come from “government?”

    It’s called “sarcasm.” You might have noticed if you’d taken your ideological blinders off.

  8. says

    A perfectly good Libertarian argument for banning gay marriage is that the government should not be in the business of legitimizing personal contracts, and that would be “a good start”.

    The standard libertarian argument against gay marriage is the same as their standard argument against integration and the Civil Rights Act: “States’ Rights!!” and “Down with US interference in the US!!”

  9. danielkim says

    Really, I wonder if it’s time that the state got out of the business of sanctioning marriage at all.

  10. A Hermit says

    It’s true though, my wife and I have been married for almost thirty years, and when the Canadian government recognized same sex marriages a few years ago suddenly our marriage turned all gay…

  11. noastronomer says

    “an increased percentage of out-of-wedlock children, single-parent families.”

    Because, as we know, all in-wedlock children grow up in loving families where the parents never divorce and there’s hot choclate with marshmallows every night at bedtime.

    /sarc

    Mike

  12. bradleybetts says

    @Raging Bee

    I agree with you about the non-sequitur (nothing about typical Libertarian values indicates to me that a Libertarian would find that more insulting than anyone else) but I do love the way that, rather than focussing on the issue you agree on and commenting on that, you have zoomed straight in on the one difference and torn in to him.

  13. maudell says

    It’s funny, having lived my whole life in Canada, I don’t know anyone who died because of long waits at the hospital… Maybe I’m hopelessly indoctrinated.
    (that being said, there are problems with the health system here, but it certainly isn’t that it’s not privatized enough)

  14. naturalcynic says

    The perpetuation of the human race depends upon traditional procreation between men and women.

    Srsly, judge, do you think that the survival of the human race is in jeopardy? Your arguments amount to a gaping jaw and eye roll. Teh baayybeeez are misappearing!!!!!11!!!

  15. Michael Heath says

    Ben P writes:

    I think you’re giving that short shift a little bit. This is a blatant “no true scotsman,” but I think the true libertarian argument is that there really isn’t any really good reason why the government has to be involved in validating religious marriages.

    I think there are multiple libertarian arguments out there, and therefore no “true libertarian arguments”. We often encounter powerful libertarians who favor protection of property rights for the privileged few (Christian white men who are financially connected) at the expense of far superior competing rights of others. And just like there’s hardly any truly pure conservatives, I don’t perceive many pure libertarians either. Where the powerful libertarians are sometimes socially conservative and argue these matters should be democratically decided at the state level, which is in no way libertarian since it favors simple democracy over the protection of individual rights. Yet its held by libertarians – think the Pauls.

  16. Sastra says

    Should that institution be expanded to include same-sex couples with the state’s imprimatur, it is conceivable that a meaningful percentage of heterosexual persons would cease to value the civil institution as highly as they previously had and hence enter into it less frequently … leading to an increased percentage of out-of-wedlock children, single-parent families, difficulties in property disputes …

    Here’s the problem with this (ok, just one problem among no doubt many):

    the heterosexual persons who might conceivably CEASE to value the civil institution of marriage as much as they once did because now gay people can get married would not include any of the liberal and/or non-religious people who are in FAVOR of gay marriage. They, of course, would think allowing gay people to marry improves and enhances the value of marriage.

    The judge, therefore, must only be referring to others — conservative and/or highly religious people. This, he thinks, is the group which is now very likely to reject marriage and live together, have a lot of illegitimate children, break up and leave chaos behind, and contribute to the downfall of society in general. Religious conservatives … who apparently have no moral compass which would prevent them from doing that. Unlike liberal atheists, you see, who no doubt would start marrying in droves — though in insufficient numbers to counteract the negative effect coming from the shiftless, immoral, marriage-despising Religious Right.

    Did this judge really think this one through?

    So when you really parse it out carefully the insult may be aimed not so much at heterosexuals per se but at homophobic heterosexuals. Shackford’s perplexity then should increase. That’s not exactly a group which is insensitive to spotting insults.

  17. matty1 says

    The out of wedlock children thing is offensive. Look I understand that the legal/civil institution has lots of practical advantages, which is why those advantages should be available to same sex couples, but it does not magically cause people to love their children or each other. Does anyone really think that a couple who live together for decades, raise children together and may have had a wedding ceremony that is meaningful to them think of each other and their children as strangers. That because they lack a state licence they will treat the children worse?

  18. eric says

    @10 – Ben P. gave one good reason in @6; i.e., the government has an interest in keeping good records for tax reasons and in case there is a later property dispute.

    Of course that brings up the question of why married people are taxed differently from single people. Tax deductions have often been used by government to make certain types of behavior more appealing – buying a house instead of renting, or giving to charity, for other examples. Marriage is probably one of those behaviors government was trying to encourage. I expect there is or was some argument that marriage creates stability within the population which the government sees as an economic good. But if that was ever a strong argument (and not just a cultural bias), its probably a lot weaker now, in the 21st century, than it was when it was first argued.

  19. jnorris says

    danielkim says:

    Really, I wonder if it’s time that the state got out of the business of sanctioning marriage at all.

    The state’s sanction prevents under-aged, coerced, and non-consentual marriages.

    I wish the state would only license and sanction a civil union for any two adults. The couple would still be free to pursue matrimony in the sect/cult/religion of their choice.

  20. says

    I think people are reading the “I’m also a libertarian” line in pretty uncharitable ways.

    He’s not saying “I’m also a libertarian,” he’s saying “I’m a libertarian, therefore…” as if the label somehow makes his argument more valid than it would be otherwise. Why does that deserve charity? It certainly doesn’t sound very charitable to the huge numbers of non-libertarians who hold the same position without the aid of his label — and get routinely trashed by libertarians anyway.

    I suspect that the line was just meant to insinuate that Shackford’s stance is generally pretty laissez-faire when it comes to civil liberties, so he’s considering the issue on those lines rather than simply on the basis of being gay (and thus being inclined to support gay marriage efforts). I don’t think that’s unreasonable.

    I can grant that he’s mostly talking to people who don’t listen to gays or liberals — but does he really think such bigots will listen to him instead? It sounds more to me like he’s just trying to pretend his ideology is relevant to the debate, without having to actually contribute anything. This is, after all, a debate about how state power should be used in relation to marriage, one way or the other: support gay marriage, or forbid it? So a movement that tends to oppose the use of state power either way wouldn’t have much to add here: if we legalize gay marriage, that will mean some marriages will be reinforced by state power, against the deeply-ingrained bigotry of large numbers of Americans. As a libertarian, what does he have to say about this?

    It’s called “sarcasm.” You might have noticed if you’d taken your ideological blinders off.

    Yeah, it’s the sarcasm of someone who doesn’t really want to address the whole of a problem, except to bring his favorite scapegoats into it.

  21. steve84 says

    That judge is a Mormon with a degree from Brigham Young “University”. That’s all you need to know about him.

  22. says

    I expect there is or was some argument that marriage creates stability within the population which the government sees as an economic good. But if that was ever a strong argument (and not just a cultural bias), its probably a lot weaker now, in the 21st century, than it was when it was first argued.

    I disagree. Civil marriage brings legal privileges and committments that at least tend to bring stability to a household, and that’s still good for child-rearing — especially in parts of our country (and elsewhere of course) that aren’t as rich or stable as where I’m privileged enough to live.

    Also, there is still sexism and misogyny about, and for many women, marriage is one important compensation for that. Not a solution, by any stretch, just a compensation.

    Also, as jnorris said, civil marriage laws do prevent the wrong kind of relationships from being enshrined in law.

    So let’s face reality: “getting government out of the marriage business” is simply not an option. Is there a significant number of people in any demographic who support that at all?

  23. baal says

    The perpetuation of the human race depends upon
    traditional procreation between men and women. …

    Naturalcynic already hit it but this pinata has one more swipe in it :)

    Yes, judge, the component of the population from gay folks pretending to be straight breeders (however many would rather gay marry and have no children as well) is small enough that straight folks could take up the burden…or we could up the number of immigrants from Fiji & Brazil.

  24. Chiroptera says

    The perpetuation of the human race depends upon traditional procreation between men and women….

    I hate to sound like a broken record, but if I were concerned about the perpetuation of the human race, I’d say that it depends more on not burning so much carbon-based fuels.

  25. eric says

    Baal:

    or we could up the number of immigrants from Fiji & Brazil.

    LOL, THAT is guaranteed to give the right a heart attack. “Why yes fundies, we agree that gay marriage will cause a dreadful reduction in straight marriage and childbirth. That is why the bill also contains a provision to legalize all illegal immigrants in the country and let even more in – to counteract the drop in birthrate you claim will happen.”

  26. John Horstman says

    I have no way of interpreting the “straight people won’t get married” argument except as A) disingenuous or B) projection from closeted, self-hating gay people. I suppose some of the people issuing this argument from their face-holes might literally be parroting it; that is, repeating something someone else said without giving the slightest though to its content, but I’d classify that as disingenuous, since they can’t actually believe the argument without first evaluating its content.

  27. says

    The perpetuation of the human race depends upon traditional procreation between men and women….

    Yeah, but the perpetuation of human SOCIETY and CIVILIZATION depends on kids being raised in orderly, disciplined, and nurturing family environments — and same-sex adoptive parents fit that bill far better than warehouse orphanages ever could. We don’t just have to “procreate,” we have to raise our kids as humnas, not as animals in a zoo.

    That SHOULD have been the “libertarian” argument for gay marriage — independent adult caregivers vs. collectivist orphanages “raising” more wards of the state. Funny how it took a non-libertarian like me to make the sensible libertarian argument for them.

  28. says

    I have no way of interpreting the “straight people won’t get married” argument…

    My best guess is, it’s based on the presumption that we’re all basically fallen creatures, incontinent animals who would instantly fall prey to the most base and evil lusts imaginable were it not for such institutions as marriage and religion constantly cracking the whip to keep us civilized. If you take this view of your fellow humans, it’s easy to believe that all of us have a cacophony of inner demons and perverse incontinent desires (as opposed to some of us having certain inclinations and others not), and all of us need to have only the RIGHT desires validated by the state, otherwise there’s no telling what we’d do. (Or no telling what “those people” next door would do, to be a little more exact.)

    So, in short, it’s probably a good bit of your answer B: “I have horrible filthy desires (my parents and priest said so), therefore I can’t trust anyone else to be any better.”

  29. lofgren says

    The strawman he has constructed in order to serve the willful ignorance typical of libertarians is more offensive to me than the argument against same sex marriage.

    This argument against same-sex marriage basically boils down to “changing social and sexual mores can have unforeseen or unintended consequences over time,” which is basically irrefutable. While I doubt that the specific consequence of straight marriages being devalued is likely, it’s not impossible. My reaction isn’t to guarantee that his won’t happen, it’s to not care. If fewer straight people who don’t care that much about getting married start to care even less and don’t end up getting married at all, then that seems like a pretty minor sacrifice to enable the gay people who DO care about getting married to do so.

    Conversely, Shackford’s sarcastic response relies on a childish and simplistic concept of the government – and all of human social development since the dawn of humanity, frankly. I’m sure somebody will tell me he was “just joking.” But since you have to already accept some of the dumbest and least realistic libertarian arguments in order to find it funny, I really don’t care whether he was joking or not. The only way that final line is funny is if you are making fun of the kind of asinine arguments made by a particular strain of particularly ignorant libertarian.

  30. slc1 says

    Re bradleybetts @ #13

    Mentioning libertarians to Mr. Bee is like flashing the red flag in from of the fighting bull. To him, it’s his dog whistle.

  31. dingojack says

    Raging Bee – “That SHOULD have been the ‘libertarian’ argument for gay marriage — independent adult caregivers vs. collectivist orphanages ‘raising’ more wards of the state.”

    Surely the Libertarian position should be creched children.
    Why should the rights of one group (parents) be superior to those of another (children)? Isn’t the parent-child relationship simply the nanny-state in miniature?
    Rise up O children! You have nothing to lose but your chains!

    ;) Dingo

  32. lancifer says

    Chiroptera,

    I hate to sound like a broken record, but if I were concerned about the perpetuation of the human race, I’d say that it depends more on not burning so much carbon-based fuels.

    If by more you mean equally as idiotic a proposition, then yes. Do you actually believe that burning fossil fuels poses an existential threat to the “perpetuation” of our species?

    If so, you may want to review a few of the other little problems Homo Sapiens have brushed aside, like say at least the last seven glaciations of the Quaternary Ice Age. The most recent of which covered most of the northern hemisphere with a mile deep sheet of ice for thousands of years.

    Talk about a “climate disruption”.

  33. dingojack says

    Besides higher carbon dioxide will be super-duper double plus good for every single plant in the whole universe*!!eleventy-one!!
    @@
    Go away Lance, the adults are talking.
    Dingo
    —–
    * As long as they’re grown in a greenhouse with controlled water and nutrients, and pests are kept away from them and fungi, and…

  34. says

    Now now, dingo, go easy on Lance — it’s not easy being a one-trick pony when you’re running out of places where you can do your one trick. It must be terribly confusing for him, bless his little heart…

  35. lancifer says

    slc1,

    Even if one accepts the evidence presented in the article to which you link it represents a sea level rise of 1 foot per century. Sea level has been rising at about a rate of 8 inches per century for thousands of years.

    Do you suppose the extra four inches a century is going to exterminate our species?

  36. lancifer says

    slc1, Dingo, Raging Bee,

    Very telling that even when someone makes an idiotic statement you have to defend it since it comports with your ideological beliefs.

    Climate Change does not in any way threaten the “perpetuation of the human race” as Chiroptera moronically lamented.

    The blatantly irrational libertarian bashing wasn’t satisfying enough so Chiroptera had to throw in some good old fashioned climate change lunacy.

    If you take a deep breath, relax, and use your brains you might realize that rallying around the most extreme nonsensical statements about climate change only serves to weaken your over all argument.

  37. bobo says

    no, climate change won’t threaten the perpetuation of the human species

    it will just kill millions of poor brown people all over the world who cannot afford a way out

    but who cares if they suffer right? they ain’t white! or first world!

  38. says

    Go to bed, lancifer — you’ve already flushed your credibility down the toilet, and proven yourself a racist as well as a liar; so I, for one, am not going to bother arguing any of your stupd-assed blather-points and word-games, unless and until I see them advanced by someone more credible than you. If you can’t refer us to such a person, then you got nothing.

    Also, the fact that you’re trying to flog your BS on a blog thread dealing with a completely different subject, just shows how defensive and desperate a troll you are.

  39. lancifer says

    bobo,

    no, climate change won’t threaten the perpetuation of the human species

    There, that wasn’t so hard now was it.

    Of course the non sequitur that followed kind’a negates any credibility you may have earned with the first statement. That and the lack of capitalization or punctuation.

  40. lancifer says

    Raging Hemorrhoid,

    Also, the fact that you’re trying to flog your BS on a blog thread dealing with a completely different subject…

    Since my remark was in direct response to a post on Climate Change by Chiroptera perhaps this remark should be aimed at him/her?

    Oh, I forgot I don’t waste time responding to your drivel.

    Ramble on.

  41. slc1 says

    Re Sir Lancelot @ #38

    Lying goat fucking piece of filth Sir Lancelot should read the entire article. The IPCC’s estimate was a rise of 6 feet by 2100 and the new data is worse. Doesn’t bode well for New York City surviving a storm surge such as the one caused by Sandy. Sir Lancelot is a bigger liar then George Will.

    Seas-level rise is thought to be driven by glacier melt as well as a phenomenon known as thermal expansion, which occurs when ocean water expands as it warms. Rising tides are a concern because they boost the threat of extreme flooding in populous coastal areas, putting millions of people at risk worldwide. The IPCC estimated the seas would rise up to an average of 6.6 feet (2 meters) by 2100, though some areas are expected to be hit harder than others.

  42. bobo says

    #42 Capitalization and punctuation are about the only way you can *prove* your superiority, since you seem to fail at everything else :)

  43. lancifer says

    slc1,

    Christ you are a tool. Why don’t you check the actual sea level data instead of taking your information from political shit sites.

    In the fucking article it says,

    The new report found that sea levels are rising at an annual rate of 0.12 inches (3.2 millimeters) — 60 percent faster than the best estimate of 0.08 inches (2 millimeters) per year, which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calculated in 2007.

    This is the only actual data in the otherwise political nonsensical piece.

    Can you fucking multiply? You claim to have a physics background but you are one of the most gullible innumerate dumbfucks I have had the misfortune to encounter on the web.

  44. Michael Heath says

    lancifer writes:

    Even if one accepts the evidence presented in the article to which you link it represents a sea level rise of 1 foot per century. Sea level has been rising at about a rate of 8 inches per century for thousands of years.

    Climate scientists who specialize in sea level do not assert that the rate of increase in this interglacial age between the present time and the past “thousands of years” is stable. Instead they observe that the the rate of increase is increasing due to an increase in the earth’s energy budget caused by human-generated greenhouse gas emissions. They find a causal relationship which is both validated by the findings of paleoclimate observations and what we observe over the recent past.

    lancifer writes:

    Do you suppose the extra four inches a century is going to exterminate our species?

    This paper does not idiotically use their current observations of the near-past sea level rises to extend out a scenario for sea level rise for this entire century without considering the change in greenhouse gasses present now and increasing. Nor do any experts I’m aware of publishing in this field make such an idiotic assumption that sea level rise doesn’t correlate to changes in greenhouse gas emissions, a failure in basic physics. That’s given the fact we observe an ever-increasing volume of greenhouse gasses being sequestered in both the atmosphere and the ocean which is a causal factor in the change in sea levels.

    Instead this paper is an observation of what’s already happened compared to the IPCC projections for this same period. Here’s the portion of this paper which directly refutes your assertion about this century’s rate now being 4″:

    Alternative scalings of sea-level rise have been developed, which in essence postulate that the rate of sea-level rise increases in proportion to global warming (e.g. Grinsted et al 2009, Rahmstorf 2007). This approach can be calibrated with past sea-level data (Kemp et al 2011, Vermeer and Rahmstorf 2009) and leads to higher projections of future sea-level rise as compared to those of the IPCC. The latter is immediately plausible: if we consider the recently observed 3 mm yr−1 rise to be a result of 0.8 °C global warming since preindustrial times (Rahmstorf et al 2012), then a linear continuation of the observed warming of the past three decades (leading to a 21st century warming by 1.6 °C, or 2.4 °C relative to preindustrial times) would linearly raise the rate of sea-level rise to 9 mm yr−1, as in the highest scenario in figure 3—but already for a rather moderate warming scenario, not the ‘worst case’ emissions scenario.

  45. lancifer says

    Michael Heath,

    Nothing you posted refutes anything I said.

    Appeals to model based “projections” are NOT data.

  46. Michael Heath says

    lancifer lies:

    Nothing you posted refutes anything I said.
    Appeals to model based “projections” are NOT data.

    The paper others and I cited used the past thirty years of direct observations on sea level, see Figure 1 and many other references which note since the observations are the predominant feature of the frickin’ article. Figure 1 is the picture which is described as, “Observed annual global temperature” . . . In addition the causal relationship established between CO2 and sea level is also based on paleoclimate findings.

    We know you’re ignorant and you lie. All we have to do is quote what you say and then directly refute it with the evidence we have available to us which you avoid. So the interesting question here is whether you know the level of your ignorance and the level of your dishonesty, or not. I honestly don’t know which is why it’s amazing to read your posts, the level of avoidance and denial is beyond anything I’ve ever observed on this matter.

    lancifer – you are in no way prepared to expound on the climate. That continues to be self-evident in nearly every single post you publish. As advised repeatedly in the past, I suggest you actually go and try to study and comprehend what climate scientists understand. That would be a far superior investment of your time rather than continuously misrepresenting what others publish, including commenters here and what scientists are actually doing – ya know, the “carbonphobes” to your use your term. And yes, you referred to scientists with this term given the fact some of us commenters here were not presenting merely our opinions but instead citing what climate scientists understand which got your panties all in a bunch.

    I’m unfortunately confident you are simply not capable of doing what I advise you to do. You are fierce in your ignorance and fierce in your willingness to lie about what others publish. You simply can’t or won’t comprehend that which falsifies your beliefs on climate, as evidenced in this thread on many sub-topics and every single thread where you’ve comment on the climate. The last example being your falsely describing a paper which reconciles actual observations to past model predictions by falsely claiming it’s about modeling alone. The denial in that false assertion is incredible on its own.

Leave a Reply