Al Gore & Science Are Winning
Tweet
Once again, Republican thinking reflects a whackjob fringe. You think they would be used to that by now, and that the media would acknowledge it in their quest to report "both sides" on issues where one side is science and the other is some nut with a sign on the street.
Most Americans believe in global warming, according to the latest FOX News poll, and a majority thinks it is caused at least in part by human behavior, though many believe normal climate patterns are a factor.
The national poll, conducted before the release of the United Nationsâ report on climate change last week, finds that fully 82 percent of Americans say they believe in global warming, up from 77 percent in October 2005, while 10 percent disagree and 8 percent are unsure.
Democrats (91 percent) and independents (84 percent) are much more likely to say global warming exists than Republicans (72 percent), although sizable majorities of all demographic groups are in agreement.
When those who believe in
global warming are asked what they think is the main cause of the
situation, there is widespread belief that human behavior — such as
driving and burning too much fossil fuel like coal and oil — is a
contributor to the problem. Four in ten Americans say people are to
blame outright (41 percent) and another 38 percent think it is a
combination of human action and normal climate patterns. Few believe
that global warming is an entirely natural occurrence (14 percent).
69 Responses to “Al Gore & Science Are Winning”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
“Believe in Global Warming”. That they’ve brought it down to the level where it has to be “believed in” is shameful on its own. Do you believe in oxygen? Do you believe in sand? Do you believe Pedro’s going to act like an idiot in this thread eventually?
Actually, Nimmer, it is an article of faith (just as ‘fundamentalist’ as any Bible or Koran thumper) for the political left that global warming is manmade. There is no proof at all that GW is an exclusive manmade phenomenon or that the current minor 100 year spike is even primarily caused by man. They don’t know but they want to shut off debate and cow the opposition into silence. Oregon is about to fire their state climatologist because he doesn’t have their leftist GW faith. the state climatologist of Georgia has also expresed doubt -w ondering how we ere once ablt to grow citrus in south Georgia and it is now too cold. He would at least like to be free to do the research.
For me, the left has tied politics and thought control too inextricably into GW or CC for me to trust anything they say. This coming after some VIP at the Weather Channel is advocating decertifying any scientist who expresses a differing, non-leftist view on GW.
Its all politcal BS and you guys know it.
Once again (and again and again and again and again), the debate is not about whether global warming exists, but whether or not humans are the main cause. That has not yet been determined (sorry, but “almost certain” doesn’t cut it).
Why is that so difficult to understand?
In a cow’s eye “almost certain” doesn’t cut it. Just weeks from yet another study concluding again that recent climate change (to give it its more accurate name) has been affected by human activity, as well.
You will never be satisfied because it’s not in your interests to be satisfied.
A penguin’s a sort of bird, did you know that? Or are the talking points saying it’s a fish now?
Dugger, a climatologist who doesnt believe GW is like a biologist who doesnt believe in evolution, like a physicist who doesnt believe in gravity. Sure, basically all the evidence points to this theory (gravity is still a theory, mind) but that doesnt necessarily mean its true. In fact, I believe that the fact that gravity seems to have so much support behind it by the groupthink science-types is proof enough that it doesnt exist. Sure, physicists would have you believe that large objects of great mass exert an attractive pull on all objects nearby, because thats where the money is! Is it fair for a physicist to be fired from his teaching position just for telling children that the illusion of “gravity” is created by millions of pixies pulling things downward constantly? Its an alternate theory and therefore deserving of an audience, and its just further evidence of the scientist-conspiracy that contrary views are never really heard.
Goddam… I cant even be bothered to argue anymore, really. I and many here have provided proof argument and evidence of anthropogenic climate change, and not only is it never argued against, but per Dugger, it doesnt even fucking exist. Fine. Know what then Dugg? People who disagree with GW now dont exist either. None of them exist anywhere, and you cant prove otherwise to me, since you do not even exist yourself.
Jay, you almost seem reasonable here, so let me try and answer your question. The thing thats so hard to understand is why there is such fervent opposition to something thats “almost certain.” Standing on the train tracks, looking at an oncoming train, it is “almost certainly” going to hit you and kill you. But hey, maybe it wont, maybe the conductor will hit the breaks, maybe the train will derail in a freak accident, maybe it’ll hit you but you’ll just be knocked clear into a stack of hay or something and survive with minimal bruising. I realize the analogy may be inexact, but the point is this: Considering what a fundamentally easy thing it would be to just step off the tracks (or say raise fuel efficiency standards) why the hell shouldnt we just step off the goddam tracks?
What percent of current global warming is caused directly by mankinds burning of fossil fuels?
Please reference your work.
Extra Credit:
What percent of global warming can be directly attributed to fat-cat limosine liberals flying in corporate aircraft?
Which gravitational theory are you “believing” in, Rex?
Which evolutionary theory are you “believing” in, Rex?
There’s a difference between measuring the existance of something and explaining why it happens.
Rex I think the better analogy is that somewhere, someone IS standing on a traintrack and will get hit. We don’t know if it is one person, or a hundred thousand people. But because we know at least ONE is, we need to immediately ban all trains…
which goes back to my question above. Before we spend billions (too late), on “preventing” global warming or climate change, shouldn’t we know how much of the change is actually related to us?
We know that this has happened in the past. Why is it unreasonable to assume that this is a natural cycle? I mean, the vikings called greenland, greenland for a reason…back then, it wasn’t covered with ice, but with meadows. No SUV’s in the 12-1400′s were there?
The global warming’ers are the modern flat earthers, they are absolutely convinced that humans are responsible, and it simply is not clear that humans are the main cause of it.
Rex, perhaps you can point me (and I’m serious here) to any studies that show how all of a sudden, climate change over the last 100 years shifted from nature to man. If I remember correctly, the climatologists have said with regard to the climate change over the last 100 years, through the first 50 it was natural. Through the last 50, it has largely been man-made.
If over the last 50 years, man has exacerbated the problem, why isn’t it much worse? And how does it all explain how the Earth went through a cooling period between 1949 and 1975?
With regard to your train analogy, it doesn’t really work if in fact, the warming is natural. Here’s the better analogy: While I might be able to avoid the train, it’s still going to keep going whether I am on the tracks or not. Therefore, if the cause of global warming is natural, nothing we do is going to stop it.
shouldn’t we know how much of the change is actually related to us?
No. Because we are the only ones who can affect change. what, do you expect polar bears to take measures to prevent it? After all, they’re the only ones really affected, aren’t they? Let them do something. Again, maybe if cows just stopped farting, we’d be all set.
the vikings called greenland, greenland for a reason
The vikings called Greenland Greenland and Iceland Iceland as a cruel joke on land speculators.
it is an article of faith … for the political left that global warming is manmade.
No, it isn’t. Articles of faith resist proof.
I’m gonna say it again:
What fucking difference does it make whether we are the cause or not? It’s here, it’s real, we gotta deal with it. Or, like dugger and Pedro, we can just look at the pretty light down the tracks that keeps getting bigger and bigger.
Because people who actually study these things and have qualifications and everything know better, that’s why.
Let me ask you guys this, then. Why was Freon eliminated from air conditioners and aerosol cans? Do you think it might have had something to do with how it adversely effects the ozone layer? You remember, that big hole in the sky of the Antarctic?
Do you think that was a natural occurence, or did mankind have something to do with it? Don’t you think it tells you something about how something man made can change the atmosphere in, what was it, 60 years after it took nature thousands of years to create the ozone layer?
Sorry for the run-on sentence, but you get it.
What percent of current global warming is caused directly by mankinds burning of fossil fuels?
The reason why this is a stupid question may not be immediately apparent but has to do with the inherent untestability of the premise. Ignoring the fact that burning fossil fuels isnt the only cause of global climate change, since we cannot immediately stop burning fossil fuels and remove all the CO2 produced specifically from them from the atmosphere and return global climate patterns to what they would theoretically have been without industrialization, there is simply never going to be any kind of definitave answer to that question that gives anything approaching an exact number. However, operating on the inordinately unlikely premise that Pedro is actually intellectually interested in the question he raises, let me ask for clarification: If I actually bothered to write this little mini report here that broke it all down and answered your question, would you actually bother to read the damn thing, or would I be better off just playing Tetris for that half hour instead?
Rush Limbaugh always claimed the hole was perfectly natural.
There is no better example of a movement shifting the goalposts than what the right has done on global warming. It’d be funny to see all the new hoops these trolls are holding up over their hundreds of discarded, used ones — that is, if it weren’t such a tragedy. And they pretend to be science-based!
“What percent of global warming can be directly attributed to fat-cat limosine liberals flying in corporate aircraft?”
Versus the poor unemployable granola eating hippies in their hemp powered hybrids?
Oh, sorry Pedro. You were going to shift that viewpoint when its suitable another thread. Such is the talent of those born with two assholes.
Few believe that global warming is an entirely natural occurrence (14 percent)
Looks like we got us some dead-enders here.
One thing people on the right are good for nowadays is creating doubt when there shouldn’t be any and ignoring doubt when that’s all there is. There’s no reasoning with this brand of fool, yet so much energy is spent trying. It’s a classic lesson in futility.
Looks like we got us some dead-enders here.
Maybe we should send them to an ice sheet off the coast of Nunavut to do a little first-hand research. Better hurry, guys.
pedromd07 | Feb 7, 2007 11:02:47 AM
“What percent of global warming can be directly attributed to fat-cat limosine liberals flying in corporate aircraft?”
The ones who helped pay for your lifestyle?
Rex, perhaps you can point me (and I’m serious here) to any studies that show how all of a sudden, climate change over the last 100 years shifted from nature to man.
Here’s a good place to start I think. Explains how theres basically a limited number of ways for CO2 to be naturally increased in the atmosphere, and it would involve basically transferring it from the oceans and the land simultaneously, neither of which has seen a decrease in CO2, so the logic is that the atmospheric increase is entirely anthropogenic.
I have to admit I’m not exactly sure what youre talking about with regards to it being natural climate change for 50 years before manmade, and would be interested seeing what specifically youre referring to.
While I believe the scientists who have concluded that the client change is manmade this time around, it really is very complex and I daresay only important to human beings and a discrete number of other animals and plants who will bear the brunt of the effect of that climate change. The planet is likely to survive as it has in the past, it will just change and may not have the human species on it. That being said, Pedro has trotted out George Will’s claim that the Vikings farmed Greenland. I find that very hard to believe given the depth–until recently- of the ice that covers Greenland and thought that the commentator who suggested the names were designed to fool land speculators had it right. That being said does anybody really know whether any farming took place in Greenland? I will still think that George Will is as ignorant as a rock, but I really do not know the answer.
Hey Pedo, which cigarette gave you cancer?
Hey Pedo, which cigarette gave you cancer? Was it the Marlboros or the Camels? Could the cancer have been caused by exposure to other chemicals, the power lines you live near, the mold in your mother’s basement, the food you eat, or maybe you just have a genetic susceptability for cancer? Do you not treat it because you don’t know what percentage of your cancer is caused by your three pack a day habit? You don’t know, maybe you should smoke 4 packs or six packs now.
Hey Pedo, which cigarette gave you cancer? Was it the Marlboros or the Camels? Could the cancer have been caused by exposure to other chemicals, the power lines you live near, the mold in your mother’s basement, the food you eat, or maybe you just have a genetic susceptability for cancer? Do you not treat it because you don’t know what percentage of your cancer is caused by your three pack a day habit? You don’t know, maybe you should smoke 4 packs or six packs now.
Nice, Midderpidge. They’re not interested in science or in “conserving” our world. It’s just short-sighted anti-Gore hysteria and shrieks of DOUBT! DOUBT! DOUBT! from the Dugger/Pedro/Jay Axis of Ignorance.
Seriously, trolls, what’s your threshold for being convinced that human activities are contributing to global warming? Is it something you’ve actually thought about?
Is global warming merely the proximate 1 degree rise over the last 100 years? If so, its not GW per se that is doubted but whether its permanent, long term, mostly man made or particularly dangerous if true. The climatologist doubts we know how much is manmade versus natural and whether, thereby, drastic costly steps maybe effecting very small changes in the climate are worthwhile. Oregon politicians have decided he must support their political position.
terry,
I think they have found either or both farming artifacts or vegetative fossils in Greenland. Plus I repeat again, the climatologist points out we sued to be able to grow citrus in South Ga.- now its too cool (like my name – sorry).
And again, what about all of those scientist 30 years ago getting hysterical over global cooling? Both Time and Newsweek (and probably more) did huge articles on the issue. We had to do soemthing. Now, again ‘we have to soemthing” and we have to punish those who don’t believ as we do. Depsite the fact that we have no idea how much of the warmth is or isn’t manmade and if it is or isn’t permanent. You are a heretic if you doubt the consensus!
Do you not see you have become as blind and intolerant as you once accused the opposition of being? Whats wrong with free debate. The issue clearly isn’t settled.
“Human activity is contributing to changes in the Earth’s climate. That issue is no longer up for debate.”
–U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, February 2, 2007.
“The reason why this is a stupid question may not be immediately apparent but has to do with the inherent untestability of the premise”
this sums up what the conservatives have been saying about all the hoopla…it is an article of faith! Just as proof of god is untestable, so, says rex, is this. I don’t believe that is true actually, but if rex believes it, how can you not say that your believe in man-made global warming is an article of faith.?
As far as the fate of the vikings are concerned:
“Greenland’s climate began to change as well; the summers grew shorter and progressively cooler, limiting the time cattle could be kept outdoors and increasing the need for winter fodder. During the worst years, when rains would have been heaviest, the hay crop would barely have been adequate to see the penned animals through the coldest days. Over the decades the drop in temperature seems to have had an effect on the design of the Greenlanders’ houses.”
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/
I am not just trying to be a troll here, I truly don’t believe the science explains this well enough. But I also think we should do things to remove our dependence on fossil fuels, first and foremost, build more nuclear power plans, something I am sure every here supports as well.
Ever wonder why these christo-fascists are not as skeptical of the bible as they are about human activities being a major contributor to global warming? They accuse liberals of opposing against anything bush is for, but how about their own knee-jerk response to anything Al Gore believes?
I also think we should remove our dependence on fossil fuels… and build more nuclear power plans [sic]”
I’m in complete agreement. Also, I agree with the world community of scientists that global warming is real, and we are contributing to it. After we win back the presidency, we’ll then get Kyoto through Congress and onto the president’s desk.
Last time I checked, there were no proposals to tax me based on people’s belief that the bible is correct. Can we say the same thing about a carbon tax?
Funny how every democrat voted against it last time it went through the Senate.
Pedro you ignorant slut, I wasnt saying that Global Warming theory is untestable, for chrissake it wouldnt even exist if that were the case. I was pointing out that theres no reliable way to answer your question because it requires things that cannot be tested because they require the hypothetical situation of subtracting the industrial revolution from human history, and then further dividing those differences into other ratios and probabilities. There is no “the” answer, rather only “his” answer and “their” answer on specific values. For the record, using these numbers and a spreadsheet, “My” answer has it somewhere on the order of 66% of the temperature increase is due to specifically fossil fuels (consumption and creation). I can explain my math if you wish but it’d take a while. The point though is that the consensus on the matter is that its a big thing, and the fact that reasonable people may argue on the falue of the seventh digit after the decimal point in a meaningless statistic doesnt change the consensus on what the number is and what it means.
And Dugger, Global Cooling never really had the support of the scientific community. A few people with a theory got alot of air time even though alot of their claims were never really backed up. The reason is the scientific community critically examined the claim and found it to be fundamentally wrong. Granted the news outlets stuck with it for a while, and I wont justify their leeching onto a bogus story just to get headlines, just the same way I dont think theres justification for them pretending theres a big debate in the scientific community about GW when, I say it again, every peer reviewed article on the subject shares the same conclusion.
And the “problem with free debate” Dugger is that there really isnt one. The consensus is in, the facts practically speak for themselves now, and the only “debate” consists of people who need it not to be the case saying “well but maybe not! Nuh-Uh!”
For the record, yes, I’m generally in favor of Nuclear power so long as we can use it safely and dispose of the waste and not produce those mutant fish from The Simpsons.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change seems pretty sure:
I don’t think we can yet, can we? I mean, I’d be in favour of nuclear power that’s safe and disposable, but they haven’t figured that out yet, so I’ll stick with the windmills down the road for now.
And there it is. The real priority, the only question the right seems to care about sometimes: “At what cost to me?”
I shouldn’t be skeptical of something that is going to cost me money?
Folks, you’d better pay attention to Jay, Pedro, and JWG, Nobel Laurette-caliber scientists all. In fact, they’ve just received a joint grant from AEI and Heritage to study why Global Warming is complete bunk. It’s important work, and explains why they aren’t in Iraq, fighting the people responsible for 9-11.
Scientists Jay and Pedro bring up particularly salient points: how much of this so-called liberal “science” of “global warming” is man made? It’s a good point, and how we deal with “GW” hinges on this. For example, say a your arm was ripped off on a camping trip. If another human was responsible, you could do something about it. If, say, a mountain lion did it, there’s nothing to be done and you’d just have to live with it. See? That wasn’t hard.
Thanks again guys for all of your efforts fighting the evildoer Scien-fascists.
Too bad Ted Kennedy is blocking them.
You shouldn’t be sceptical of something that has no real cause for scepticism just because you can rationalise that it’s going to “cost you money”.
Ted Kennedy’s blocking wind farms? Dumbass.
The Jays, Pedros and Duggers of the world are like others on the right who are very good at creating doubt when there shouldn’t be any and ignoring doubt when that’s all there is. You can’t reason with someone who’s faith is in ideology (today’s conservativism) or religion (today’s evangelicalsim). These people don’t look to the facts or science to support their beliefs. They believe their guts or the guts of their peers are all the expertise needed to know the truth. And they allow junk science a place at the table.
He is.
how much of this so-called liberal “science” of “global warming” is man made?
Ummm.. I’m gonna go ahead and say 100%.
Well, Ted is blocking them off Martha’s vineyard. I doubt that he is opposed to windfarms in general.
Last time I checked, there were no proposals to tax me based on people’s belief that the bible is correct. Can we say the same thing about a carbon tax?
Excellent point made here by Scientist JWG for two reasons:
1. Belief in the Bible (which it totally true since it’s the word of God–duh) is exactly analagous to polluting. Very good.
which logically leads to
B. Why tax any pollutants at all? What if some people don’t believe they actually pollute.
There’s a key difference between what different scientists believe (some say evolution, some don’t, views differ) and what’s handed down by God Himself.
Again, awesome job, JWG. You are wise beyond your years.
rex,
For the umpteenth time. Consensus does not equal scientific method. Every wrong scientific concept in history was at one point “consensus’ and those who dissented, heretics. And you say global cooling did not have support?
“The point to remember, says Connolley, is that predictions of global cooling never approached the kind of widespread scientific consensus that supports the greenhouse effect today. And for good reason: the tools scientists have at their disposal now—vastly more data, incomparably faster computers and infinitely more sophisticated mathematical models—render any forecasts from 1975 as inoperative as the predictions being made around the same time about the inevitable triumph of communism.’
Note that they thought there was global cooling in the 1960s and 70s, but, so says the article, we are smarter now becasue we have more data. Well its all still a theory, ain’t ti, and they certainly had more data in 1970 than they did in 1930. I’m betting we have a sh*tpot more data in 2040 than we do now. Maybe data then rebuts the 2007 theory same as the 1970 data rebutted the 1930 data.
“Galileo’s belief in the Copernican System eventually got him into trouble with the Catholic Church. The Inquisition was a permanent institution in the Catholic Church charged with the eradication of heresies. A committee of consultants declared to the Inquisition that the Copernican proposition that the Sun is the center of the universe was a heresy. Because Galileo supported the Copernican system, he was warned by Cardinal Bellarmine, under order of Pope Paul V, that he should not discuss or defend Copernican theories. In 1624, Galileo was assured by Pope Urban VIII that he could write about Copernican theory as long as he treated it as a mathematical proposition. However, with the printing of Galileo’s book, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, Galileo was called to Rome in 1633 to face the Inquisition again. Galileo was found guilty of heresy for his Dialogue, and was sent to his home near Florence where he was to be under house arrest for the remainder of his life. ”
Non-man-made global warming is the new heresy. No disenting thought allowed. No questioning permitted. Its all settled. Just as astronomical theory was in Galileo’s time. Dissent and you will wind up like a modern Galileo. The pope spoke. The political establishment speaks now.
ed, get an argument….you ain’t funny.
Anyone care to address what drove the vikings from greenland 1000 years ago…where did THAT globabl warming come from?
I’m an agnostic Rounds, and I am arguing that we don’t HAVE the facts, and so far the closest response to that is that the facts are unknowable per Rex. So who is the one with the deficit in the scientific method?
ed | Feb 7, 2007 3:10:02 PM
“Again, awesome job, JWG. You are wise beyond your years.”
Frank, since you changed to your ed persona, you’re much more pleasant!
Non-man-made global warming is the new heresy.
So fuckin’ what?!!! Why are you people so opposed to the idea that humans may have (may have) contributed to the change of the earth’s climate since the industrial revolution? It don’t take a rocket surgeon to figure that out. More people= more heat. period.
The Energy Secretary for the Great and Powerful Oz, oops, Bush Administration has said there is no longer a debate.
Doesn’t that mean that your O’Reilly-approved© contrarian talking points are no longer valid?
ed, get an argument….you ain’t funny.
Enlightened Right Wing Scientist Pedro: Who’s attempting to be funny? Not me, that’s for sure.
Well, that’s how we differ I guess. Just because Ted Kennedy is a member of the party I (would) vote for, doesn’t mean I slavishly force myself to agree with his every policy.
Pedro, Dugger, et al,
Can you reference any peer-reviewed research that refutes the most recent findings of the IPCC?
I am arguing that we don’t HAVE the facts, and so far the closest response to that is that the facts are unknowable per Rex.
Goddam it I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying that your argument requires the existence of facts that DO NOT EXIST such as what would the world be like if dot-dot-dot, and then saying that because we cannot precisely know the details of facts that do not exist that current data, you know, the data that actually DOES exist cannot be valid. Your argument is a joke, and please stop pretending I’m saying anything that supports anything youve ever said. Your pathological need to ignore my actual arguments to claim I’m saying things I’m not is getting pathetic.
Anyone care to address what drove the vikings from greenland 1000 years ago…where did THAT globabl warming come from?
You think that’s an argument against Globabl warming? For christsake its like arguing “Well how can there have ever been an ice age if its summer now?” Global climate changes naturally, of course it does. Seasons, weather patterns, El Nino, Heat Waves, and nobody anywhere disputes this. But, and this is the point that you incompetant assbags consciously fail to grasp, is that all those climate changes correlate to events. The Globabl Warming argument is about the world getting warmer THAN IT WOULD IF WE WEREN’T AFFECTING IT. The thermal effect is demonstrable, the Greenhouse effect is demonstrable, the corrolary of CO2 levels to global temperature is demonstrable, the unchecked increase of CO2 emmissions is demonstrable, the increase in global temperature as a result is demonstrable. Global climate is changing in ways that it should not, and it is demonstrably tied to industrialization. Pretending otherwise is silly not simply because it contradicts the facts, but because the only basis for that pretense is that “well people have been wrong before and I choose to believe they’re wrong about this too.”
For the umpteenth time. Consensus does not equal scientific method.
Dugger, every fucking time I’ve used the term, it has, in fact, meant precisely that. When I talk about peer-reviewed articles that have undergone the rigors of error checking, every theorum tested, demonstrated and argued by skeptics and supporters alike, that is the method working, and that is what builds the consensus, one that accounts for dissent, debate and argument about whether or not the methods were sound, and the thesis is agreed to be valid if it stands up to the rigors of evidence and the standards of argument. The vast, vast, vast majority of these articles agree on anthropogenic climate change. That is the scientific consensus. Please stop pretending that consensus only can ever mean “what some people have arbitrarily agreed upon.”
Why are you people so opposed to the idea that humans may have (may have) contributed to the change of the earth’s climate since the industrial revolution?
Quite simply, because it would require that they take responsibility for the problem, admit they were wrong about it, and actually goddam do something to help. Such humility is anathema to these people.
I wish that I would have considered this line of argumentation a la Dugger & Co. when I was taking physics in college. I could have denied everything and anything because the phenomena we’re talking about aren’t “certain.” For example, just because you let go of a ball today and it falls to the Earth is no guarantee that tomorrow it will do the same thing.
Instead of knowing the information, I could have used the exams to provide a long-winded critique of the political affiliations of the physics establishment. I could have denied that gravity exists, and then when I failed, I could sue the prof and the school! Try to impose your beliefs on ME, huh?
You guys are wrong. Get off your high horse and accept the truth, for chrissakes.
Other items of note: I am for nuclear power, and I think that Ted Kennedy is being somewhat hypocritical on the issue of the construction of windfarms in Martha’s Vineyard.
Consensus does not equal scientific method.
Scientific method, rinse and repeat = consensus.
I am also for nuclear power, if it’s done correctly.
“we’ll then get Kyoto through Congress and onto the president’s desk.”
That went really well last time.
“ratifying the Kyoto Protocol would require the U.S. to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 7 percent below its 1990 levels by 2012. In July 1999, the Senate voted 95-0 to pass a resolution co-sponsored by Senators Byrd (D-W.Va.) and Hagel (R-Neb.) stating that the Senate would not ratify the Protocol unless rapidly developing countries such as China were included in its requirements to reduce greenhouse gases. The Clinton Administration announced it would not send the treaty to the Senate for ratification.”
I shouldn’t be skeptical of something that is going to cost me money? Posted by: JWG | Feb 7, 2007 2:48:07 PM
So how’s your Iraq war coming, and why aren’t you skeptical about that? Or are you not paying taxes?
I’m a little suprised at Mambo…he is an experimental psychologist. For those unaware, they are the most anal scientists in the world regarding controlling studies and not being fooled by statistical abberation. I’m sure Mambo can tell us lots of pysicists who have been sucked into the maw of pseudoscience because those don’t understand how to control a study. The scientific literature is awash with ,particularly physcicists, who came out supporting studies that were later debunked….
Right mambo?
I’m a little surprised at YOU, Pedro, because you wrote a post that’s actually deserving of a response. So I’ll break my previous resolution, and thank you.
You’re right, to a point. For any given study, yes, experimental psychologists are extraordinarily anal about controls. I have to admit that I’m not sure about the physics literature that you’re talking about, but that’s not really important to answer the question…
Here’s the thing… we also understand the idea of convergent evidence. In other words, if Bob finds evidence for “X”, and Dave finds evidence for “X”, and John, and Jill, and Mary, and Bill all find evidence for “X”, then it’s extremely likely that X is true, EVEN IF each of their individual methodologies are somehow flawed with respect to control groups.
It’s easy for me to set up appropriate controls, because I study the behavior of rats in little chambers. For climatologists… not so easy. I think we should appreciate the difficulty inherent to studying something as complicated as the global climate, and realize that the convergent evidence across hundreds and hundreds of researchers points to anthropogenic climate change.
“Ted Kennedy’s blocking wind farms? Dumbass.”
And john Kerry prevented wind power in Nantucket. it would spoli the way his millairoaire’s compound would look.
Rex and others,
Be careful. There MAY be permanent GW, there may not,, there may be temporary global warming, some global warming may be contributed to by man.
Our point is that science has not sorted any of this out and way too many common sense questions remain for the Lysenkoists to stifle debate.
Our point is that science has not sorted any of this out and way too many common sense questions remain for the Lysenkoists to stifle debate.
Then I’m baffled why there’s not a bigger outcry for Mr. Bush to ditch his Lysenkoist energy sec.
“Located west of Iceland, Greenland is a vast ice-capped continent 1700 miles long and 700 miles wide, fringed by a thin strip of mountainous terrain. Most of this land is frigid arctic tundra, but around A.D.985, Erik the Red discovered two areas of southwest Greenland which were suitable for farming, with grasslands and small stands of alder and birch. He named this land Greenland “so that people would be encouraged to go there,” and indeed many followed him to this new land. The colonies flourished for three hundred years. Farms proliferated; animal and human populations grew quickly. Its peak population reached nearly 5000 Norse, who lived in two colonies in southwestern Greenland, called the Eastern and Western Settlements. Then, environmental, economic, and social conditions began to worsen until, only a few decades before Columbus arrived in America, they disappeared.
The disappearance of the Norse colonies in Greenland is the outstanding unsolved mystery of the Viking’s North Atlantic saga. After more than two hundred and fifty years of study by historians, archeologists, and natural scientists, there are clues but no firm answers. What happened to the Greenland Norse? A range of factors-cooling climate, declining trade relations, over-grazing of soil, cultural taboos against eating certain foods, competition with Inuit, emigration, taxation by the crown and church-all contributed to the decline. No single event seems to have spelled the end, but rather the complex web in which the Greenlanders were caught.”
How can this be?? Thre was great global cooling?? And man didn’t do it. Now there is very modest, select global warming and man does it all???
Hey Dugger, no one ever said that man was the sole contributor to climate change in the history of the planet. For example, the conditions the dinosars flourished in 65+ million years ago was very different than today’s climate. Man didn’t show up until about a million years ago (give or take a millenium or three).
Your argument is a red herring. As in, no argument at all. Previous examples of global change say nothing for current change. Jeebus H. Tapdancing Christ.
No. Semantics are important, Mambo. We are not arguing that GW does not per se exist. Each day the temp is above the average could be construed as GW, couldn’t it? There has been about a one degree warmth increase over a hundred years. I think thats true. I question how much is man made; if it is permanent and not just a natural fluctuation (like Greenland cooling); and if it is permanent, is it significantly harmful.
Its not me calling for punishing people who hold beliefs different than my own. Its the enviro extremists like Gore and the Weather Channel – equating then to Holocaust deniers.
Perhaps looking at the CO2 content of the atmosphere would convince you, then? As Gore presented in his documentary, atmospheric CO2 concentrations are higher today than they have been in thousands of years. Additionally, they’ve only begun to spike after the initiation of the Industrial Revolution.
Now, can you account for these elevated levels of carbon dioxide without implementing human cause? I certainly can’t think of a more plausible reason.
The CO2 argument is establishing a cause before you have established a disease. First you have to establish that there has been true significant manmade GW. Then you can find the causes. Let me remind you, they had’causes’ for global cooling in the 70s.
And BTW, AL Gore is not a scientist. He’s a highly partisan politician.
Why does the left seek to punish those who disagree with them?
Why was Greenland green?
Why could we grow citrus in south Ga in the past but not now?
Why don’t you ever shut up?
There’s nothing partisan about global climate warming change or whatever you want to call it. Nothing.
I can ask rhetorical questions to make an argument too! As in, why does the right continually fail to remove their collective head from its ass and see the truth? Why don’t some people understand that its not the conditions in select places that matter but the globe as a whole? Why does Dugger molest collies?
Because Al Gore isn’t a scientist, no scientific data he presents is credible? Good argument, idiot.
Global cooling didn’t have near the scientific support that global warming has now. Cooling was not widely accepted as fact.
The global temperature has risen a degree over the past century. CO2 levels have been elevated over that same timeframe. CO2 has been shown to trap heat. Do you need a review in basic logic?
Christ, wake up already.
“Cooling was not widely accepted as fact.’
Thank you Mambo. Made a great point for me. Widespread acceptance is the left’s criterium for scientific proof??????
Why was Greenland green?
Why were we able to grow oranges in south Georgia?
How much of the current minor increase in average global temperature is specifically attributable scientifically to man?
Why did every single voting CSenator of either party reject Kyoto. What about widespread acceptance, there?
Global cooling was popualr enough and widespread accepted enough to be featured in the two largest news magazines in America. We were lectured that we just had to go spread soot over the ice caps to rpevent it. The data was there baby.
these and many more unanswered questions from
Dugger,
ADMITTED Global Cooling Denier and Significant manmade Global Warming Denier