National Review: ThinkProgress Doesn’t Have The ‘Slightest Idea What They Are Talking About’
National Review: ThinkProgress Doesn’t Have The ‘Slightest Idea What They Are Talking About’
Jason Lee Steorts of the National Review has published a column taking issue with our response to his cover story on global warming, “Scare of the Century.” The response is useful because it more explicitly exposes the tactics of Steorts and others trying to muddy the debate:
1. Discount the consensus of thousands of scientific experts in favor of a handful of skeptics backed by the fossil fuel industry. Steorts objects to two of our points because they are “based on the International Panel on Climate Change’s models” which he claims “make unrealistic assumptions.” The IPCC process involves thousands of scientists from over 120 countries who, over a period of years, develop detailed reports on climate change. The peer-review process is far more extensive than even the most prestigious scientific journals – the most recent report was reviewed by more than 1,000 top experts. The process includes “climate skeptics” and representatives from industry. In response, Steorts cites one individual, Patrick Michaels who disputes the IPCC’s science. Michaels, whose work is backed by the fossil fuel industry, once famously “proved” global warming wasn’t happening at all by mixing up degrees with radians.
2. Distort scientific research, much of which confirms the severity of global warming, to confuse the issue. First, Steorts quotes Patrick Michaels asserting that “Antarctica has been gaining ice.” Michaels doesn’t have any research to back up that claim, so Steorts is forced to rely on the scientific research of others, including Curt Davis. Steorts is unconcerned that Davis has said that the use of his research by climate skeptics is a “deliberate effort to confuse and mislead the public.” Pieter Tans, who runs a lab at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, explains that this is a typical tactic “They argue not as scientists but as lawyers. When they argue, they pick one piece of the fabric of evidence and blow it up all out of proportion…Their purpose is to confuse.”
In the last line of his column, Steorts claims we don’t have the “slightest idea what [we] are talking about.”
But the issue here is not that we know what we are talking about and Steorts doesn’t. The point is that thousands of scientific experts do know what they are talking about. The few people paid by the fossil fuel industry to cast doubt on the consensus, and writers like Steorts who act as their megaphone, are not a credible or reliable rebuttal.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
This guy is like those peope who try to argue Biblical authority with non-Christians…. The IPCC is his Bible.
May 30th, 2006 at 12:05 pmOoops The IPCC is his Devil.
May 30th, 2006 at 12:07 pmEconAtheist: “National Review Doesn’t Have The ‘Slightest Idea What They Are Talking About’ regarding Think Progress.”
Ha! Take that, NR.
May 30th, 2006 at 12:11 pmTheir gut is bigger and with more mass than their brains so as Steven Colbert proved, they have to go with their gut, Thats all the proof we really need.
May 30th, 2006 at 12:13 pmOne can’t simply dismiss the IPCC so easily. Steorts just doesn’t get it if he’s trying to do so. I think it’s very clear who doesn’t understand what they’re talking about.
May 30th, 2006 at 12:15 pmCorporate whores. That’s all. Why do we debate people who are basically just walking commercials? It’s not like they even believe what they’re saying, you know. Instead, you just just whip out a $20 bill and say “blow me. Oh, I’m sorry, isn’t that how is usually works? I SAID BLOW ME, YOU WHORE!”
May 30th, 2006 at 12:19 pm.
One doesn’t have to rely upon the IPCC for information, although they are very credible. Many researchers, all over the world, working independently, have produced data that are in agreement: the planet is warming, and fossil fuel emissions are accelerating this process. If Patrick Michaels is your only contrary source, then you’re in big trouble.
May 30th, 2006 at 12:20 pmHold it… “The 50 Greatest Conservative Rock Songs”…?
Did Stryper even make that many albums?
May 30th, 2006 at 12:20 pmThis is the logic of the inasne right-wingers these days. Fair and balanced means treating both sides equal. So they consider YOU to be biased because you aren’t treating the sceptics with the same respect as the “experts.”
I mean, who cares really that the “sceptics” are the extreme (practically non-existant) minority and they are often bought and paid for by the oil industry? Surely Think Progress is baised and unfair for not keeping an open mind.
The right has this insane notion lately that the only way to find the truth or a “balanced fact” is to find something that nobdoy on earth disagrees with. A billion peolpe could say the sky is blue, but if one person says otherwise you can bet the right would back this person as a legitimate sceptic, act like his comments are good enough to rebut the vast majority of actual experts, and parade him around all the media and talking head shows. And anyone who disagrees with this crazy person is the one who is really biased and not being “fair and balanced.”
May 30th, 2006 at 12:20 pmJudd – Congratulations on your respectful, to the facts comments. Taking bait to focus on arguing instead of the subject at hand serves nothing but obfuscation and missed points. You’re keeping trained on the heart of the matter, and step right up to quell any misdirection.
Good job, and thank-you.
mike in denver
May 30th, 2006 at 12:20 pmUnless science translates directly to money making in the short term, it is worthless.
May 30th, 2006 at 12:21 pmHistory will not be kind to wankers like this…….
May 30th, 2006 at 12:21 pm#8 – Ouch…
May 30th, 2006 at 12:23 pmIt’s always interesting to see the Right doing their dishonest thing. They have a little cluster of tactics: lie, smear, change the subject, obfuscate, lie some more, etc.
May 30th, 2006 at 12:25 pmThe oil industry has been trying to dicount global warming since the theory first came out. They have used their money and influence to try to undermine the REAL scientists.
Just like the tobbacco industry hid the facts that it causes cancer in their paid for studies, These oil rich fat cats are putting their pocketbooks ahead of the health and survival of everyone. The only reason behind it is GREED, pure and simple
May 30th, 2006 at 12:27 pmIT’S SURVIVAL OF THE FATEST…. ummm fittest
May 30th, 2006 at 12:31 pmAnd another crazy right-wing arguement is their idea that Bush should be supported no matter what because he’s keeping us safe. Isn’t that their excuse for everythign? Safety, safety, safety. Better to spy on Americans and keep a database of their conversations than to have another terrorist attack. better to invoke the patriot act and/or arrest journalists than to risk our safety.
Well, what could be more devastating to health AND the economy than global warming? It just shows that the right-wingers don’t give two s***s about safety…all they care about is money and power. Frankly, their attitude and mindset sickens me.
May 30th, 2006 at 12:32 pmWilliam F. Buckley would be proud of his creation, no doubt.
May 30th, 2006 at 12:32 pm#8 Most of that list is Lynard Skynard (yee-haw take THAT Neil Young!) and Rush during their Ayn Rand phase.
But some of their picks are not conservative at all, like U2. Conservatives don’t rock, so they have to co-opt liberal rockers. I wonder how it must feel to know the vast majority of artists and scientists are against you. Oh well, they’ll always have the support of people who sit at the racetrack and breathe gas fumes.
May 30th, 2006 at 12:32 pm9 out of 10 doctors recommend camel cigarrettes for a healthy T-zone, and 9 out of 10 climatologists Exxon brand greenhouse gases for a healthy green arctic zone.
May 30th, 2006 at 12:34 pmI can understand that people would be paid by the fossil fuel industry to discount the obvious,
But I don’t get my neighbour, who doesn’t believe in global warming or why the right wing sites in the States or here in Canada dispute global warming. Why would an ordinary guy believe NR’s crap? What’s the upside for them?
May 30th, 2006 at 12:41 pmThe red state voters don’t vote against their self-interests, as has been asserted. Rather, they vote for their short-term self-interests, at the expense of their long-term benefit.
So a guy who says, let’s all take a tax cut and run up the federal debt. You’ll be dead before you have to pay all that money back, so why not? Or guzzle gas by driving the most powerful SUV in the world, and don’t worry about long-term energy needs. He gets their votes.
May 30th, 2006 at 12:46 pmSNOW JOB by D. Steorts… the facts
May 30th, 2006 at 12:48 pmActually I think the biggest fallacy with the article/response is the following comment:
Even if warming is predominately the result of human activity, and even if its harms will outweigh its benefits, the question is whether it will be bad enough to justify the economic castration that significant greenhouse-gas reductions would require.
Why do all these bozos insist that reducing greenhouse gases = economic castration?!?!?
May 30th, 2006 at 12:53 pmActually the “Antarctica is gaining ice” thing isn’t that far off. I don’t have a link handy, so you’ll have to take my word for it. It is probably more accurate to say that the snow packs are thicker. This is due to climate changes. Antarctica is usually (should be) too cold to produce vast amounts of snow for much of the year. Extremely cold air is too dense to carry moisture necessary for snow. Warmer air (relatively speaking) carries more moisture, thereby causing it to snow more. In this case more snow is caused by warming…not cooling.
But science is hard work.
May 30th, 2006 at 12:56 pmThe people at National Review, apparently, have too heavy pockets to stand upright with facts.
May 30th, 2006 at 12:58 pm#24 After debunking and trashing (repeteadly) their “scientific” arguments, they must resort to the true heart of his base: their wallets. Even if the assertion is false.
May 30th, 2006 at 1:00 pmNice post.
May 30th, 2006 at 1:00 pmCONGRATULATIONS THINKPROGRESS for getting even more free press and publicity! I lot of people read the magazine in print and online – so it’s good to know that they are all being exposed to this website. The more the better.
May 30th, 2006 at 1:06 pmHere’s a link that actually speaks to the increase of ice from those evil liberal at NASA
{snip}
There…I feel better now…you don’t have to take my lying liberal word for it.
May 30th, 2006 at 1:06 pm#24 Because they will have to stop making large engines which some US citizens are very fond of (like the prom night, teens having sex in the back of the car, Nascar, Harleys…it is all american) GM, Ford and Chrysler have to keep the pace against Japanese cars. They are very worried about people thinking in renewable energy sources. The best business in the world is related to oil, not to solar PV cells, collectors, biomass, eolic turbines, tidal energy, etc.
May 30th, 2006 at 1:08 pmOf course, they know about global warming. But people dont. And even if people knew they rather watch the grandkids dying of thirst than giving up their “wheels”.
Conservatives should just say green house gases give you a bigger penis. That would be better
May 30th, 2006 at 1:11 pma better PR campaign in my opinion, and it would give 16-25 age men more reasons to buy a hummer ;)
National Review, hey maybe Jonathan Hoenig can get a Job there, he would fit right in.
But really this is more about the President, the congress/senate and their decades of misleading information. Perhaps it was Catherine Medici whom did start this pogrom of instigating wars between factions that might usurp her power. Nevertheless the Lies have not stopped.
The Neo-Cons have taken lying to a whole new level. The Neo-Cons always speak of Wilson, Yet here we find Wilson was yet another Liar, Like Bush, whom Put money before Mankind. A liar of this Magnitude is not a Man at all.
President Wilson informed Congress that a German submarine had sunk the S.S. Sussex in the English Channel in violation of international law and that United States citizens aboard the S.S. Sussex had perished with the ship. After General Pershing’s troops were fighting in Europe, the hoax was exposed. The alleged sinking of the S.S. Sussex was used as the “pretext” to justify a declaration of war against Germany by the United States. The S.S. Sussex had not been sunk and no United States citizens had lost their lives.
I am tired of these lies….are you?
May 30th, 2006 at 1:20 pmSteorts, Ponnuru, Ben Domenech, Jonah Goldburg, Luskin – I’m Thinking Progressively that the NRO ran out of any meaningful integrity long ago.
May 30th, 2006 at 1:27 pmCheck out the national review’s favortie philosopher is up to these days at jsb.
May 30th, 2006 at 1:38 pmCarbon. I can’t quite put my finger on it yet, but the OIL people seem to actually wish to INCREASE the CO2 of the Atmosphere.
I was reading about the AGC computer in the First Apollo mission, and I came upon some interesting data, concerning the Tizard radar system, and desoxyribosenucleic acid that did not disperse on the X-ray images.
So Google this Word, Perhaps you will beat me to the answer =)
YTOLAN
He then built the Temple on Unal from the ether or primal substance, moulding it to form by his will, using the power of Ytolan (not translated) to hold it …
Sugar Baby Yeh!
May 30th, 2006 at 1:40 pmOT, but in the same issue of the 50 greatest conservative rock songs:
You gotta be kidding me!! Most of these songs have their lyrics taken out of context to be dubbed conservative. Like #7 “Revolution” by the Beatles:
The elided lyrics include “but when you talk about destruction, don’t you know…”. I don’t think the Beatles are against changing the world (like the quote above suggests), but rather against reactionary violence and, yes, communism. But even if their assessment of the song is correct, it seems to indicate trust of the government, which would disqualify it from their list.
And “Janie’s Got a Gun” by Aerosmith:
Funny, I thought that song was about the horrors of sex abuse, not the merits of gun ownership.
May 30th, 2006 at 1:40 pmDammit, WHY DOES REALITY HATE AMERICA!
May 30th, 2006 at 1:55 pm““History shows again and again / How nature points up the folly of men.â€
That being their No. 34 most conservative song is even more hilarious in the context of their distortions of global warming.
So, I’m sure their list was meant only to generate advertising revenue.
May 30th, 2006 at 1:56 pmIf this saga in human history wasn’t so clearly destructive of the capacity of the planet to retain human life, it would certainly make for great comedy in the noire tradition. Just in Think Progress alone today, you have a stock analyst stating that there is no such thing as global climate change. This is followed two posts later by the new Secretary of the Treasury nominee (the guy who oversees US money policy), the CEO of one of the major financial companies in the world, suggesting that recognizing global climate change and doing something about it is good for future corporate profits. And then followed by a guy from the NRO who best attempt at critique is throw around some BS, hoping to get some to stick on somebody, so he can shout out: see there it is. At least he didn’t bring up the Hitler/Nazi theme again, yet.
May 30th, 2006 at 2:05 pm#26 – Excellent…
May 30th, 2006 at 2:09 pmThinkProgress Doesn’t Have The ‘Slightest Idea What They Are Talking About’ which means the National Review has even less.
May 30th, 2006 at 2:11 pmYou managed to not respond to a single thing Steorts said, besides cherry-picking quotes from his response that you could build strawmen from to attack.
No wonder that no matter how many people get tired of Bush or the GOP in general, they keep winning when the opposition is this arrogant and inept.
Just for example:
Maybe that’s why Steorts devoted an entire section of his response to explain Davis’s research in greater detail.
Maybe you guys didn’t read it, or were just too stupid to understand any of the words over three syllables.
Why should anyone believe anything you guys say when your attitude seems to be that everyone will agree with you simply because you’re such smart, swell fellows and anyone who dares disagree is clearly either “paid” by someone to do so, or is a “megaphone” like Steorts (who is probably “paid” by sinister Big Fuel too).
I kind of hope the GOP loses at least one House of Congress in November just so we don’t have to hear how you guys need to get “more liberal,” which seems to consist simply of trying to stick a foot down your throat farther than you did ever before. Except, of course, for the glorious standard set in 1968 that we must all strive for. Although the consequent eight years of Nixon and Ford apparently weren’t too great.
May 30th, 2006 at 2:12 pmThe IPCC never even asked Dr. Gray, one of the most renowned climate and hurricane experts, for input to their process. Why? Well, because he doesn’t think that global warming is the emergency that IPCC thinks it is. Therefore, he was cut out. Feel free to tar and feather him as a fossil fuel stooge, although I still haven’t seen anyone do so yet.
Think Progress got their ass handed to them. On point #2, Think Progress ignores everything Steorts wrote, which reflects that he cited what the science TP claims to be supporting says: that the ice sheets, as a whole, are growing.
May 30th, 2006 at 2:13 pm#30 – Thanks for the link, you lying liberal. ;)
Anyone who lives in a place where it snows every fall/winter knows what it means when one says, “It’s too cold to snow.”
May 30th, 2006 at 2:17 pmGood take down Judd
May 30th, 2006 at 2:19 pmYou managed to not respond to a single thing Steorts said, besides cherry-picking quotes from his response that you could build strawmen from to attack.
Relying on Pat Michaels for their science leaves them wide open to this attack. Also, NRO offers no acknowlegement of risks, preferring instead to find every outlier opinion. TP is well within their rights to take them to task on this.
The IPCC never even asked Dr. Gray, one of the most renowned climate and hurricane experts, for input to their process.
Gray is renowned, and was respected in his time, but nowadays his methods are regarded as “seat-of-the-pants”. See this WaPo article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_pf.html
May 30th, 2006 at 2:31 pmthat the ice sheets, as a whole, are growing.
Not the ice sheets, the Antarctic ice sheet. The northern polar ice cap, Greenland, and glaciers around the world are shrinking. So why do you and the NRO stubbornly ignore that the increase in snowpack validates the hypothesis of global warming? I think you need to cut your losses here and concentrate on poo-poo-ing the next prediciton of global warming: a rise in sea levels and category 6 hurricanes.
May 30th, 2006 at 2:36 pmOnly one type of person defends burning of fossil fuel.
May 30th, 2006 at 2:51 pmJeesh, man, even meatheads on construction sites know that their equipment is polluting and killing people.
These pro-oil propagandists need to be lined up and shot. Stack ‘em deep and use the cheap bullets.
Man, this global warming thing has REALLY hit a nerve with the right wing wackos! Much more so than the anti-choice folks, and the gay hater crowd.
These right-wing money grubber corporate types really, REALLY don’t want anyone to think anything is going wrong with the planet.
Makes you think THEY know they’re screwed, but want to squeeze the public for as much as possible, so they can cash out before the ‘big meltdown’.
All of this neglect will come back to haunt us, and ‘they’ know it!
May 30th, 2006 at 2:59 pmThe ends justify the means, eh?
Better watch out or Karl Rove might call you up offering a job someday, huh?
Once again: with that attitude, why do you think anyone will listen to you? “Relying on Pat Michaels” – if that’s true, and if that is also some kind of travesty, I don’t know – means that employing logical fallacies is just fine?
And you wonder why you don’t win elections… maybe it’s because the average person doesn’t like being talked down to and showered with your self-satisfied arrogance? Implying (or simply saying) that anyone who disagrees is either some kind of propagandist or an idiot is a sure-fire way to get people who disagree with you to change their minds. Joe off the street could be in charge of GOP strategy and they’d still win thanks to people like you.
May 30th, 2006 at 3:00 pmDon’t you know how much oil was used developing the technology in the computer you’re using? How much oil was used to gather the raw materials, ship them, turn them into components, assemble them, etc.? And what about the energy being used to run the computer? And this site?
Damn hypocrite. You should be the first against the wall =)
Or maybe we just like laughing at the hysterics that come from people like you, ever consider that?
May 30th, 2006 at 3:04 pmJonah Goldberg is a laugh as well. He lost his fight with Think Progress about Gore’s vacation in France. Then John J. Miller is trying to argue that Pete Townsend doesn’t know what he’s talking about when he responds that “We won’t get fooled again” was misinterpreted by NR. What a bunch of goobs.
May 30th, 2006 at 3:19 pmChaos:with that attitude, why do you think anyone will listen to you?
No attitude here. Just facts:
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3645&method=full
And how many papers challenging the scientific concensus has Michaels published in peer reviewed journals? Zero:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
In fact, 0 out of 928 papers challenged the scientific consensus that warming is occuring due to human activities.
So anyway, Chaos, thank you for your comment. And hopefully you’ll think less chaotically in the future.
May 30th, 2006 at 3:24 pmDo real people really read the “national review”? If I had seen it, I would have thought it an issue of Mad Magazine and the publisher Alfred E Newman.
May 30th, 2006 at 3:25 pmMake believe journalism. It must sell, but only to people that have the extra resources for bathroom literature.
jj your impressive dodge was just so devastating!
In the sense that it’s kind of scary what the GOP could do if they had someone halfway intelligent in the Oval Office, just imagine what Karl Rove would be able to do…
See jj, it’s not hard to go read what Steorts wrote instead of what ThinkProgress wrote about what he wrote – just one simple click, even you could probably handle it – and see that he says, right there for all to see, that he is not contending that humans have not contributed to global warming, but that the extent of the human impact is unknown and that to declare that humans are responsible for the bulk is premature.
But you apparently are too intelligent to respond to what people actually say – Steorts, myself, whoever. You can just ignorantly reply “the scientific consensus is this” – when no one challenged that.
Thank you, yes I am looking out the window and indeed it is raining. Thanks for telling me. I don’t understand why you think you’ve actually rebutted anything when you didn’t respond to anything anyone actually said, though.
Again: no wonder the GOP keeps winning when this is the best the other side can do. And, sadly, it really is the best you can do. =/
May 30th, 2006 at 3:30 pmHow dare you disagree with the New York Times / New Yorker / others and their rather glowing portrayals of William F. Buckley as of late, probably of course simply because he finally retired. Pinch, Graydon and the rest will be most displeased at the next cocktail reception.
May 30th, 2006 at 3:33 pmSee jj, it’s not hard to go read what Steorts wrote instead of what ThinkProgress wrote about what he wrote
Reddit.
May 30th, 2006 at 3:37 pmLike I said, he mentions anthropogenic warming. Not risk. And he quotes Michaels, who has little credibility.
May 30th, 2006 at 3:39 pmBut I appreciate your concern about my reasoning abilities. I truly hope the NRO will start talking about solutions, not just resorting to the next default position (as in: no climate change; ok climate change but not man-made; ok man-made, but go back to sleep, it’s not dangerous; ok it’s dangerous but we can’t do anything about it.)
May 30th, 2006 at 3:45 pmChaos,
May 30th, 2006 at 3:47 pmI pollute more than anyone on this site. I pollute more in ways that would make your head spin. I’ve got equipment that runs nonstop for 12 hours a day. Even when it’s not being used! And I’ve got a full size 10 miles to the gallon pickup that I drive 4 hours a day 6 days a week. As I sit in my office I’ve got the AC on 68 and the door wide open. And I’m building a 6 lane highway that will triple the number of cars driving on the current highway. And I’m responding to meatheads like you on my computer being powered by the most inefficient power plant in north Texas.
And it’s for that very reason you should be scared. The energy wasters know the damage they do. They live it everyday. And when pro-oil propagandists come out like this they are easily exposed for the liars they are. Go to hell, Chaos. Or come see me in Dallas some time and we’lll have a lesson in manners.
Chaos demonstrates that ignorance is the GOP’s strongest argument in this fight. We don’t know what kind of impact we have, so we should do nothing to minimize our impact. Or stop being hysterical, we don’t know what doubling the atmospheric CO2 will do to this planet until we try it.
The bottom line is we cannot power the kind of civilization we want using atmospheric reactions (i.e. combusion) without changing the atmosphere. And if you think changing the atmosphere is not dangerous, I think you should establish the first American colonies on Venus.
May 30th, 2006 at 3:58 pmSmearing scientists who have opposing views is a familiar tactic used by Al Gore and Thinkprogress. Remember Al Gore’s attempt to suppress opposing views before:
http://www.suanews.com/articles/1994/globalwarminglibelsuitsettled.htm
A public relations campaign by Dr. Lancaster in late 1993 in the
Boston area failed to elicit any local or national attention for his
side of the case. More spectacularly, an attempt by Vice President
Gore and his staff to get the case aired on ABC News Nightline and
to besmirch the reputations of some scientists who disagreed with
the senator about global warming not only failed; it backfired.
On February 24, 1994, Ted Koppel revealed on his Nightline
program that Vice President Gore had called him and suggested
that Mr. Koppel investigate the political and economic forces behind
the “anti-environmentalâ€movement. In particular, Vice President
Gore had urged Mr. Koppel to expose as fact that several
U.S. scientists who had voiced skeptical views about greenhouse
warming were receiving financial support from the coal industry
and/or groups such as the Lyndon Larouche organization or Reverend
Moon’s Unification Church.
Mr. Koppel didn’t do the vice president’s bidding and asked
rhetorically, “Is this a case of industry supporting scientists who
happen to hold sympathetic views, or scientists adapting their
views to accommodate industry?†He closed the show by chastising
Gore for trying to use the media to discredit skeptical scientists:
There is some irony in the fact that Vice President Gore——
one of the most scientifically literate men to sit in the White
House in this century——[is] resorting to political means to
achieve what should ultimately be resolved on a purely scientific
basis. The measure of good science is neither the politics
of the scientist nor the people with whom the scientist
associates. It is the immersion of hypotheses into the acid of
truth. That’s the hard way to do it, but it’s the only way that
works.
The attempt to use Mr. Koppel to tar the reputations of his
May 30th, 2006 at 4:02 pmopponents brought criticism down on the vice president, and I
learned of rumors that the Clinton White House had become nervous
about the issue, and perhaps Vice President Gore himself
was becoming nervous. In any case, on April 29, 1994, Dr. Lancaster’s
attorneys indicated they were ready to have him sign a
retraction and apology.
Meanwhile, An Inconvenient Truth is partnering up with MySpace, one of the most popular websites on the net:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/05/inconvenient_myspace.php
May 30th, 2006 at 4:07 pmHow dare you disagree with the New York Times / New Yorker / others and their rather glowing portrayals of William F. Buckley as of late, probably of course simply because he finally retired. Pinch, Graydon and the rest will be most displeased at the next cocktail reception.
Who??? I don’t know anything about any cocktail receptions. I do know who Bill Buckley is. He’s the guy who spoke up about the war. Better to come to your common sense late than never.
When conservatives finally talk seriously about the risks having to do with climate change, and not try to cherry pick what they like from the science, and take the peer review process seriously, then I’ll take them seriously on the subject.
May 30th, 2006 at 4:33 pm“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” – Ghandi
May 30th, 2006 at 4:36 pmChaos says:
DUDE, WHAT IS WRONG IN TAKING CARE OF THE ENVIRONMENT?
May 30th, 2006 at 4:46 pmEven if humankind is not responsible for the whole global warming (which, of course, we are) what the hell is wrong in fighting for a better place for everyone? WHAT IS WRONG WITH FUEL CELLS, SOLAR-DRIVEN DEVICES, WIND TURBINES, TIDAL AND WAVE ENERGY, EVEN OTECs…? THESE ARE TECHNOLOGIES IN BIRTH, YET WE ARE THE ONES WHO LIVE IN THE STONE AGES? Since the invention of Gasoline and Diesel Engines, there has not been a significant breakthrough in these technologies, except for electronic control, turbochargers and, if you want, catalizers. If they burn, they pollute, a fact from combustion science.
As an ‘outsider’, being in germany, it is really fun (and scary) to see what is going on in the US. The rest of the world knows about global warming – and ACTS on it – but you guys kick each others if there is or not … sounds like ‘if the US is sure about global warming then global warming exists .. and no if not (same as for this st**** ID-discussion). No matter what the rest of the world says – “there can’t be anything because we deny”.
Even if there is a lot of water around US (yes not north and south), there is more intelligent human beings around the world, maybe it’s time for you to talk and LISTEN to others, discuss.
And hey, you whities (talking about ppl with white skin), you are not native americans (the indians are), most of you are originating from Europe – so please talk with us and let us – together – make the world a better place.
May 30th, 2006 at 5:16 pm[...] [From Think Progress] [...]
May 30th, 2006 at 6:02 pm#68 – peetee, I’m sure we in the US are looking awfully funny these days. Not all of us believe we are the smartest in the world, or if only we believe global warming exists, then it must be so. Most of us are not that arrogant — just the loud ones. You might find that most of the commenters here would love to work out all this stuff with the rest of the world.
May 30th, 2006 at 6:50 pm#71 – Zookeeper … glad to hear that. I see it as a good sign that there is not one single day without bad news for your administration. Lets hope enough americans know what’s wrong and do a first step in changing something in November.
May 30th, 2006 at 8:29 pmPeetee I spent 3 years in Karlshure Germany in 1975-1978, you have a really beautiful country…here we are just going thru a phase like your country did in the early 1930’s where a small minority want to high jack the country and run it for their personal wealth. Hopefully enough Americans have woken to this and we will be qable to turn this around for the betterment of the US and the world…
May 30th, 2006 at 9:09 pm#15-It is pretty much down to Exxon Mobil as oil companies bucking global warming. BP, Shell, Sunoco, and I believe Chevron left long ago.
Regarding Dr. Michaels, I quote from a post I made at Huffington Post:
The comments about Michaels in the post only serve to underscore the differences between these two men and the quality of the skeptics vs. the mainstream. You can go through this again and again–with the exception of Richard Lindzen who has had a distinguished career, the skeptics are generally scientists who are either weak on their climate research but strong on other topics (Baliunas), somewhat successful on climate research but possessed of a contrarian streak (Spencer, Christy, Gray) and an overreliance on the Colbertian `gut’ over real reason, or just plain weak on the science (Balling, Michaels, Singer). This is all as measured by the citation index alluded to above. It is not merely subjective–there is measurable merit to these claims.
On the other hand, climate scientists in the mainstream like James Hansen, Ben Santer, Tom Wigley, Kevin Trenberth, and Gerry Mahlman have had long and distinguished careers and as a group look much stronger than the `skeptics’.
The news should be telling this story and weighting the skeptics by their current scientific street cred.
May 31st, 2006 at 4:08 am[...] Evidence: ThinkProgress has devoted a great deal of time to debunking the attempted debunking of the movie here, here, here, here and here. [...]
May 31st, 2006 at 10:55 pmCan you believe all these right wing wackos. All they care about is business. If we had a communist government, we would be so much better off. Vote for Hillary in 08!
June 1st, 2006 at 2:24 amDenialists: Warming won’t be bad (if you don’t lis…
Global warming denialist/skeptic/minimalist/whatever Jason Steorts says global warming hero James Hansen agrees with the minimalist position…What Steorts says will happen if we do nothing is what Hansen says could happen if we take some giant steps…..
June 1st, 2006 at 10:07 am[...] Jason Steorts is on the defensive about his National Review cover story on global warming “Scare of the Century.” Steorts’s article seeks to dismiss the conclusion of thousands of climate scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that global warming is real, the result of human activity and, if unmitigated, will have grave consequences. [...]
June 1st, 2006 at 10:16 am[...] Lindzen does acknowledge that thousands of scientists from 120 countries have agreed, through the extraordinarily rigorous International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) process, that human activity is driving global warming. He also acknowledges that this consensus was recently confirmed by a report prepared for Congress by the National Academy of Scientists. [...]
June 26th, 2006 at 10:42 am[...] Except Gore’s claims are based on scientific research that has been rigorously peer-reviewed by thousands of scientists. Cheney’s claims were based intelligence he manipulated and cherry-picked to reach a predetermined result. [...]
July 5th, 2006 at 4:20 pm[...] Bush is describing a debate that doesn’t exist. There is a scientific consensus that global warming is real and the human activity is largely responsible. This is reflected in the most recent report by International Panel on Climate Change, which was vigorously reviewed and accepted by thousands of scientists, and every peer-reviewed journal article since 1993. [...]
July 10th, 2006 at 10:00 am[...] So far, so good. Where I part ways with Judd, the post’s author, is in his blithe conclusion: Bush is describing a debate that doesn’t exist. There is a scientific consensus that global warming is real and the human activity is largely responsible. This is reflected in the most recent report by International Panel on Climate Change, which was vigorously reviewed and accepted by thousands of scientists, and every peer-reviewed journal article since 1993. [...]
July 10th, 2006 at 11:23 pm