Attacking Global Warming Science: Where There’s George Will, There’s a Way
Attacking Global Warming Science: Where There’s George Will, There’s a Way
George Will is at it again. His column today is another lackluster effort to cast doubt about global warming science and the imperative to do something about it. Here is the key graph:
[W]hen Gore says the scientific debate is “over,” he must mean merely that there is consensus that we are in a period of warming.
This is not where debate ends but where it begins, given that at any moment in its 4.5 billion years, the planet has been cooling or warming. The serious debate is about two other matters: the contribution of human activity to the current episode of warming and the degree to which this or that remedial measure (e.g., the Kyoto Protocol) would make a difference commensurate with its costs.
Two responses:
1. There is no scientific debate about whether human activity is contributing to global warming. Science Magazine analyzed 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming published between 1993 and 2003. Not a single one challenged the scientific consensus the earth’s temperature is rising due to human activity. In 2002, the Bush administration’s EPA concluded that global warming the the last 20 years was “due mostly to human activity.”
2. Addressing the problem is not a zero sum game. It’s not the case that all efforts to address global warming will harm the economy. The Apollo Alliance has a plan to address that problem of global warming that would create an estimated 3 million jobs. Bush’s nominee for Secretary of the Treasury, Hank Paulson, said that the failure to ratify Kyoto was a blow to U.S. competitiveness.
Will continues to distort the facts about global warming, but he doesn’t really seem to have his heart in it. He fills up most of his space with snarky speculation about Gore’s political ambitions.
This is what’s left of the current “debate” about global warming — misrepresenting the facts and personal attacks. Hopefully, sometime soon, we can move past this and start addressing the problem.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Will doesn’t think cigarettes cause cancer either.
June 11th, 2006 at 10:19 amif someone argued with Will about the existence of Santa Claus he’d say the evidence isn’t in yet. What a putz.
June 11th, 2006 at 10:23 amSeixon stay off this new thread and stop your attacks on Al Gore! Tell Karl Rove to shove his attempted swift boating of Gore!
June 11th, 2006 at 10:24 amMr Will ought to look at the state of climate modeling compared to the state of economic modeling, and temper his foolish remarks. The climate is far better predicted than the economy. This should be no surprise. The first one is made up of physics and chemistry connections, the second one contains the unpredictable innovations of creative human beings.
June 11th, 2006 at 10:26 amI thought republicans believed the earth was 6000 years old.
June 11th, 2006 at 10:26 amI thought republicans believed the earth was 6000 years old.
Comment by Nat — June 11, 2006 @ 10:26 am
Yep, and that it’s flat. Also that the universe is geocentric. Also thathere are flying and talking dragons, talking donkeys, and maybe unicorns. It’s all in the Bible… That book they thump for its accuracy and ingfallability… even though there are 16 different versions in print (will be 17 when Jerry Falwell finishes his own version :).
June 11th, 2006 at 10:38 amGeorge Will is paid by the word…no matter what little sense they make. He loves the sound of his own fascist voice, and as the lord prime minister of proganda sees no need to make cognitive reason.
June 11th, 2006 at 11:07 amOne day George will have a human facial expression…it will stop Time. Just an observation.
# 6 This thread is about the Kyoto treaty and its effect on our economy,not your knee-jerk interpretation of the Bible.Try reading the header first,and let’s stay on topic.
June 11th, 2006 at 11:11 amJill, I challenge you to a duel.
June 11th, 2006 at 11:17 amJill,
June 11th, 2006 at 11:33 amLighten up. Nat (#5) and unbelievable (#6) were only making fun of certain anti-science beliefs that are common among Repugs today. In that sense, they are still on topic, as the flow of Rethug “thinking” on science is related to the Kyoto Protocol.
This thread is about the Kyoto treaty and its effect on our economy,not your knee-jerk interpretation of the Bible.Try reading the header first,and let’s stay on topic.
Comment by jill — June 11, 2006 @ 11:11 am
Who put you in charge?
My comments were not knee jerk as I have read “the” Bible. And it is very germaine to this topic - because of the whole ‘Intelligent’ Design nonsense that is routinely used to counter real science.
My guess is you just don’t handle criticism well.
By the way, your post contained nothing about the topic at all, and was completely knee-jerk to my post. I suggest you take your own advice first.
June 11th, 2006 at 11:35 amThe serious debate is about two other matters
Partisan Republicans refuse to admit that we’ll need to respond to global warming, whether it’s a natural phenomenon or not. The consequences will be the same and especially affect agriculture, water issues and coastal cities, like New Orleans. All Will is concerned with is whether we can stop the warming. If we can’t stop it , it’s going to cost a lot more than the Kyoto treaty to cover the damages.
June 11th, 2006 at 11:37 am# 9..I would tell you to choose your weapon,but we need keep the focus on the issues,not some pre-sunday school understanding of the Bible.
June 11th, 2006 at 11:38 amHopefully, sometime soon, we can move past this and start addressing the problem.
I’d say that I’m not going to hold my breath… but considering the deteriorating quality of the air we breathe, it might not be such a bad idea :)
June 11th, 2006 at 11:38 amThe well paid corporate shills won’t go away but they are losing credibility.
June 11th, 2006 at 11:54 amThe well paid corporate shills won’t go away but they are losing credibility.
Comment by Jaded Prole — June 11, 2006 @ 11:54 am
It’s hard to argue with the reality that it is getting hotter. Even the sheep are noticing that - especially when they see the increase in their cooling bills…
There are still people who think teh earth is flat. There will probably still be those who counter Global Warming no matter how hot it gets. There seems to be that steady 20% that will believe anything…
June 11th, 2006 at 11:59 am“what is this consensus anyway?”
http://www.realclimate.org/ index.php/ archives/ 2004/ 12/ just-what-is-this-consensus-anyway/
will is a shill, a shill who will be long gone when the shit hits the fan with the advent of the ecological affects hitting humanity right in the face.
try http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/454.htm
June 11th, 2006 at 12:09 pmI take issue with the wording in the 1st retort: “Not a single one challenged the scientific consensus.” What you mean is that not a single one “contradicted” the scientific consensus. Each scientific paper with integrity offers it’s own challenge in the form of a different model or a unique result. But in this case they all more or less agreed, and didn’t “go against” the consensus–which is amazing, I agree.
June 11th, 2006 at 12:10 pmHere comes Alberto baby …starting off 11 days late !!!!
June 11th, 2006 at 12:11 pmI thought it was the sinners causing Global Warming?
You know George, Dick And Tom.
-=Desertification=-
If anyone else noticed congress has passed a bill for cloud seeding
China has said that it will also start cloud seeding.
If they don’t believe that earth is warming, thru man or nature, then why all this cloud seeding?
Our Government, in all of its wise wisdom, likes to hide truth and issue propaganda, you know the chicken littles would run wild if they knew the sky was falling….
June 11th, 2006 at 12:16 pmJill, Jill, Jill, Jill, Jill,
If the thread turned into a Bible thread, sure, lower the boom. But c’mon! Two comments?! Kindly refrain from giving us Jill’s a bad name!
Although I did like the duel comment. How about 6″ long earthworms at 10 paces?
June 11th, 2006 at 12:17 pmWhat global warming? It was only 45 degrees in Chicago last night! June 10th!!
June 11th, 2006 at 12:23 pmStrange that there is still dount about whether or not man (used collectively, sorry to save key strokes - oh but then I didn’t really) can impact the environment. We have the examples of ozone hole, acid rain and the awful smogs which hang over the great cities (the Turtle blogs this morning from the City of Angels, where you know what I mean, those of you who have descended into LAX on a ’sunny’ day).
The key is not that climate change occurs or even that we are responsible, a refrain that I hear some say ’so what, happens all the time’ and ‘it could be good for us’ every now and again. The problem is that the speed of change is posible unprecendented and neither we nor the natural world is prepared for change at that speed. Forests which could ‘march’ to colders climes over thousands of years, are being asked to move in a century, the animals that depend on the forests die with them. You can think of your own examples. Of course the bad stuff always seems to be able to adapt better than the rest of us: west nile virus, malaria, ebola, bird flu…
June 11th, 2006 at 12:26 pm#22 I hope that was an ironic comment, Mr Patriot?
June 11th, 2006 at 12:28 pmI didn’t read all of the studies, maybe this was mentioned, but Earths magnetic field strength is half what it was 6000 years ago.
If this is so, then more sunlight strikes the earth, and the Earth would of course warm.
Man doesn’t know what will happen exactly when we cross the Galactic Horizon around 2012-2025.
Will It be Earthquakes? Fire in the Sky? Will Earth go dark and Cold? Or Will the Earth get a recharge bringing it’s magnet field back to full strength?
Its 100 degrees here in Texas and we are water rationing in my county. No car washing at home, no standing outside with a hose watering your garden. You can only water your yard once a week. I can drop rocks in the cracks in the soil…
June 11th, 2006 at 12:29 pm# 21 You should thank then for diverting it from a Bible thread.
June 11th, 2006 at 12:29 pmHopefully, sometime soon, we can move past this and start addressing the problem.
Not going to happen until the under 35 voiting age group takes the issue to the voting booth.
The older amongst the Republican affluent, especially the political pundantry, aren’t worried about global warming nor to their minds should they be. In their ideological construct it’s every man for himself and the continued consolidation of wealth trumps all.
They know won’t be around for the real impact of global warming later this century. What effects they might suffer in their remaining years–my winter beachhouse in the keys was damaged by an especially harse hurricane so I had to rebuild by sinking poles 40′ down–are easily offset by the adaptability their affluence affords.
They’d sell us all into climate bondage if they throught it would advance their financial/ideological interests. Until the generation that’s going to suffer most realizes what is being done to them and votes accordinging, we’re all doomed.
June 11th, 2006 at 12:43 pm# 21 You should thank then for diverting it from a Bible thread.
Comment by jill — June 11, 2006 @ 12:29 pm
Three posts and not a single word about Global Warming.
Jill is just here because she feels good when she criticizes other people. Only that feeling is temporary, so she’ll be back often to rejuvenate her momentary feelings of superiority.
As long as people believe that this planet was put here for them and their (ab)use, they will not accept that they are contributing to its destructiont. So it is no wonder that those who are zealously religious reject the notion of ‘god’ letting anything happen to them or ‘their’ planet. I seriously had a guy once tell me that ‘god’ would send a savior genius to fix whatever problems we face when they each become critical enough, so therefore there was no need to intervene and to feel free to pollute at will. Since then, he’s become a priest… At least he won’t be breeding…
June 11th, 2006 at 12:47 pm#24. Yes, no charge for extra sarcasm!
June 11th, 2006 at 12:49 pmwho is paying george will to deny the facts and to risk the future of the planet and his children and their children?
or is he just stupid?
June 11th, 2006 at 12:56 pmI have an idea. Let’s list all the negative consequences that could be caused by reducing greenhouse gases.
…
…
…
Um, someone else start.
June 11th, 2006 at 1:00 pmWhy do conservatives hate planet Earth? Love it or Leave it!
June 11th, 2006 at 1:03 pmUm, someone else start.
Comment by Lily — June 11, 2006 @ 1:00 pm
You got me Lily… I have nothing… Someone else?
June 11th, 2006 at 1:07 pm# 28 You’re personal observations about a priest or a savior genius or lunatic understanding of the Bible,does nothing to further this crucial discussion on global warming.
June 11th, 2006 at 1:08 pmTPJUDD discredits any scientist that disagress with Al Gore by associating them Exxon, but is ignorant of the fact Exxon also funds the IPCC and one of Exxon’s employees, H.S. Kheshgi, is a lead author for the IPCC report, along with other oil industry scientists as co-authors in several chapters.
Your logic is flawed once again.
June 11th, 2006 at 1:09 pmI noticed the loyal base is tracking along with Will on this. For years they claimed global warming didn’t exist. Now, all of a sudden, they too are claiming that it does but the argument is the extent of the damage and the time it will take to destroy the planet.
I’ve got to hand it to these guys. They’ve got that lock step down pat.
June 11th, 2006 at 1:09 pmThey’d sell us all into climate bondage if they throught it would advance their financial/ideological interests.
I wonder if these people ever stop to think how long they can keep printing money, err, I mean IOU’s.
Burning Coal adds to the problem of global warming, but because it creates alot of IOU’s, it’s a Good Thing!!
Same with Industry, Filters and Scrubbers are IOU’s!
And we must make IOU’s not spend the IOU’s!!
But in the end it’s just a pipe dream…
June 11th, 2006 at 1:10 pm# 34 You’re should read Your.
June 11th, 2006 at 1:11 pmTPJUDD also ignores the uncertainties that described in the IPCC report:
LEVEL OF SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING
The influence of external factors on
climate can be broadly compared using the concept of
radiative forcing. Here is the level of scientific understanding for some
of those external factors, but the understanding of most of the external factors
is very low.
Statospsheric ozone - Medium
Sulphate - Low
Black and organic carbon from fossil fuel burning - Very Low
Solar - Very Low
We don’t need to cast doubt. The IPCC report does a fine job of doing that.
June 11th, 2006 at 1:12 pmI’m a geologist and, like the vast majority of my colleagues, I’m very concerned about climate change.
However, as I read this essay in Science magazine that describes research of 928 peer-reviewed papers, it certainly looks to me like it is written by a professor at UCSD who specializes in science history. Thus it is a contribution to Science magazine by an independent researcher, not a study in which “Science Magazine analyzed 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers.” I have read many descriptions of this study in the blogosphere, claiming that it is a study done by the National Academy, or by Scinece Magazine. I can’t recall who Gore attributed the study to in his excellent movie. But the fact is that it appears to have been the work of an individual from UCSD. This does not detract from the validity of this study, which has not been disputed to my knowledge. Nor does it detract from the positions taken by major scientific societies such as the National Academy or the American Geophysical Union. But if you are citing the study linked to in this blog, it would be wise to describe its source correctly.
June 11th, 2006 at 1:15 pm#35– Ordinary researchers have to rely on grants awarded in processes that their peers run. A number of scientists get grants based on whether Exxon-Mobil likes what they have to say (regardless of any professionally embarassing mistakes they’ve made in the past):
http://www.heatisonline.org/ contentserver/ objecthandlers/ index.cfm?id=3645&method=full
Not exactly a meritocracy.
June 11th, 2006 at 1:15 pmUm, someone else start.
Comment by Lily
We won’t be able to grow bananas in North Dakota.
June 11th, 2006 at 1:16 pm#41, you’re also ignoring the fact that Exxon funds the IPCC and one of their employees is a lead author for the IPCC report.
Very good #41, you’ve provided another example of flawed logic based on ignorance.
June 11th, 2006 at 1:22 pmYou’re personal observations about a priest or a savior genius or lunatic understanding of the Bible,does nothing to further this crucial discussion on global warming.
Comment by jill — June 11, 2006 @ 1:08 pm
Oh, you’re one of ‘them’. Figures. This is post four for you wiithout a single contribution. The hypocrisy must be heavy. I’m sure the small brain balances it out when you walk.
You should read one of those 16 versions of the Bible you’re defending. There really are talking donkeys (okay, it’s an ass). Must’ve inspired Shrek…
“But now the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she asked Balaam, “What have I done to you that you should beat me these three times?” “You have acted so willfully against me,” said Balaam to the ass, “that if I but had a sword at hand, I would kill you here and now.” But the ass said to Balaam, “Am I not your own beast, and have you not always ridden upon me until now? Have I been in the habit of treating you this way before?” “No,” replied Balaam.” (Numbers 22:20-35 NAB)
June 11th, 2006 at 1:27 pmWe won’t be able to grow bananas in North Dakota.
Comment by Zookeeper — June 11, 2006 @ 1:16 pm
Sure you can… in a greenhouse ; ) Nice try though…
June 11th, 2006 at 1:30 pmThen we have Al Gore discrediting himself:
“I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.”
And isn’t that the issue we have with Al Gore? We all agree that human activity contributes to climate change, but here’s Al Gore ignorinig the uncertainties expressed by IPCC scientists and exagerratinig the facts. And TPJUDD enables the lie. Maybe he shoud heed is own advice - stop misrepresenting the facts and top the personal attacks on scientist who disagree with that climate scientist, Al Gore.
June 11th, 2006 at 1:33 pmNice try though…
Comment by unbelievable
I’m a bit off my game today. Last night Santo, or whatever it was calling itself, asked me what me “real” job was, and I told it I was a hooker with a heart of gold — and my monitor went PFFFTT! That’s what I get for being mean. I’m on Zoo Jr’s brand new computer — it’s so nice!
June 11th, 2006 at 1:35 pmGeorge Will is a pompous,big business shill.”Corporatism”(Fascism) is OK with him.He has his,”So f*** eveyone else”.A typical Republican.
June 11th, 2006 at 1:36 pm# 47..We can all hope that new computer will make you a little less dumb.
June 11th, 2006 at 1:42 pmPlease try to stay on the crucial topic of global warming.
I’m a bit off my game today. Last night Santo, or whatever it was calling itself, asked me what me “real†job was, and I told it I was a hooker with a heart of gold — and my monitor went PFFFTT!
Oh, I was just playing. You’re one of the few who can handle it on a regular basis. I think people take me too seriously Zoo. Maybe my humor is too dry… Oh well, helps separate the folks I wanna talk to from those I don’t :).
I saw that… without Santo’s comments included of course… and laughed. I wonder if she(he) believed you… :)
That’s what I get for being mean. I’m on Zoo Jr’s brand new computer — it’s so nice!
Comment by Zookeeper — June 11, 2006 @ 1:35 pm
I thought you didn’t believe in divine retrobution? Besides, the ultimate outcome sounds like you’re on a better machine… so perhaps being a smart-ass actually has its rewards? ; )
June 11th, 2006 at 1:44 pmPlease try to stay on the crucial topic of global warming.
Comment by jill — June 11, 2006 @ 1:42 pm
You go first.
June 11th, 2006 at 1:45 pmOf course the bad stuff always seems to be able to adapt better than the rest of us: west nile virus, malaria, ebola, bird flu…
Comment by TerrytheTurtle — June 11, 2006 @ 12:26 pm
Hmmm… maybe it’s not the ‘bad’ stuff? :) Maybe we’re the bad stuff that the Earth is trying to kill off? It does that when a species has out grown its environment and is wreaking havoc on the rest of the biosphere…
So, you’re back… What was the deal? You’re not someone who gets banned. You’re one of the intelligent liberals - not some violent Bible-thumping (redundent) neocon troll…
June 11th, 2006 at 1:49 pm43– No flawed logic. If you’re arguing that Exxon wants the truth to get out there, why are they funding discredited scientists? It’s for PR only and it’s inexcusable:
See “The Disinformation Campaigns of Big Coal — A Short History”:
http://www.heatisonline.org/ contentserver/ objecthandlers/ index.cfm?id=4380&method=full
And even career PR guys are disgusted by this. “There is a line between PR and propaganda. There is a difference between using your skills to help rescue a battered reputation and using them to twist the truth” :
“http://planetsave.com/ps_mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7304&Itemid=1
June 11th, 2006 at 1:49 pm46. You’ve used that same quote before. And I addressed it the same way. And you had nothing to say about it the first time either.
The interviewer was taken aback by people taking Gore out of context:
And you can judge for yourself: http://www.grist.org/ news/ maindish/ 2006/ 05/ 09/ roberts/ index.html
June 11th, 2006 at 1:56 pmI actually dunno about point #1. I am not an expert in the field, but every (quasi-)sientific paper I’ve read on the subject seems to assume that we are still in the glaciation/inter-glacial regime in which any warming, even toward temperatures that were normal on this planet before the cooling toward the last ice-age, must be due to human intervention (of course, earlier papers used this rubric but somehow concluded that our activities would eventually start a negative feed-back loop and induce another ice-age). If the current era of glaciation/inter-glacial periods is coming to a close and Earth’s climate is getting to what it was about, say, 20 million years ago, it will be much warmer even without human’s around to screw things up, nu?
That being said, the “we need more study” response of the Republicans is entirely disingenuous, considering that (and my brother is in the biz, so I know such this second if not first hand) the Republicans are wont to defund any and all research into atmospheric science, including and especially into Climate change. Also, a bona fide conservative, while wanting in general to wait until “all the evidence is in” (which, of course, in science it never is — and we liberals should be careful not to become the anti-scientific dragons we are fighting by constructing science as more conclusive than it is) — which makes “conservatives” who supported the Iraq war not conservatives, btw (indeed, why was the Iraq threat so dangerous we couldn’t wait until all the evidence was in but the far more serious threat of global warming is not so dangerous?), would have no objection to taking precautions, just in case and out of prudence.
After all, what is to be lost by making sure that whatever climate change may occur it isn’t due to human waste products. And anyway, even if the rise in temps we are seeing is purely “natural”, it doesn’t bode well for us humans as we evolved during periods when the Earth was, in geological historical terms, relatively cool — so it would be prudent to make sure that we do whatever we can not to tip the system toward global warming. It would only be conservative to, well, conserve, don’t you think?
June 11th, 2006 at 1:56 pmJill - Why can’t we talk about Jesus and global warming?
So far you have posted at least a half dozen times and have contributed nothing to the subject… all you can say is get back on subject… stop talking about the Jesus.
Me and Jesus say screw you… don’t be so God damn bossy!
Oh yeah - global warming is bad too.
June 11th, 2006 at 1:57 pmJust to clear things up — I was referring to “response #1″ from the original post when I said “point #1″ … not to comment #1 …
June 11th, 2006 at 1:58 pmsugar magnolia, re: post #46: That’s called erring on the side of caution. For example, when doctors first suspected cigarette smoking causes cancer, they advised quitting even though no direct link could be shown. And they could have been wrong, but was anyone harmed by quitting even if doctors were wrong? That’s exactly the point I was trying to make in my post #31. What if all who believe in global warming turn out to be wrong? Is the world going to be in a worse state because of it? On the other hand, what if you’re wrong and we do nothing?
June 11th, 2006 at 2:07 pmSometimes I wonder if George Will lives here in America in the real world. On the other hand, does he hibernate not knowing what the average American suffers with daily of high gas prices, rising food prices, rising product necessity prices and lower assets left at the end of the month. Just why are Americans using every Credit Card they have for daily living expenses? I am asking Mr. Will that he and the News Media who gives us very little news, but mostly hours and days of one story over and over again, to THINK! It is to survive in an America divided, with War, Radical thinkers having control of the Republican Party, and Democrats afraid to really fight back as dirty as the Republican Base does. Example Ann Coulter the princess of Sarcasm, Big Words that are so elaborate for the common or lower class voter, they just ignore her, and thank heavens they do, as long words that do not impress the Average American, one bit! I am asking every voter and American who does not vote to THINK, about what others are saying no matter what party they belong to, as long as it is logical, common sense, moral and ethically correct for America. We might get non-voters to vote, as they think they have no say in America, well vote this next election and find out what your one vote can accomplish for you and me.
June 11th, 2006 at 2:12 pm# 56..I have not mentioned Jesus one time.I’ve just mentioned other peoples kinder-garten view of the Bible and to try to keep focus on global warming.If someone is that dumb about the Bible,why listen to their views on other topics.This includes you too,smartass.
June 11th, 2006 at 2:14 pm#58 … indeed it used to be that conservatives were the first people to think this way. I know — my great-grandparents were hard-core conservatives (well, now I think they would be Democrats: indeed, they couldn’t stand Reagan and, in the last presidential election before they passed away, they voted for a Democratic presidential candidate for probably the only time in their lives).
It used to be a conservative wanted to, first and formost, conserve things: the social order, the environment, what have you. You even had conservatives, like my great-grandparents, who accepted some degree of government regulation simply on Hobbsian terms (”since business without regulation tends to be nasty and brutish, they need to be regulated — but it’s the fault of a few ‘rotten apples spoiling the barrel’ that business has to be regulated — if they could police themselves better, then they wouldn’t have to worry about gummint policing them — so rather than complaining about gummint, business leaders should police their own” — that was their logic) and certainly thought the one key role for government was preserving the commons/environment. Of course, these were people who would have been 100% behind Goldwater if it weren’t for his support of the Vietnam war which, anti-communists though they were, they thought was a silly sop to the bullet manufacturers.
I may not agree with Hobbes or Burke so much, but whatever happened to the sort of conservatives that my great-grandparents were? I guess Goldwater was the last of these conservatives prominant on the national scene in some ways and the beginning of the tide of a polar opposite sort of conservativism in other ways?
June 11th, 2006 at 2:17 pmSo Jill, since you haven’t yet told us, what are your views on global warming?
June 11th, 2006 at 2:23 pmHere we go again. One gigantic anti-Gore prevarication dropped in the middle of the thread. Gore say’s nothing about “misrepresenting” much less “exagerating” the facts. He was responding to a questioner about his emphasis on the dangers of global warming rather than possible solutions. The suggestion was raised that he spent that more time on the former rather than the latter. Gore agreed that he emphasized “factual representations” of the former and explained his reasoning for doing so. In Sugar Magnolia’s mind this is transformed into misrepresentation and exageration.
I conclude that Sugar either didn’t read the entire exchange and is speaking from ignorance or knows the context of the quote full well and is acting from malice. In the second case, Sugar is in no position to be calling Gore a liar.
June 11th, 2006 at 2:32 pmActual proposals for reducing CO2 emissions: what George Will doesn’t want to talk about.
*Drop all tax breaks for the oil and coal sectors: exploration write-offs, oil depletion allowance, mountaintop removal write-offs, etc. Force the coal and electric utility sector to reinvest their profits in updating all coal-based power plants with the best clean coal technology available; ); Natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel, so the natural gas sector should get the most leeway of the fossil sector.
*Grant large tax incentives to wind and solar electric production (as was done with oil for 60+ years) and quit actively interfering with wind and solar development (i.e. Dept of Defense claims of ‘windmills interefering with radar defenses’).
*Steer federal funding into alternative energy research (for example, every university in the US should have an alternative energy research program of some sort). Have a policy on all government contract negotiations that favors alternative energy-based projects over fossil fuel / nuclear projects.
*Force the tranporation sector to pay fees for their carbon emissions and create tax / regulation (carrot / stick) structures that promote energy efficiency; the various car companies will then have a level playing field to complete on. Energy prices are expected to remain high, after all. Remind the private sector that future prices could be even higher; promote on-site energy generation for large businesses, etc.
I can already hear the oil, coal and energy trading sectors screaming about ‘unfair competetion practices’. Are you kidding? You guys are complaining about such practices, when that’s been the oil-military-govt strategy for ’securing oil’ for about half a century? Be smart - put your truckloads of money into renewables, and quit with the lame PR schemes.
June 11th, 2006 at 2:37 pmRegarding the “should we bring the Bible into this” debate:
(1) we liberals need to be careful about insulting religious belief per se: for some people, that’s all they have (cf. some very interesting posts in the left-blogosphere on this) … and many of us are religious in some way shape or form
(2) OTOH, the rejection of global warming is, as has been pointed out in this thread, part of a larger anti-Scientific, so-called “religious” world view of the modern Republican party (and, we need to be careful not to become dragons in fighting this dragon — we must avoid developing a quasi-religious faith in the evils of human activity in warming the planet but instead remain the ones open to evidence either way — which many Republicans, as is typical, e.g. in the ID debate, claim to be but in reality are not, as evidenced by their funding priorities: indeed, as is the case with ID, wanting to keep open the debate sometimes has the effect of discouraging rather than encouraging a healthy scepticism). This world view — that the earth is young and that the present world is not for long anyway (as per premillenial thought) — discounts any notion of climate change as well as considers futile any reform in human behavior to avert climate change: if the world is ending soon anyway, why incur any costs in improving it? Even as we liberals must be careful not to insult those who only have religion to hold onto and those of us who are liberal religious (although the latter of us tend to take anti-religious insults ment to be humorous in stride and laugh with the insult as is the intent), we must also vigorously work to uproot the anti-scientific effects of fundamentalist religion on our body politic.
(3) Of course, as it indicates we are to be stewards of God’s creation, the Bible makes a compelling case for environmentalism — even if humans are not the sole cause of global warming, that we even might be doing something to aggravate it goes against God’s will that we take care of Her creation. So religion is a double edged sword — religious arguments can either be used to indicate that we ought not to care about the environment as it hasn’t been around for all that long and all will be destroyed soon anyway, or they can be used to bolster environmentalism. One thing we liberals have to do is talk to people in the language they speak: if we place our arguments in religious terms, maybe we can break the Republican framing of their side as the side of morality?
June 11th, 2006 at 2:39 pmSometimes I wonder if George Will lives here in America in the real world.
George lives in the rarified air of DC punditry. He rubs shoulders with the political hoi polloi while earning easy six-figure incomes. Life is good for George and his ilk and they intend to keep it that way. It’s not particularly unusual if you think about it in a historical context.
What is unusual, the the climatic direction we’re heading and it’s likely impact on living conditions. The betting odds favor the wealthy in the coming scenario as mobility, or the means to obtain it, will likely represent survival for your genetic linage as times get tough.
To people like George, the above makes repeal of the estate tax all the more important. Wanting your progeny to survive where others don’t is a reasonable human instinct, which explains why most of the rest of us should be dead set against people like George Will.
June 11th, 2006 at 2:40 pmI have not mentioned Jesus one time.I’ve just mentioned other peoples kinder-garten view of the Bible
More like kindergarden Bible. You have to be about 5 to buy into that nonsense.
and to try to keep focus on global warming.If someone is that dumb about the Bible,why listen to their views on other topics.This includes you too,smartass.
Comment by jill — June 11, 2006 @ 2:14 pm
What’s dumb about reading an idiotic verse from an idiotic book and poiting out the idiocy? What is dumb is believing a book is infallable when it quotes talking donkeys. I even posted the verse for you to see yourself, since clearly, you’ve never read one of the versions of teh Bible…
June 11th, 2006 at 2:42 pmOne thing we liberals have to do is talk to people in the language they speak: if we place our arguments in religious terms, maybe we can break the Republican framing of their side as the side of morality?
Comment by DAS, Ph.D. Pedant — June 11, 2006 @ 2:39 pm
Instead of recommending that we learn to speak gibberish - how about recommending that we not accept as reasonable the comments of anyone who does speak gibberish.
June 11th, 2006 at 2:49 pmhow about recommending that we not accept as reasonable the comments of anyone who does speak gibberish.
Comment by G.W.SuperChrist — June 11, 2006 @ 2:49 pm
They do want the National Language to be English. They shouldn’t be exempt either… :)
June 11th, 2006 at 2:52 pm“Most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrationsâ€
It appears this so-called “consensus†is an exaggeration of the confidence level of IPCC scientists (one of them an Exxon employee who is a lead author for the report).
“Likely†is not an indicator of a high degree of confidence it it?
In the IPCC Report the following words have been used to indicate approximate judgmental estimates of confidence:
virtually certain (greater than 99% chance that a result is true);
June 11th, 2006 at 2:59 pmvery likely (90−99% chance);
likely (66−90% chance);
medium likelihood (33−66% chance);
unlikely (10−33% chance);
very unlikely (1−10% chance);
exceptionally unlikely (less than 1% chance).
“how about recommending that we not accept as reasonable the comments of anyone who does speak gibberish. - G.W.SuperChrist”
They do want the National Language to be English. They shouldn’t be exempt either… :) - Comment by unbelievable
When I was a kid I had a made up country and the name of their language was Gibberish. ;)
Seriously, though, for some of us, only half of this religious-speak (the batty-fundoid half) is gibberish … actually worse, it’s heretical. Some of us do take religiosity seriously (although I must add it probably doesn’t make us better people — or maybe it’s just that those of us who need religiosity as a crutch upon which to hang morality are not the best people to begin with?) …
June 11th, 2006 at 3:01 pmOops … sorry about the bad html. I think y’all can figure out where the italics are s’posed ta end.
June 11th, 2006 at 3:03 pmWhat’s dumb about reading an idiotic verse from an idiotic book and poiting out the idiocy? What is dumb is believing a book is infallable when it quotes talking donkeys.
Comment by unbelievable — June 11, 2006 @ 2:42 pm
I agree 100% unbelievable!
We should no longer accept the arguments of people that believe the Bible is infallible.
If they do not accept the assertion that the earth is flat… even though the Bible says it is… then they should not be allowed to assert the argument that the Bible is infallible… and if they believe as that the earth is flat then they should be laughed out of the room and into a special home.
Instead of catering to these religious nut as DAS, Ph.D. suggests… I suggest we ridicule their fantastical claims and their delusional world views.
We should no longer allow people to pretend that reality is what you think it is.
June 11th, 2006 at 3:04 pmInstead of catering to these religious nut as DAS, Ph.D. suggests… I suggest we ridicule their fantastical claims and their delusional world views.
That is basically how you get a third grader to stop sucking his thumb… :)
People want to use the Bible to allow all kinds of horrific behavior on their behalf. “Oh, God will take care of me.” Well, so long as you’re taken care of… never mind the billions or other living beings on this planet.
I detest organized religion. It’s one of the few things I absolutely hate. I’ve been reading up on architectural history, because I plan to teach it in my classes this year. Of course it over laps with cultural history. I gotta tell you - the birth of that 3 branched Judeo-Christo-Islamic tree of monotheism was perhaps the biggest blight on mankind. I wish it had been aborted… Humanity might actually be humane instead of egocentric, lazy, and ignorant.
We should no longer allow people to pretend that reality is what you think it is.
Comment by G.W.SuperChrist — June 11, 2006 @ 3:04 pm
I agree. I get attacked a lot in here by people who don’t like it when I dispell their smoke and mirrored reality - on both the left and the right. But, you know what, I agree - if there’s a reason for opening your mouth, it is to dispell the lies and not add to them.
June 11th, 2006 at 3:18 pmRegarding comment #73: I am not saying we should cater to the religious nuts (indeed, this would drive away not only those of us on the left, it would keep moderates away from the liberal coalition as well as it would be seen for the pandering it is … and no-one likes a panderer unless the panderer is said by the “liberal media” to be a “straight talker” in which case people will say “wow — if even media liberals like this Republican, he must be good”). What I am saying is that it we should make sure that the majority of this country who do have some form of religious orientation realize that the religious nuts do not have a monopoly on religious thinking but we need to include the voices of those of us who are religious and (hopefully) not nuts so that people realize that the right has no monopoly on values/morals.
June 11th, 2006 at 3:22 pmLeave poor Jill alone. Notice when she was challenged to actually say something about global warming she disappeared.
June 11th, 2006 at 3:32 pmI would like to respond to the remarks of sugar magnolia, on posts 35, 39, 43, 46, and 70, whose choice of nom de plume is a travesty against Jerry and the boys, who would consider the remarks from that person as disingenuous at best, at worst, dishonest propaganda essentially because it is cherry-picking a few facts and attempting to weave from such linters whole broadcloths of misrepresentations.
The ICPP report alluded to can be found at this site, use the pulldown menu to link up the particular chapters.
http://www.grida.no/ climate/ ipcc_tar/ wg1/ index.htm
more data is explained at realclimate.org in the index section.
June 11th, 2006 at 3:38 pmif there’s a reason for opening your mouth, it is to dispell the lies and not add to them.
Comment by unbelievable — June 11, 2006 @ 3:18 pm
Spot on there unbelievable!
June 11th, 2006 at 3:46 pmStop making fun of Jesus. Global warming is bad.
June 11th, 2006 at 3:51 pmAnd if the present administration is so concerned about the uncertainty of climate science, why are they scuttling “a number of satellites designed to give scientists critical information on the earth’s changing climate”?
http://www.boston.com/ news/ nation/ articles/ 2006/ 06/ 09/ nasa_shelves_climate_satellites/
June 11th, 2006 at 3:56 pm#70: It appears this so-called “consensus†is an exaggeration of the confidence level of IPCC scientists.
You are confusing terms. Consensus is a measure of broad agreement within the community, whereas confidence is a measure of perceived probability. If 100% of climate scientists were to have the same confidence level regarding the role of greenhouse gases in global warming, that would be a perfect consensus regardless of what that confidence level is. Briefly, 100% agreement on a 66% confidence level is not the same thing as 66% agreement on a 100% confidence level. Even more briefly, the word “likely” does not undermine the word “consensus”.
As to the whether “likely” represents a high degree of confidence, 66-90% seems reasonably high to me, depending on the seriousness of the downside. Would you play Russian roulette with 4 bullets in 6 chambers? How about with 9 bullets in 10 chambers?
June 11th, 2006 at 4:02 pm# 62&76..I believe that global warming is real,and that man is over contributing to the problem,especially the U.S..
June 11th, 2006 at 4:04 pmThat’s why I didn’t want this thread to be hi-jacked by useless talk of flying donkeys and nonsense like that.If some people don’t like a certain literature then KEEP IT TO YOURSELF.
It has no place on a thread about G.Wa.,and its effect on our economy.
And DAS thank you for your informed opinion;it sure beats the malarky that imposters as knowledge around here.
I DID NOT POST # 79
June 11th, 2006 at 4:07 pmThe other question is consensus about what? Even the National Review agrees that:
But “Sugar Magnolia” does not want you to know that because her interest is in sowing confusion, not clearing things up.
June 11th, 2006 at 4:10 pmPlease try to stay on the crucial topic of global warming.
Comment by jill
The hall monitor has no pass.
June 11th, 2006 at 4:29 pmIt appears this so-called “consensus†is an exaggeration of the confidence level of IPCC scientists (one of them an Exxon employee who is a lead author for the report).
“Likely†is not an indicator of a high degree of confidence it it?
It is if you’re a scientist whose stock and trade is probability rather than absolute certainty.
Considering that Sugar Magnolia has neither withdrawn nor explained his/her early misrepresentation/fabrication regarding the quote from Al Gore, there’s no reason to take anything originating from this source seriously.
June 11th, 2006 at 4:34 pmI thought you didn’t believe in divine retrobution?
Comment by unbelievable
It’s my philosophy of “What goes around, comes around.” I almost told Santo I was a streetwalker for Jesus — who knows what would have happened then! I can’t wait for the TP crowd to get back, these threads are FUBAR.
June 11th, 2006 at 4:36 pm?The real story of Al Gore and Global Warming.
June 11th, 2006 at 4:43 pmIt’s my philosophy of “What goes around, comes around.†I almost told Santo I was a streetwalker for Jesus — who knows what would have happened then!
Yeah, but there’s a distinction between what you say and what you do… dontcha think? I don’t think Santo understands enough English for that to have been mean. Even if he did, I still didn’t think it was mean.
I can’t wait for the TP crowd to get back, these threads are FUBAR.
Comment by Zookeeper — June 11, 2006 @ 4:36 pm
You know it gets crazier on Sundays… Was like a job I had in college one summer at a grocery store. On the second and third Wednesday of teh month they would bring the fokls from the local mental health facility in for a field trip. I quickly learned to not make eye contact, say anything including “have a nice day” or make any sudden movements. It’s kinda like that in here today… :)
June 11th, 2006 at 4:56 pmI believe that global warming is real,and that man is over contributing to the problem,especially the U.S..
That’s why I didn’t want this thread to be hi-jacked by useless talk of flying donkeys and nonsense like that.If some people don’t like a certain literature then KEEP IT TO YOURSELF.
It has no place on a thread about G.Wa.,and its effect on our economy.
Comment by jill — June 11, 2006 @ 4:04 pm
Jill I have an MS in Biology… I am very aware of the devastating effects of global warming… so are most other people here!
Sharing a couple more facts about how global warming is bad will do nothing to convince those people that do not believe in global warming that it is real.
I believe that figuring out what it is that precludes these people from accepting science and what we can do to change their minds is as a constructive endeavor as any… it is relative!
Why do some people accept the soft science of economists and not the more rigid work of climatologists?
Does religion have anything to do with it?
These questions matter… so stop being a buzz-kill!
June 11th, 2006 at 4:57 pmI don’t think Santo understands enough English for that to have been mean. Even if he did, I still didn’t think it was mean.
Comment by unbelievable
It’s basically enough that I knew I was being mean. Actually, Santo replied almost immediately, and she thought it was so funny. Jr’s computer is so cool, it’s got a wireless keyboard and mouse, and a huge monitor (I’m being nice!). I’m sitting on his bed across the room and pounding away. It’s good to be farsighted! Lordy, this place is a mess…
June 11th, 2006 at 5:04 pmThese questions matter… so stop being a buzz-kill!
Comment by G.W.SuperChrist — June 11, 2006 @ 4:57 pm
Uh… Amen! :)
June 11th, 2006 at 5:14 pmLordy, this place is a mess…
Comment by Zookeeper — June 11, 2006 @ 5:04 pm
You’re too funny…
Well, if Santo thought it was funny, then it’s not mean :) Just like tehtime you said that Zookeeper was your given name… everyone knew it was a joke… around here. let’s say most everyone :)
June 11th, 2006 at 5:16 pmI am sure will thinks that if you put rope in a barrel of water and close it up for six days you’ll get flatworms.
June 11th, 2006 at 5:33 pmJust like tehtime you said that Zookeeper was your given name… everyone knew it was a joke… around here. let’s say most everyone :)
Comment by unbelievable
Ah, good times…
I am sure will thinks that if you put rope in a barrel of water and close it up for six days you’ll get flatworms.
Comment by blogenfreude
You don’t! Goddammit! Maybe it will turn into beer…
June 11th, 2006 at 5:46 pmI would like to thank all of the dipshits who now agree with me, and disagree with TPJUDD, that there is disagreement about cliimate change and a lack of understanding about the radiative forces behind climate change. There is not 100% agreement about global warming, even among IPCC contributing scientists.
And it’s false to suggest that anyone who is funded by Exxon, directly or indirectly, is automatically discredited. And for TPJUDD that logic doesn’t apply to the IPCC report even though Exxon contributes to the IPCC and one of it’s employees is a lead author for the IPCC Report.
As for Al Gore, he has a history of distorting the facts, using the media to suppress disagreeing opinions, and has even admitted to “over-representing the facts” no matter you buttholes spin it.
I have learned never to trust lawyers when they talk about science. They don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. TPJUDD, you don’t crap about Killamanjero. You sound ridiculous. But who knows, I might work for Exxon, right?
June 11th, 2006 at 5:47 pmI note that, in reference to the Science magazine “study”, no mention is made of the fact that a correction had to be issued when the person who wrote the article was exposed as having misrepresented the terms under which her search was performed. Also, no mention is made of another researcher who used the very same terms to do his own search, and found vestly different results in the process. I’ve already documented this regarding a previous posting on this site.
http://nothingcouldbefiner.blogspot.com/ 2006/ 06/ think-progress-offers-shoddy-research.html
When will Think Progress stop touting this “study” as fact, when it takes only a few minutes research on the web to utterly refute it?
Later,
June 11th, 2006 at 5:47 pmZoo,
I think the chasm between reality based people and those in denial is growing so wide that people are now shouting across it…
Some folks brains are like their appendix. They just don’t like anyone one else pointing it out. Watch:
Global Warming is a fact.
June 11th, 2006 at 6:00 pmWatch:
Global Warming is a fact.
Comment by unbelievable
Oh hell no! I’m not sticking around for that. I’d rather watch a barrel of flatworms turn into beer!
June 11th, 2006 at 6:04 pmGlobal warming is a fact. Gues what? No one disagrees with that. But do you only blame cars and US oil companies? Do you completely understand all radiative forces? Because the IPCC scientists don’t.
June 11th, 2006 at 6:04 pmI would like to thank all of the dipshits who now agree with me.
Sugar, such foul language for a lady! We “agree with you” about what?
There is not 100% agreement about global warming, even among IPCC contributing scientists.
We have asked you to be specific about what’s in dispute and what’s not. As I said, even National Review agreed that
So you want 100% agreement about everything before we take action on anything? Does that sound wise to you, especially when there’s already so much agreement? I mean, seriously, take a look at the study saying that “most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”: http://www.sciencemag.org/ cgi/ content/ full/ 306/ 5702/ 1686
Or the Bush-commisioned report that begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising.”
http://www.heatisonline.org/ contentserver/ objecthandlers/ index.cfm?id=3713&method=full
There is a consensus that there is human-induced warming. IPCC reports point out the dangers. It seems to me we would deserve being removed from the gene pool if we waited for certainty on exactly what is going to happen to us in minute detail before we took action.
That would be obvious with a 6th grade education, no? I mean come on.
Give the Luntz-style argumentation a rest!
But who knows, I might work for Exxon, right?
Following this subject as I have for the past decade or so, nothing surprises me anymore.
June 11th, 2006 at 6:07 pmI think Markos Moulitsas on MTP today stating that 68% in his straw poll would support Gore for president says just about everything on why Gore is pushing this at the time. He’s trying to see if there’s any market for the Goremeister to make a come-back, and boy is there ever! Just make a movie about one of the Left’s biggest issues and you are immediately a savior. Never mind the fact that you distort the truth and fear-monger - the Left will cover your tracks for you and ride your coattails all the way to the bank.
As far as Cicero’s information regarding Judd’s often cited “study”, I’d be interested in seeing a response from Judd about that one. Of course, I know we won’t get one because Judd doesn’t care. He will keep citing the same discredited information day in and day out until a big blogger calls him out.
June 11th, 2006 at 6:10 pmHe will keep citing the same discredited information day in and day out until a big blogger calls him out.
I would have to see the links to the “discredited information.” And if you want talk discredited information, how about all the fiercely circulating conservative urban myth’s out there, like the one about the Gore quote? There’s a ton of zombie information out there that just keeps wandering around and won’t die.
And the troll comments on global warming on this site are anemic at best. Judd’s posts have not been “discredited” in the least. Just the opposite.
June 11th, 2006 at 6:18 pm# 90..Now you’re starting to sound like you have some sense.Hatred of literature,be it Shakespeare,Quran or Bible,do nothing to forward the debate.Neither does pride in our spawns graduation from high-school:HIGH-SCHOOL.
June 11th, 2006 at 6:19 pmSome people need to go elsewhere to socialize.
I would have to see the links to the “discredited information.â€
Comment by JJ
Good luck on that one, JJ! Seixon doesn’t provide no steenking links. He just talks out of his Ex Pat ass.
June 11th, 2006 at 6:21 pm#101
So you want 100% agreement about everything before we take action on anything?
You can’t claim there is no disagreement among climate scientists now.
“most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrationsâ€
“Likely” is not 100% confidence. So there is disagreement among climate scientists, not just the ones funded by Exxon.
We work in the energy industry. The fact is clean alternative sources of energy have been researched by the energy industry for decades. Government tax breaks and incentives were drastically decreased in the late 80’s and throughout the 90’s when there was an oil glut and increased imports gave us reason to forget about transitioning to alternative fuels, but that didn’t stop the research. Only slowed it. You libs only have yourselves to blame for ignoring the problem in the 90’s.
And give up the heatsonline link. It’s pathetic propaganda.
June 11th, 2006 at 6:28 pmAw come on Zoo, just stir the pot a little… it doesn’t take much. Even when I phrased it like it was a baited hook…. :)
June 11th, 2006 at 6:31 pmI think (and I know I’m nobody to speculate in such things, BUT…) that the effort to clean the planet will be such a boon to the global economy and especially to those countries that take the first action. True, that the country (and, in turn, those countries) that contributes most to dirtying the planet has to step up to the plate for much of this economic boom to take place. Think about it - Thousands of businesses would be created and competition would be incredible! It would be much, much larger than the tech boom of the 90’s!
Just thinkin’
June 11th, 2006 at 6:33 pmGlobal warming is real. Carbon dioxide emissions most certainly contribute to the problem. There is, however, another problem that will dwarf global warming in terms of social upheaval in the near future and that is the burning of oil itself. Oil is a finite resource that will be depleted in the next few decades at the current rate of combustion. Of course, the rate of combustion is actually going to get much higher as countries like China and India begin to burn their fair share of oil. The agricultural, pharmaceutical, and manufacturing sectors, as well as many others, are all based on carbon based chemicals derived from oil. No more oil, no more petrochemicals. The wanton combustion of oil must not just be stopped because of global warming but to preserve a resource which can never be replaced.
June 11th, 2006 at 6:34 pmYou can’t claim there is no disagreement among climate scientists now.
But disagreement about what? Some things are still in debate, some things aren’t. The basic science is not in dispute.
The bottom line, as I’ve been commenting throughout this thread, is that there is risk. And we need to be honest about that, not try to spin it.
And give up the heatsonline link. It’s pathetic propaganda.
If you have a problem with something Ross Gelbspan says, then spell it out. It’s simply a page of scientific studies in the top scientific journals.
June 11th, 2006 at 6:38 pmin reply to the disinfromation spread by post 96:
Oh dear, whack-a-mole season again?
sugar magnolia woud have one believe that the sentence “…. there is disagreement about cliimate change and a lack of understanding about the radiative forces behind climate change” implies that the disagreement is whether it is occurring, that if it is occurring it is questionable whether or not it is anthropogenic, and that a lack of complete understanding of solar or gamma radiation means that the recent tempertarue rise over the last several decades is a related to sun spot activity and not greenhouses gases. Oddly we haven’t seen sun spot activity recently like we did since 1960, yet the temperature is rising now.
each of these is fallacious and misdiredting the debate.
as to consensus in the ICPP report:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/005.htm
and as quoted
The issue of sunspots as mentioned by the much reported and rightfully maligned Belunias and Soon has been debunked repeatedly.
The IPCC and other professionals maintain “that natural factors such as volcanoes or solar variations are not sufficient to produce the observed 20th century forcing.”(warming).
As well, suggesting that one should be innoculated from accusations of bias because of where they clear their paycheck, Mark Twain would offer the following:
“You tell me whar a man gits his corn pone, en I’ll tell you what his ‘pinions is.”
June 11th, 2006 at 6:44 pmI was going to suggest that the trolls take their medication and calm down but they apparently already have. The problem is their medication of choice seems to be crystal meth.
June 11th, 2006 at 6:48 pmRoss Gelbspan:
“The hurricane that struck Louisiana yesterday was nicknamed Katrina by the National Weather Service. Its real name is global warming.”
Horse sh*t. Even you know that.
June 11th, 2006 at 6:49 pmAlternative fuel sources, why not put solar panels on your roof, wind power, why not? Hello?? this shit is cheaper, but I guess it’s communist like linux, so that means it’s evil.;)
June 11th, 2006 at 6:51 pmJJ,
I would have to see the links to the “discredited information.â€
I think Cicero already gave it up. Try reading.
And if you want talk discredited information, how about all the fiercely circulating conservative urban myth’s out there, like the one about the Gore quote?
Eh, what? Which quote? The one about the internet? I’m not sure what quote is “fiercely circulating” at the moment, I have apparently missed it after b