2007: Hottest year ever thus far.
By on May 18th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
2007: Hottest year ever thus far.
“April may have seemed on the cool side in this country, but globally it was the third warmest on record (and the warmest April ever over land). In fact, the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reports that ‘globally averaged combined land and sea surface temperature was the warmest on record for January-April year-to-date period.’”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
But Rush Limpballs said it’s not true, so it can’t be true!!
May 18th, 2007 at 12:58 pmLook how warmer the oceans and the Arctic are getting.
These are real trouble.
Anybody see “Day After Tomorrow” last night on TV?
Rapid climate change like that COULD happen, especially if ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica slide into the ocean.
May 18th, 2007 at 1:01 pmThe sheeple think that if it’s cool in their backyard there’s no problem.
May 18th, 2007 at 1:01 pmClinton’s fault!!
I accept no responsibility!!
May 18th, 2007 at 1:03 pmBut where Chimpy, Darth Cheney, Rummy, Kinda-sleezy-Lice, Wolfoshitz, Turd Blossom, Colon Bowel, Tenant ETC are going :
IT’S GOING TO BE A LOT HOTTER!
(if you know what I mean)
May 18th, 2007 at 1:03 pmno #4, the correct excuse is “theres more greenhouse gas in clintons pants”
May 18th, 2007 at 1:06 pmI would submit that the temperature in Washington, D.C. is getting hotter as we speak.
May 18th, 2007 at 1:06 pmWe’ve always had a lot of hot air in D.C., but Gone-Zales has a way of raising people’s temperatures.
Damn those urban heat islands…
May 18th, 2007 at 1:10 pmDang, its HOT down here!!
May 18th, 2007 at 1:11 pmWell, on the plus side, Siberia will soon be warm enough to grow wheat…we’ll need it, after it becomes too warm in the U.S. to grow it.
May 18th, 2007 at 1:12 pmApril may have seemed on the cool side in this country, but globally it was the third warmest on record
So this means America has solved global warming, and we just have to wait for the rest of the countries to get on board right? But of course the MSM won’t publish it that way.
May 18th, 2007 at 1:12 pmHere in Colorado, one of our well-known meteorologists says that by the year 2020, there won’t be any more skiing in Colorado. Not enough snow.
May 18th, 2007 at 1:14 pmSo this means America has solved global warming??
LOL!! Good one. Yeah, right.
May 18th, 2007 at 1:15 pmSo… Siberia is heating up… that’s WAAYYYY bad as it will release lots of carbon dioxide and even worse, methane.
Here’s another bad news:
Southern Ocean already losing ability to absorb CO2
Antarctic Surface Thaw most significant in 30 years
Ouch ouch ouch…..
May 18th, 2007 at 1:15 pmBut, but, but … it was cold her last night. And, and, and … I would like it to be warmer where I live.
Brought to you by the Troll Conglomerate of America, sponsored by the Republican National Committee.
May 18th, 2007 at 1:16 pmGet ready for the flat-earthers to describe why they, scientifically illiterate as they are, must be thought of as correct and listened to over scientists and climatologists who know just what the Hell they’re talking about
May 18th, 2007 at 1:16 pmSo this means America has solved global warming, and we just have to wait for the rest of the countries to get on board right? But of course the MSM won’t publish it that way.
Comment by squegeebooo
They won’t publish it that way because it’s not true.
May 18th, 2007 at 1:17 pmNot that they have a problem publishing lies, of course….
I just got back from lunch and I can tell you – it’s f-ing hot out there!
May 18th, 2007 at 1:18 pmCheney’s eating a burrito for lunch.
That will raise methane to dangerous levels in Washington.
May 18th, 2007 at 1:19 pm#20 12 / best way to kill the ragheads near the equator
nice plan Mr President
Comment by Jake — May 18, 2007 @ 1:19 pm
It will solve also the fundamentalist red state problem of Texas, Missouri, Mississipi, and Florida.
May 18th, 2007 at 1:21 pmOr worse, the conservative media will find like the ONE climatologist on the entire earth who doesn’t believe in global climate change and will give him equal weight, air time, and possibly greater critical status, compared to the soundbites from real scientists.
Lazy Journalism Rule #1: If you are too dumb/lazy to do the research yourself, give equal weight to all sides (no matter how delusional) and let the public decide which is “right” based on those sound bites.
May 18th, 2007 at 1:22 pmIt will solve also the fundamentalist red state problem of Texas, Missouri, Mississipi, and Florida.
Comment by Evil Spaniard
Nice one, Senor Evil. :-D
May 18th, 2007 at 1:23 pmIsn’t it ironic that, pretty soon, the only way people will know anything about hockey sticks is through global warming, because the sport we know as hockey will ceast to exist due to lack of ice…
May 18th, 2007 at 1:24 pmUpthread, Greenpeace has caught ExxonMobil lying about cutting its funding of global warming denier groups. ExxonMobil is still funding them.
May 18th, 2007 at 1:24 pm> ExxonMobil lying about cutting its funding of global warming
> denier groups
…why am I not surprised? Ethics? We have heard about them. Sociopaths in the boardroom? Yes, please.
I’m sure I can get a cheap Sniper Gun somewhere and do some Good in this Valley of Evil.
May 18th, 2007 at 1:28 pmThe earth is far more powerful than us humans; it will be doing its thing (heating and cooling) long after we are gone. All of you gullible to buy into global warming are purely allowing yourselves to become liberal sheep, mindless zombies believing anything that liberal media will feed you. Think for yourselves, get real facts not cheap ones! Dig around a little….the same people predicting global warming now were predicting global cooling in the 1970s…they are also on liberal (government) payrolls and can only expand if there is more research to be done, if there is a global crisis.
check out this food for thought good people, and trust me you are al good and owe it to yourselves to think for your selves and find the real truth, not a “convenient lie”
Will Al Gore Melt?
By FLEMMING ROSE and BJORN LOMBORG
January 18, 2007; Page A16
Al Gore is traveling around the world telling us how we must fundamentally change our civilization due to the threat of global warming. Today he is in Denmark to disseminate this message. But if we are to embark on the costliest political project ever, maybe we should make sure it rests on solid ground. It should be based on the best facts, not just the convenient ones. This was the background for the biggest Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, to set up an investigative interview with Mr. Gore. And for this, the paper thought it would be obvious to team up with Bjorn Lomborg, author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist,” who has provided one of the clearest counterpoints to Mr. Gore’s tune.
The interview had been scheduled for months. Mr. Gore’s agent yesterday thought Gore-meets-Lomborg would be great. Yet an hour later, he came back to tell us that Bjorn Lomborg should be excluded from the interview because he’s been very critical of Mr. Gore’s message about global warming and has questioned Mr. Gore’s evenhandedness. According to the agent, Mr. Gore only wanted to have questions about his book and documentary, and only asked by a reporter. These conditions were immediately accepted by Jyllands-Posten. Yet an hour later we received an email from the agent saying that the interview was now cancelled. What happened?
One can only speculate. But if we are to follow Mr. Gore’s suggestions of radically changing our way of life, the costs are not trivial. If we slowly change our greenhouse gas emissions over the coming century, the U.N. actually estimates that we will live in a warmer but immensely richer world. However, the U.N. Climate Panel suggests that if we follow Al Gore’s path down toward an environmentally obsessed society, it will have big consequences for the world, not least its poor. In the year 2100, Mr. Gore will have left the average person 30% poorer, and thus less able to handle many of the problems we will face, climate change or no climate change.
Clearly we need to ask hard questions. Is Mr. Gore’s world a worthwhile sacrifice? But it seems that critical questions are out of the question. It would have been great to ask him why he only talks about a sea-level rise of 20 feet. In his movie he shows scary sequences of 20-feet flooding Florida, San Francisco, New York, Holland, Calcutta, Beijing and Shanghai. But were realistic levels not dramatic enough? The U.N. climate panel expects only a foot of sea-level rise over this century. Moreover, sea levels actually climbed that much over the past 150 years. Does Mr. Gore find it balanced to exaggerate the best scientific knowledge available by a factor of 20?
Mr. Gore says that global warming will increase malaria and highlights Nairobi as his key case. According to him, Nairobi was founded right where it was too cold for malaria to occur. However, with global warming advancing, he tells us that malaria is now appearing in the city. Yet this is quite contrary to the World Health Organization’s finding. Today Nairobi is considered free of malaria, but in the 1920s and ’30s, when temperatures were lower than today, malaria epidemics occurred regularly. Mr. Gore’s is a convenient story, but isn’t it against the facts?
He considers Antarctica the canary in the mine, but again doesn’t tell the full story. He presents pictures from the 2% of Antarctica that is dramatically warming and ignores the 98% that has largely cooled over the past 35 years. The U.N. panel estimates that Antarctica will actually increase its snow mass this century. Similarly, Mr. Gore points to shrinking sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere, but don’t mention that sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere is increasing. Shouldn’t we hear those facts? Mr. Gore talks about how the higher temperatures of global warming kill people. He specifically mentions how the European heat wave of 2003 killed 35,000. But he entirely leaves out how global warming also means less cold and saves lives. Moreover, the avoided cold deaths far outweigh the number of heat deaths. For the U.K. it is estimated that 2,000 more will die from global warming. But at the same time 20,000 fewer will die of cold. Why does Mr. Gore tell only one side of the story?
Al Gore is on a mission. If he has his way, we could end up choosing a future, based on dubious claims, that could cost us, according to a U.N. estimate, $553 trillion over this century. Getting answers to hard questions is not an unreasonable expectation before we take his project seriously. It is crucial that we make the right decisions posed by the challenge of global warming. These are best achieved through open debate, and we invite him to take the time to answer our questions: We are ready to interview you any time, Mr. Gore — and anywhere.
Mr. Rose is culture editor of Jyllands-Posten, in Copenhagen. Mr. Lomborg is a professor at the Copenhagen Business School.
May 18th, 2007 at 1:37 pmA graphic from ONE month over the course of 3 decades doesn’t quite tell the whole story.
For instance, the map shows Texas as being cooler in April over the time period. However, most of Texas has been experiencing drought conditions in the summer, although our spring season has cooled off.
Not looking forward to this summer’s energy bills. Considering going solar…
May 18th, 2007 at 1:38 pmEvil Spaniard
It will solve also the fundamentalist red state problem of Texas, Missouri, Mississipi, and Florida.
I believe thats what we call a Win-Win scenario.
May 18th, 2007 at 1:38 pmGet ready for the flat-earthers to describe why they, scientifically illiterate as they are, must be thought of as correct and listened to over scientists and climatologists who know just what the Hell they’re talking about
Or worse, the liberal media will pay climatologists who propagate global climate change and will give them unequal weight, air time, and possibly greater critical status, compared to the soundbites from real scientists.
Lazy Journalism Rule #1: If you are too dumb/lazy to do the research yourself, give equal weight to all sides (no matter how delusional) and let the public decide which is “left behind†based on those sound bites
May 18th, 2007 at 1:40 pmDoesn’t that big yellow thing in the sky have the greatest effect over the earth’s temperature?
And why are the record highs in temp mostly back in the 1910s and 1920s? Must have been tons of global warming then!!!!
May 18th, 2007 at 1:43 pmMr. Rose is culture editor of Jyllands-Posten, in Copenhagen. Mr. Lomborg is a professor at the Copenhagen Business School.
Comment by Om “Common” Sense
You’re kidding, right?
May 18th, 2007 at 1:44 pmA culture editor and a business school professor trump almost universal agreement among scientists?
No Common Sense,
Read the thread above re: EXXON paying people to deny Climate Change.
Project much?
May 18th, 2007 at 1:46 pmAl Gore didn’t make this up….
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/dgesl/research/other/climate_change_and_sea_level/sea_level_rise/sea_level_rise.htm
May 18th, 2007 at 1:49 pmI can’t believe the real facts about this subject! The media must have it totally wrong and I guess they are biased in only one direction!!! Why don’t they ever look under the hood!!!
Inconvenient Kyoto Truths
Was life better when a sheet of ice a mile thick covered Chicago? Was it worse when Greenland was so warm that Vikings farmed there?
By George F. Will
Newsweek
Feb. 12, 2007 issue – Enough already. It is time to call some bluffs. John Kerry says that one reason America has become an “international pariah” is President Bush’s decision to “walk away from global warming.” Kerry’s accusation is opaque, but it implies the usual complaint that Bush is insufficiently enthusiastic about the Kyoto Protocol’s binding caps on emissions of greenhouse gases. Many senators and other experts in climate science say we must “do something” about global warming. Barack Obama says “the world” is watching to see “what action we take.”
Fine. President Bush should give the world something amusing to watch. He should demand that the Senate vote on the protocol.
May 18th, 2007 at 1:50 pmClimate Cassandras say the facts are clear and the case is closed. (Sen. Barbara Boxer: “We’re not going to take a lot of time debating this anymore.”) The consensus catechism about global warming has six tenets: 1. Global warming is happening. 2. It is our (humanity’s, but especially America’s) fault. 3. It will continue unless we mend our ways. 4. If it continues we are in grave danger. 5. We know how to slow or even reverse the warming. 6. The benefits from doing that will far exceed the costs.
Only the first tenet is clearly true, and only in the sense that the Earth warmed about 0.7 degrees Celsius in the 20th century. We do not know the extent to which human activity caused this. The activity is economic growth, the wealth-creation that makes possible improved well-being—better nutrition, medicine, education, etc. How much reduction of such social goods are we willing to accept by slowing economic activity in order to (try to) regulate the planet’s climate?
Fine. President Bush should give the world something amusing to watch. He should demand that the Senate vote on the protocol.
Climate Cassandras say the facts are clear and the case is closed. (Sen. Barbara Boxer: “We’re not going to take a lot of time debating this anymore.”) The consensus catechism about global warming has six tenets: 1. Global warming is happening. 2. It is our (humanity’s, but especially America’s) fault. 3. It will continue unless we mend our ways. 4. If it continues we are in grave danger. 5. We know how to slow or even reverse the warming. 6. The benefits from doing that will far exceed the costs.
Only the first tenet is clearly true, and only in the sense that the Earth warmed about 0.7 degrees Celsius in the 20th century. We do not know the extent to which human activity caused this. The activity is economic growth, the wealth-creation that makes possible improved well-being—better nutrition, medicine, education, etc. How much reduction of such social goods are we willing to accept by slowing economic activity in order to (try to) regulate the planet’s climate?
It could cost tens of trillions (in expenditures and foregone economic growth, here and in less-favored parts of the planet) to try to fine-tune the planet’s temperature. We cannot know if these trillions would purchase benefits commensurate with the benefits that would have come from social wealth that was not produced.
In 1997, when the Kyoto Protocol’s essential provisions were known, a “sense of the Senate” resolution declared opposition to any agreement that would do what the protocol aims to do. The Senate warned against any agreement that would require significant reductions of greenhouse-gas emissions in the United States and other developed nations without mandating “specific scheduled commitments” on the part of the 129 “developing” countries, which include China, India, Brazil and South Korea—the second, fourth, 10th and 11th largest economies. Nothing Americans can do to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions will make a significant impact on the global climate while every 10 days China fires up a coal-fueled generating plant big enough to power San Diego. China will construct 2,200 new coal plants by 2030.
The Senate’s resolution expressed opposition to any agreement that “would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States,” which the Senate correctly thought Kyoto would do. The Senate said any agreement should be accompanied by “a detailed explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions that may be required to implement” it, and an analysis of the agreement’s “detailed financial costs and other impacts” on the U.S. economy.
The president is now on the side of the angels, having promised to “confront” the challenge of climate change. The confronting is one reason for his fascination with new fuels. (Another reason, he says, is U.S. imports of oil from unstable nations. Our largest foreign source of oil is turbulent Canada. Our second largest is Mexico, which is experiencing turbulence because of the soaring cost of tortillas. They are made from corn, which is … well, read on.)
Ethanol produces just slightly more energy than it takes to manufacture it. But now that the government is rigging energy markets with mandates, tariffs and subsidies, ethanol production might consume half of next year’s corn crop. The price of corn already has doubled in a year. Hence the tortilla turbulence south of the border. Forests will be felled (will fewer trees mean more global warming?) to clear land for growing corn, which requires fertilizer, the manufacture of which requires energy. Oh, my.
President Clinton and his earnest vice president knew better than to seek ratification of Kyoto by a Senate that had passed its resolution of disapproval 95-0. Fifty-six of those 95 senators are still serving. Two of them are John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. That is an inconvenient truth.
So why don’t we just set off a few more surface nukes on some middle of a desert or other large no-man’s land. And let the particles put into the atmosphere from that work as solar reflectors. The radiation would be negligible, and global warming can be slowed or reversed until conventional means can take over from the nukings.
May 18th, 2007 at 1:54 pmDoesn’t that big yellow thing in the sky have the greatest effect over the earth’s temperature?
Comment by Pip the English — May 18, 2007 @ 1:43 pm
No, actually. The current studies put the influence of solar forcing on global warming at about 20%. Greenhouse gases play a far larger role. Four billion years ago, the sun’s output was 2/3 what it is today, yet the Earth’s temperature was as high or higher than current temperatures. That means that the sun does not have the greatest effect over average temperatures.
May 18th, 2007 at 1:54 pmI am constantly reminded of the 60’s and 70’s, when in the face of overwhelming scientific medical consenses on the fact that tobacco caused lung cancer, the tobacco industry would fund phony “think tanks” like the Tobacco Institute, who would pay people to write articles about how the link between tobacco and cancer was “circumstantial at best.” Conservatives used these bogus articles funded by the tobacco industry to “debunk” the idea that cigarettes cause cancer.
Sinclair Lewis said it best and it applies to a wide range of issues: “It’s hard to get a man to agree with something if his paycheck depends on not agreeing.” (paraphrasing)
May 18th, 2007 at 1:58 pmSo people from both parties are paying both ways? What’s new!
I pay my scientist you pay yours. For us commoners we should focus on facts, not hype. I don’t agree with anyone paying anybody to promote their idea, but that’s life. Advertisers pay movie to promote products. Activists pay rock and movie stars to promote their cause.
Very few believe only believe what’s in their heart anymore. A very few rely on facts. The fact is that the sun is hot, you, I and the human race will die out eventually and the earth will keep heating and cooling. Why not just take the time to be nice to one another while we are here?
I disagree with al politicians, but especially the ones who whine and whine about all the various crazy end of the world theories. Give me your money and votes and I’ll protect you they say. It’s a form of power grabbing.
I refuse to buy into that. The government is the only perpetual motion machine known to man. It keeps itself alive by staying alive. It seeks to build (more government jobs mean more power to the government) itself…and if there are huge problems in the world then you need a huge government to solve them right??? So why not make huge problems like global warming that are not necessarily true or proven.
A real problem is one where people fly planes into buildings and kill people, but that’s another topic. A real problem is starvation (especially when you live in a Tennessee or Massachusetts mansion and speak out of two sides of your mouth.
Lets take back power, lets decide the problems for ourself. Lets limit government together and really, independently figure out if we have major environmental problems and why. Could be chinese coal plants. Could be lack of trees from too much corn being grown for ethanol. Could be the sun. Could be peoples 4 computers and 10 cars (yes even toyata 2 doors are bad).
lets reduce government and figure it out for ourselves.
May 18th, 2007 at 2:01 pmSo why don’t we just set off a few more surface nukes on some middle of a desert or other large no-man’s land. And let the particles put into the atmosphere from that work as solar reflectors. The radiation would be negligible, and global warming can be slowed or reversed until conventional means can take over from the nukings.
Comment by squegeebooo — May 18, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
Squegee you are a giant among insects you realize that right?
May 18th, 2007 at 2:01 pmAlternatily, if my nuke idea dosn’t go over well (which I’m guessing it won’t)
Why not set up some space mirrors, and use it as a way to get the space industry moving along a bit quicker. You can even use the mirror arrays to redirect sunlight to power anything else in space, such as satellites, or if we ever get a moon base, or a proper space station.
May 18th, 2007 at 2:02 pmBAMPF!
The earth is far more powerful than us humans; it will be doing its thing (heating and cooling) long after we are gone. Get some real facts…
DUH! Who let the teleporter to cretinland open and switched on!
Ok, in order to kill this “global cooling” bull once and for all (I wish)
But…they predicted global cooling. Wah Waaah Waaah!
Clinton did it too. So did Pelosi.
May 18th, 2007 at 2:02 pmwhat are the names of the scientists? Who pays them? It is a shame when a culture editor and a business school professor can dispell “scientific bs” isnt it!
if nukes are a problem why let Iran and North Korea have them?
cigarettes do cause cancer, but if you knew this since the 80s and kept smoking, then you caused your own cancer. You have the freedom of speech just like the freedom of choice…
Gotta get back to work, please open your minds a quit being sheeple
god/Jah/higher power bless you all. I know you are all good people inside.
May 18th, 2007 at 2:06 pmMr. Rose is culture editor of Jyllands-Posten, in Copenhagen. Mr. Lomborg is a professor at the Copenhagen Business School.
Comment by Om “Common” Sense — May 18, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
This is a put on right. Even you neocons aren’t that stupid. Yes the earth will survive, and will correct itself once human life has vanished. You must be another fundamentalist waiting for the Rapture.
But Einstein, taking science lessons from a culture editor and business school professor, how are you even smart enough to read?
May 18th, 2007 at 2:10 pmCommon sense: “cigarettes do cause cancer, but if you knew this since the 80s and kept smoking, then you caused your own cancer. You have the freedom of speech just like the freedom of choice…”
Gosh, that’s true…. but completely irrelevant. The point was that people are paid by industry to write mendacious and distortive articles which have the purpose of protecting industry profits. We know this happens. What industry is paying scientists who warn about global warming? Most of the scientists who agree with the vast majority are paid by educational institutions to teach and do research. Some are paid to accurately measure data. If their data isn’t accurate, they lose their jobs. The fastest way for a scientist to lose his or her credibility (and thus possibly lose their jobs) is for their data and/or methodology to be discredited. This is accomplished by PEER REVIEW, not by some business school shill.
This should be intuitively obvious to anyone with an honest agenda.
May 18th, 2007 at 2:17 pmwhat are the names of the scientists? Who pays them? It is a shame when a culture editor and a business school professor can dispell “scientific bs†isnt it!
Comment by Common Sense — May 18, 2007 @ 2:06 pm
IPCC Working Group I author list
May 18th, 2007 at 2:22 pmIPCC Working Group II author list
IPCC Working Group III author list
So why don’t we just set off a few more surface nukes on some middle of a desert or other large no-man’s land. And let the particles put into the atmosphere from that work as solar reflectors. The radiation would be negligible, and global warming can be slowed or reversed until conventional means can take over from the nukings.
Comment by squegeebooo — May 18, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
Solve global warming with nuclear winter — sounds like something GWB would come up with.
May 18th, 2007 at 2:25 pmFrom what I see, “Common Sense” is saying… “I believe nothing.”
Good for you! No go back to your bedroom and start rocking back and forth on your bed. Try not to think too hard about how gravity keeps you from floating away from that bed.
May 18th, 2007 at 2:30 pmSolve global warming with nuclear winter — sounds like something GWB would come up with.
Well if you do it with enough nuance, it won’t be a winter. There are studies that show that the above ground tests of the 60’s and 70’s had a slight cooling effect on the atmosphere. If they’re accurate or not, I have no idea, but it’s an idea to look through I would think. Plus, this way the military gets to test new nukes, and we deal with global warming. It’s a win-win.
May 18th, 2007 at 2:33 pmWell, on the plus side, Siberia will soon be warm enough to grow wheat…we’ll need it, after it becomes too warm in the U.S. to grow it… and monkies might fly out of my butt.
May 18th, 2007 at 2:33 pmIf they’re accurate or not, I have no idea, but it’s an idea to look through I would think. Plus, this way the military gets to test new nukes, and we deal with global warming. It’s a win-win.
Comment by squegeebooo — May 18, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
Please stop thinking. :P
Um, what about that little radiation problem?
May 18th, 2007 at 2:37 pmPost #50 is a namejacking.
The ThinkProgress admins have been notified.
Namejacker: have the courtesy and integrity to post comments under a unique nickname, or don’t post at all. Kthx.
May 18th, 2007 at 2:41 pmUm, what about that little radiation problem?
If you pick remote enough areas it would be negligible. Local fallout is within 500 KM, and thats the biggest risk. So the middle of the Sahara, or one of the other great deserts should be fine. Or some random Pacific Atoll.
May 18th, 2007 at 2:47 pm> If you pick remote enough areas it would be negligible. Local fallout
> is within 500 KM, and thats the biggest risk. So the middle of the
> Sahara, or one of the other great deserts should be fine. Or some
> random Pacific Atoll.
You misspelled “Nevada”. I do not think locals would be too pleased about these plans.
May 18th, 2007 at 2:49 pmIt is a shame when a culture editor and a business school professor can dispell “scientific bs†isnt it!
Comment by Common Sense — May 18, 2007 @ 2:06 pm
And another thing! “Denying” is not “dispelling.” If your culture editor and business professor can produce some concrete, verifiable, and replicable scientific evidence to prove that climate science is incorrect, that would be “dispelling.” What they are doing is simply ignoring the evidence. Here’s a sample scenario, to illustrate:
Science: The sky is blue due to the Rayleigh scattering of the wavelengths of solar light in the 435-500 nanometer range.
Culture Editor: No you’re wrong the sky is yellow.
Science: The 435-500 nanometer range corresponds to the blue cone receptors in the human retina and thus unless you are color-blind it should appear blue.
Culture Editor: No you’re wrong the sky is yellow.
Science: It is impossible for the sky to be yellow because yellow light has a wavelength of 565-590 nanometers and Rayleigh scattering only occurs in a medium of particles that are up to one-tenth the wavelength of light and air molecules are simply too large to scatter light in that spectral range.
Culture Editor: No you’re wrong the sky is yellow.
Science: Fine. Whatever. It’s f*cking yellow. I’m getting a drink. (Storms off)
Culture Editor: I have won this debate by my superior intellect!
May 18th, 2007 at 2:51 pmSo this means America has solved global warming, and we just have to wait for the rest of the countries to get on board right? But of course the MSM won’t publish it that way.
Comment by squegeebooo — May 18, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
My god. This is by far the stupidest argument I have ever heard from a denier.
May 18th, 2007 at 2:52 pmEl Tonno
You misspelled “Nevadaâ€. I do not think locals would be too pleased about these plans.
Even worse, I didn’t even try and spell ‘Nevada’
May 18th, 2007 at 2:52 pmOm “Common” Sense is a paid liar.
May 18th, 2007 at 2:55 pmVerbalKint
May 18th, 2007 at 2:58 pmMy god. This is by far the stupidest argument I have ever heard from a denier.
Once again, I’m not a denier, I just don’t care.
And meanwhile, Neptune is getting warmer. D*mn those republicans for driving their SUV’s on Neptune.
May 18th, 2007 at 3:00 pmAnd meanwhile, Neptune is getting warmer. D*mn those republicans for driving their SUV’s on Neptune.
Comment by Dale — May 18, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
From the abstract of the study you linked:
“Although correlations between Neptune’s brightness and Earth’s temperature anomaly—and between Neptune and two models of solar variability—are visually compelling, at this time they are not statistically significant due to the limited degrees of freedom of the various time series. Nevertheless, the striking similarity of the temporal patterns of variation should not be ignored simply because of low formal statistical significance. If changing brightnesses and temperatures of two different planets are correlated, then some planetary climate changes may be due to variations in the solar system environment.”
Scientists do not discount that solar output has an effect on average temperature. However, in the case of the Earth, solar forcing only accounts for about 20% of overall climate trends. A much larger role is played by greenhouse gas.
May 18th, 2007 at 3:07 pmTrue, but the 20% figure is in question; in fact in the previous report; solar forcing was reported as accounting for 40% of warming.
May 18th, 2007 at 3:18 pmI’m 46 years old, and I’ve taken a number of steps to reduce what meager impact I have on carbon emissions – but you know what? This isn’t my problem, it’s your kids problem. All you deniers make sure you edumacate your children well; tell them how climate change is just a left wing conspiracy – this way, they’ll know who to blame when the shit hits the fan.
May 18th, 2007 at 3:25 pmUm, what about that little radiation problem?
See I was thinking if we nuke the moon, we could lower the tides. This would counteract the raising of the water levels by melted ice. Sure we lose a few islands, but no radiation and no nukes on earth.
May 18th, 2007 at 3:29 pmSee I was thinking if we nuke the moon, we could lower the tides. This would counteract the raising of the water levels by melted ice. Sure we lose a few islands, but no radiation and no nukes on earth.
Plus, nuking the moon is a realistic plan for world peace:
May 18th, 2007 at 3:31 pmhttp://www.imao.us/docs/NukeTheMoon.htm
True, but the 20% figure is in question; in fact in the previous report; solar forcing was reported as accounting for 40% of warming.
Comment by Dale — May 18, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
That’s right. There were numerous studies done after the TAR was published that looked into the topic of solar variability, and with this improved understanding, the FAR authors reduced the amount climate change attributable to solar forcing to around 20%, while at the same time increasing their confidence level in the overall body of research from high (80%) to very high 90%).
May 18th, 2007 at 3:36 pmSee I was thinking if we nuke the moon, we could lower the tides. This would counteract the raising of the water levels by melted ice. Sure we lose a few islands, but no radiation and no nukes on earth.
Comment by Tundra — May 18, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
Great, except the moon is what keeps the Earth at a relatively constant tilt. Without it, the poles would wobble wildly out of control.
May 18th, 2007 at 3:37 pmGreat, except the moon is what keeps the Earth at a relatively constant tilt. Without it, the poles would wobble wildly out of control.
Comment by erock — May 18, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
So amusement parks go out of business? They are just more evil corporations anyway.
May 18th, 2007 at 3:46 pmAnd meanwhile, Neptune is getting warmer. D*mn those republicans for driving their SUV’s on Neptune.
Comment by Dale — May 18, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
This level of illogic is actually painful for me to read.
May 18th, 2007 at 3:47 pmQuestions about the role of solar variability have been laid to rest. Anthropogenic forcing is responsible for most of the warming. Solar variability now falls under the category of debunked talking point.
May 18th, 2007 at 3:49 pmThis level of illogic is actually painful for me to read.
Comment by VerbalKint — May 18, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
Can there even be a level of illogic? Just doesn’t seem logical, then again you can measure negative things. Hmmm who knows.
May 18th, 2007 at 3:51 pm“Siberia contains probably the world’s largest amount of carbon locked away in the permafrost.”
This is an argument that the correlation between climate change and human activity is merely incidental.
May 18th, 2007 at 3:51 pmAnthropogenic forcing is responsible for most of the warming.
Sure but because it’s responsible for most of the warming doesn’t mean that you can’t offset the effects by regulating how much solar energy reaches the atmosphere.
May 18th, 2007 at 3:53 pmQuestions about the role of solar variability have been laid to rest. Anthropogenic forcing is responsible for most of the warming. Solar variability now falls under the category of debunked talking point.
Comment by VerbalKint — May 18, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
I wish this were true, but as this thread shows, the question has definitely not been laid to rest. It keeps getting trotted out by climate change deniers despite increasing evidence to the contrary. The only response I can think of is to keep throwing data at it until something sticks.
May 18th, 2007 at 3:54 pmHow does this *assumed* premise:
“Anthropogenic forcing is responsible for most of the warming.”
Lead to this *assumed* premise:
“Solar variability now falls under the category of debunked talking point.”
???
May 18th, 2007 at 3:55 pmQuestions about the role of solar variability have been laid to rest. Anthropogenic forcing is responsible for most of the warming. Solar variability now falls under the category of debunked talking point.
Comment by VerbalKint — May 18, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
This is science we’re talking about here. In science nothing is “laid to rest”.
May 18th, 2007 at 3:57 pmThis is science we’re talking about here. In science nothing is “laid to restâ€.
Comment by Mr. President — May 18, 2007 @ 3:57 pm
So you believe in spontaneous generation then? Tell me, how long should I leave a bag full of bread crumbs out before it turns into mice?
May 18th, 2007 at 4:00 pmSure but because it’s responsible for most of the warming doesn’t mean that you can’t offset the effects by regulating how much solar energy reaches the atmosphere.
Comment by Tundra — May 18, 2007 @ 3:53 pm
Unfortunately, NASA keeps rejecting my proposal for a 500-mile-wide pair of sunglasses at the L1 LaGrange point. :mad:
May 18th, 2007 at 4:00 pmComment by erock — May 18, 2007 @ 4:00 pm
Do you really want me to explain science to you?
May 18th, 2007 at 4:02 pmDo you really want me to explain science to you?
Comment by Mr. President — May 18, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
Go for it.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:03 pmEveryone knows that global warming has an inverse relationship to pirates. All we have to do is create more pirates, and the globe will cool down.
Problem solved. All hail the FSM.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:03 pmThis is science we’re talking about here. In science nothing is “laid to rest”.
Comment by Mr. Prezident
Right, like those silly laws that Newton made up about objects acting and reacting and all that other stupid stuff…geesh, maybe I should stare at the Ten Commandments and get gooder at my braining skillz.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:04 pmPlease explain to us, Mr. President, how Adam and Eve ate an apple and pooped out the conceptions of Intelligent Design.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:05 pmtoasterhead
Unfortunately, NASA keeps rejecting my proposal for a 500-mile-wide pair of sunglasses at the L1 LaGrange point. :mad:
That’s because their not Cory Hart fans.
Oh, and to back up my previous point:
http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/
theres a graph about 1/3 of the way down.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:05 pmThis is science we’re talking about here. In science nothing is “laid to restâ€.
Comment by Mr. President — May 18, 2007 @ 3:57 pm
You’re right. Nothing in science is “laid to rest.” However, many things in science are laid to “increasingly improbable given the consensus results of an increasing body of research.” This is the case with solar forcing.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:07 pmUnfortunately, NASA keeps rejecting my proposal for a 500-mile-wide pair of sunglasses at the L1 LaGrange point. :mad:
Comment by toasterhead — May 18, 2007 @ 4:00 pm
See now your thinking. I mean why not breed insects to be more reflective? Start using tin foil on houses instead of shingles. Scotch tape mirrors on bird wings. Large strips of land to absorb the light, like football players use under their eyes.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:08 pmhttp://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/
theres a graph about 1/3 of the way down.
Comment by squegeebooo — May 18, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
RAmen, brother! ;)
May 18th, 2007 at 4:08 pmtranslation to toasterhead,
yes, somebody on my side, your semantics seem to correspond to my faulty views, let me try to elaborate by giving my own BS definition. Such is the case with something that is not “increasing improbably given the consensus results of an increasing body of research.”
May 18th, 2007 at 4:09 pmThat’s because their not Cory Hart fans.
How the hell do you get a Cory Hart reference in a political blog???
LOL
Pirates = global warming answer: I’m in Arrrrrgh
May 18th, 2007 at 4:10 pmComment by erock — May 18, 2007 @ 4:03 pm
OK but this may take a while.
Actually, what Barbarian said in post #82 in pertinent. Newton’s laws are not considered as authoritative as they were in the past.
The aim of science is explanation. In order to do this a scientist will either conduct an experiment or merely observe natural phenomena (in this case, I assume that researchers are mere observers).
On the theoretical side, the scientist will either make a hypothesis (which *can* be affirmed by empirical observations of an experiment), or s/he will look for a correlation between two events and will formulate a law.
It is important to realize that no scientist would ever make a universal statement, and the hypotheses and laws developed today are thought of as instrumental.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:17 pmIt is important to realize that no scientist would ever make a universal statement, and the hypotheses and laws developed today are thought of as instrumental.
Comment by Mr. President — May 18, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
Agreed.
So can ideas also be rejected according to empirical data?
May 18th, 2007 at 4:19 pmIt is important to realize that no scientist would ever make a universal statement, and the hypotheses and laws developed today are thought of as instrumental.
Comment by Mr. President
Newton did. Universal Law of Gravitation.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:24 pmI think it was Cavendish who established the G constant.
Newton did. Universal Law of Gravitation.
I think it was Cavendish who established the G constant.
Comment by Juan C — May 18, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
That’s a misnomer, observational science has no laws.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:27 pmAnd Mr. President, what you are describing is the scientific method. Im sure you know that 3000 scientists expressing their opinions in the IPCC documents ARE using the scientific method, right?
May 18th, 2007 at 4:28 pmyes, somebody on my side, your semantics seem to correspond to my faulty views, let me try to elaborate by giving my own BS definition. Such is the case with something that is not “increasing improbably given the consensus results of an increasing body of research.â€
Comment by Barbarian — May 18, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
No you’re wrong the sky is yellow.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:30 pmW.V.O. Quine, in the 2nd half of the 20th century, re-introduced/revamped some of the ideas found in the works of Pierre Duhem and David Hume.
The Quine-Duhem (sometimes Duhem-Quine) hypothesis, states that scientific theories are “underdetermined” but other theories and that in order to test one particular theory, says Quine, the whole of scientific knowledge must be considered. This means a holistic approach to all of the sciences is required.
Take, say, the Ptolemaic world-view. Geocentric, governed by Aristotelian “Essences” and teleology. The planetary orbits were thought to be perfectly circular, because they were in the “ether” and accordingly, had to have perfectly circular motion, since that is the essence of ether.
Ptolemy was forced to construct a radiculously complicated model of the universe! Epicycles, deferents and equant points, were all part of the elaborate world-view, and all this because of dogmatic Aristotelianism.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:31 pmThat’s a misnomer, observational science has no laws.
Comment by erock
?????? 1st and 2nd Law of Thermodynamics are general statements deducted from the OBSERVATIONS of experiences regarding energy transformations.
There 11 fundamental laws in science. Each one of them come from OBSERVATIONS.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:32 pm> The Quine-Duhem (sometimes Duhem-Quine) hypothesis, states
> that scientific theories are “underdetermined†but other theories
> and that in order to test one particular theory, says Quine, the
> whole of scientific knowledge must be considered. This means a
> holistic approach to all of the sciences is required.
HEY! This is about discussion something as simple as “Global Warming” which is quite simple to empirically check (as simple as checking whether the light on the toilet is on or not).
No need to suddenly wander off into epistemology.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:35 pmPtolemy was forced to construct a radiculously complicated model of the universe! Epicycles, deferents and equant points, were all part of the elaborate world-view, and all this because of dogmatic Aristotelianism.
Comment by Mr. President — May 18, 2007 @ 4:31 pm
So are you implying that climatologists have constructed a “radiculous” model of climate change in order to suppot dogmatic Algoreianism? Cause it’s a common argument of the skeptics and, if I may be so blunt, a rather “radiculous” argument.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:36 pmNewton did. Universal Law of Gravitation.
I think it was Cavendish who established the G constant.
Comment by Juan C — May 18, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
Hey Juan. Yeah, I know that Newton did, but, according to his view, the world was governed by mechanistic laws, which, as you know, could not account for certain astronomical phenomena (I think Mercury’s orbit didn’t quite make sense in the Newtonian view, but I don’t know for sure).
May 18th, 2007 at 4:36 pmThere 11 fundamental laws in science. Each one of them come from OBSERVATIONS.
Comment by Juan C — May 18, 2007 @ 4:32 pm
Laws in name only. To the best of my knowledge none have ever been violated but that is only statistical evidence supporting them. There’s no such thing as a proof based on observations.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:37 pmAgreed.
So can ideas also be rejected according to empirical data?
Comment by erock — May 18, 2007 @ 4:19 pm
Not entirely.
According to the holism advocated by Quine, it is possible to keep any hypothesis (even if there is empirical evidence to the contrary) as long as we are willing to adjust our other auxiliary hypotheses.
And, with underdetermination and Q-D, any set of observations will allow to equally valid interpretations/explanations.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:43 pmComment by Mr. President — May 18, 2007 @ 4:36 pm
Its good to see that you’re well-versed in the scientific process. As such, you should agree with the IPCC report that tells us that based on the data, the best theory is than global warming is largely anthropgenic. Clearly, thanks to the peer-review process and the ad hoc discussions that commonly occur in the scientific community, other ideas are floating around, but by the scientific process and a great deal of research, those ideas have been shown to be less viable than the agreed upon conclusion presented by the IPCC. It is imporant to mention that as you said, this conclusion cannot be definitively proven but it is the conclusion that best fits the observations.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:44 pmComment by toasterhead — May 18, 2007 @ 4:36 pm
Radical!!!
May 18th, 2007 at 4:45 pm(I think Mercury’s orbit didn’t quite make sense in the Newtonian view, but I don’t know for sure).
Comment by Mr. President
First, it doesnt matter. Gravitation between two bodies applied (and applies) universally as Newton said.
I dont know what you are referring to. My guess is that you are describing the problem of the three bodies. Newton never solved the Sun-Earth-Moon gravitation. How could he? Math at his time were very limited concerning non-linear differential equations. And there were 9 in that system of equations. I htink it was Poincaré who said that analytically the problem has no solution, and the whole perturbation theory and chaos came from.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:47 pmComment by erock — May 18, 2007 @ 4:44 pm
Huh?
Oh, you must be forgetting that I’m completely oblivious to that kind of thing. I was only saying that #70 didn’t have an argument.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:48 pmAnd, with underdetermination and Q-D, any set of observations will allow to equally valid interpretations/explanations.
Comment by Mr. President — May 18, 2007 @ 4:43 pm
This is true, just as a theory cannot be absolutely proven, conversely it can never be disproven. However, speaking in practical terms, hypotheses can be effectively disproven and put to rest. This is especially true when a better theory for explained behavior comes to light.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:48 pmTo the best of my knowledge none have ever been violated but that is only statistical evidence supporting them. There’s no such thing as a proof based on observations.
Comment by erock
And no one will. Because we have to perform infinite numbers of experiments in order to prove them. But thats why they are called Fundamental Laws. They are a generalization of observed phenomena. I agree.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:49 pmMr. President, you should discuss political stuff just like you are discussing scientific issues.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:52 pmComment by Juan C — May 18, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
Yeah, I don’t recall. But anyway, other Newtonian ideas were replaced with a bunch of crazy shit by STR if I’m not mistaken.
Such as absolute space and time, and what not.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:56 pmHuh?
Oh, you must be forgetting that I’m completely oblivious to that kind of thing. I was only saying that #70 didn’t have an argument.
Comment by Mr. President — May 18, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
Perhaps he/she should have said “fallen out of favor” or “effectively laid to rest” instead. Which I suspect is what he/she meant.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:56 pmMr. President, you should discuss political stuff just like you are discussing scientific issues.
Comment by Juan C — May 18, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
The thing about that is, politics is so shady I don’t think anyone knows what each other are doing.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:57 pmBut thats why they are called Fundamental Laws. They are a generalization of observed phenomena. I agree.
Comment by Juan C — May 18, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
They are called fundamental because they are cornerstones of the rest of the field.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:58 pmPerhaps he/she should have said “fallen out of favor†or “effectively laid to rest†instead. Which I suspect is what he/she meant.
Comment by erock — May 18, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
Yeah, but it also sounded like a little modus tollendo ponens was going on.
May 18th, 2007 at 5:01 pmThey are called fundamental because they are cornerstones of the rest of the field.
Comment by erock — May 18, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
Yes but those Aristotelian Essences were the cornerstones of the Ptolemaic field, which turned out to be way too complex even for instrumental purposes.
May 18th, 2007 at 5:04 pmYeah, but it also sounded like a little modus tollendo ponens was going on.
Comment by Mr. President — May 18, 2007 @ 5:01 pm
It sounded to me like he was just reiterating his point.
May 18th, 2007 at 5:07 pmViva la Copernican Revolucion!
May 18th, 2007 at 5:08 pmYes but those Aristotelian Essences were the cornerstones of the Ptolemaic field, which turned out to be way too complex even for instrumental purposes.
Comment by Mr. President — May 18, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
What’s your point? Are you arguing against a fundamental law of ____?
May 18th, 2007 at 5:09 pmMr. President, who is STR?
May 18th, 2007 at 5:11 pmMr. President, who is STR?
Comment by Juan C — May 18, 2007 @ 5:11 pm
Special Theory of Relativity
May 18th, 2007 at 5:16 pmWhat’s your point? Are you arguing against a fundamental law of ____?
Comment by erock — May 18, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
No, all I’m saying is that the way physics is conceived by scientists today is not definitive. When we start to really believe that we know all their is to know, then science becomes religion.
May 18th, 2007 at 5:19 pmSpecial Theory of Relativity
Comment by Mr. President — May 18, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
By the way, thank you for the unusually civil discourse. It’s a relief after the belabored discussion I had with Valiant the Moron yesterday.
May 18th, 2007 at 5:21 pmSpecial Theory of Relativity
Comment by Mr. President
Ahh. I guess Newton mechanics of particles were just fine. Light, however, couldnt be explained the same way. Focault´s experiment proved that there was no ether…but Newton wasnt sure about that either. Hehehe, he was a genius, he wouldnt allow himself any kind of criticism, so he was careful enough to say that there was something in the nature of light that wasnt explained yet.
And yes, then arrived Einstein and blew the universe away.
May 18th, 2007 at 5:22 pmIf I sound like a smart ass, please forgive me. Im just throwing ideas in order to be refuted and learn from these rebuttals.
May 18th, 2007 at 5:23 pmNo, all I’m saying is that the way physics is conceived by scientists today is not definitive. When we start to really believe that we know all their is to know, then science becomes religion.
Comment by Mr. President — May 18, 2007 @ 5:19 pm
True, self-reference will always be an issue for our current scientific method. But until something better comes along, its better than rebuilding from scratch with each study.
May 18th, 2007 at 5:23 pmBy the way, thank you for the unusually civil discourse. It’s a relief after the belabored discussion I had with Valiant the Moron yesterday.
Comment by erock — May 18, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
No problem, by the way, I know more about philosophy of science than of the actual particulars in physics, so what I said about absolute space, absolute time and Relativity is probably not 100% accurate (and I will not try to maintain my position on those points if I am proved wrong).
May 18th, 2007 at 5:26 pmWhen we start to really believe that we know all their is to know, then science becomes religion.
Comment by Mr. President
Well said. However, I guess we have to agree that those scientists working and measuring things have a very solid idea of what they are saying is the most probable thing.
May 18th, 2007 at 5:28 pmNo problem, by the way, I know more about philosophy of science than of the actual particulars in physics, so what I said about absolute space, absolute time and Relativity is probably not 100% accurate (and I will not try to maintain my position on those points if I am proved wrong).
Comment by Mr. President — May 18, 2007 @ 5:26 pm
That’s ok, all I know is math which thankfully is generalizable (in part) to most fields…particularly logic and theoretical physics.
May 18th, 2007 at 5:29 pmI know more about philosophy of science than of the actual particulars in physics,
Comment by Mr. President
Recommend me a good, not too deep book about philosophy of science. I read Kuhn´s Structure of Scientific Revolutions but thats all.
May 18th, 2007 at 5:31 pmHehehe, he was a genius, he wouldnt allow himself any kind of criticism, so he was careful enough to say that there was something in the nature of light that wasnt explained yet.
Comment by Juan C — May 18, 2007 @ 5:22 pm
Those are my favorite kind of geniuses… kind like…
… Bush!
May 18th, 2007 at 5:31 pm… Bush!
Comment by Mr. President
Bush is a bizarre Newton that couldnt handle the Pest and stayed in the barn his whole life.
May 18th, 2007 at 5:34 pmHowever, I guess we have to agree that those scientists working and measuring things have a very solid idea of what they are saying is the most probable thing.
Comment by Juan C — May 18, 2007 @ 5:28 pm
Yes, but if I’m allowed to equivocate, we might also agree that the NAZI eugenic “scientists” thought that what they were “researching” was valid.
May 18th, 2007 at 5:35 pmThose are my favorite kind of geniuses… kind like…
… Bush!
Comment by Mr. President — May 18, 2007 @ 5:31 pm
People that are blind to their own shortcomings is not a subset of geniuses. Likewise, the set of people who are the current president is disjoint to geniuses.
May 18th, 2007 at 5:36 pmYes, but if I’m allowed to equivocate, we might also agree that the NAZI eugenic “scientists†thought that what they were “researching†was valid.
Comment by Mr. President — May 18, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
Research in and of itself is never invalid. Pointless, maybe. Only conclusions can be deemed invalid.
May 18th, 2007 at 5:41 pmwe might also agree that the NAZI eugenic “scientists†thought that what they were “researching†was valid.
Comment by Mr. President
It depends on what valid means to you.
May 18th, 2007 at 5:47 pmI should mention that my last post in no way defends the “research” of the Nazi “scientists.”
May 18th, 2007 at 5:48 pmIt depends on what valid means to you.
Comment by Juan C — May 18, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
The problem is, social, political, and psychological factors play a part in our understanding of the world. The NAZIs science was “laden” with political and racist “theory”, and was therefore, in our eyes, fundamentally flawed.
May 18th, 2007 at 5:54 pmComment by Juan C — May 18, 2007 @ 5:31 pm
They took down my recommendations for some reason.
anyway,
Rudolf Carnap, “The Logical Structure of the World”, “Testability and Meaning”
Willard Quine, “Two Dogmas of Empiricism”, “Epistemology Naturalized” (both are articles)
A.J. Ayer, “Language, Truth, and Logic”
May 18th, 2007 at 6:03 pmAll scientific laws up to to the present and the forseeable future have a margin of error. That margin of error has decreased over time, but the relationship of matter to energy and time has yet to be nailed down. Physicists at the Cern facility are hoping to nail that down next year when they try to recreate the events that lead to the creation of the universe.
May 18th, 2007 at 6:08 pm“the universe” should read “our universe” in my post #138.
May 18th, 2007 at 6:12 pmLook how blue the red states turned and how red the blue states are in the U.S.? The times they are a-changin’!
May 18th, 2007 at 6:54 pmLook how blue the red states turned and how red the blue states are in the U.S.? The times they are a-changin’!
Comment by Libhater — May 18, 2007 @ 6:54 pm
What are you talking about?
May 18th, 2007 at 8:19 pmI believe that Libhater is saying that the red states are changing to blue and the blue states are holdng fast.
May 18th, 2007 at 9:48 pmI believe that Libhater is saying that the red states are changing to blue and the blue states are holdng fast.
Comment by WaltTheMan — May 18, 2007 @ 9:48 pm
That’s very astute of him. Republican support is eroding all across the country.
May 18th, 2007 at 10:22 pmWhat are you talking about?
Comment by erock — May 18, 2007 @ 8:19 pm
He’s talking about the color-coded map above. When go to the original article it is explained that the red colored dots represent temperature increase, while the blue dots show a decrease. According to the data presented in the article, the west coast is feeling the increase and in the more conservative part of the country there is actually a temperature decrease.
May 18th, 2007 at 11:05 pmAccording to the data presented in the article, the west coast is feeling the increase and in the more conservative part of the country there is actually a temperature decrease.
Comment by Mr. President — May 18, 2007 @ 11:05 pm
That may be, but it doesn’t make sense. The largest “blue” stronghold is in the northeast which is aslo blue in the map. Basically I was calling him out for a stupid and pointless statement. Something that someone with the moniker “Libhater” was clearly inviting.
May 18th, 2007 at 11:16 pmEr… no. It could not happen like that.
May 20th, 2007 at 2:25 amThat’s pretty much why you see the climate change denial folks, who call climate change unrealistic hysteria, citing The Day After Tomorrow more than people who have realistic concerns.