WSJ editor insults scientists, attacks Gore.
By on Dec 5th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
WSJ editor insults scientists, attacks Gore.
In an op-ed this morning mocking former Vice President Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize win, Wall Street Journal editorial board member Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. “attacks the international scientific consensus without providing a single piece of counterevidence.” In order to cast doubt on the consensus, Jenkins insults the entire scientific community as people who “do not wait for proof“:
It may seem strange that scientists would participate in such a phenomenon. It shouldn’t. Scientists are human; they do not wait for proof; many devote their professional lives to seeking evidence for hypotheses (especially well-funded hypotheses) they’ve chosen to believe.
Climate Progress ably takes Jenkins to task for his insults and distortions.
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
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Hannity
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Maddow
McCain
Media
Military
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
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
Let’s see, hmmm, when did Mudrock take over this rag?
December 5th, 2007 at 4:25 pmThis is one of the clowns that was saying we couldn’t wait around for the proof when it was Saddam’s WMDs. To me there is no downside in TRYING to do something about GW. If there is not GW, we still get American patent on new technologies. And we get to say FU to the Saudis and Hugo Chavez. If there is GW, at least we’re doing something to try and slow it down.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:27 pm*YAWN*
December 5th, 2007 at 4:29 pmdidnt he report the earth was flat and only 4,000 years old last week too?
hmmm
December 5th, 2007 at 4:29 pmThe process of seeking evidence to support a hypothesis is the very definition of science! Imagine that, scientists doing science. Where else does he think this “proof” stuff comes from?
December 5th, 2007 at 4:31 pmIt’s all about ideological belief and not about science
December 5th, 2007 at 4:32 pmMore Faith based science from the reichwingers.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:36 pmIf Global Warming had been championed by anyone else but Al Gore, it would probably have gotten a better reception. The right wing and media’s hatred of anything that this man does would be almost comical if it wasn’t for the repurcussions of dismissing what’s being said.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:38 pmDo these people wonder where the person holding the blanket goes in ‘peek-a-boo’?
December 5th, 2007 at 4:39 pmHolman Jenkins also wrote a long, bizarre rant about the threat of the Toyota Prius hybrid automobile. Really strange stuff. Something about consumers making environmental choices that are also economically sensible is very frightening to Jenkins, who seems to be a very small, paranoid person.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:42 pm“they do not wait for proof; many devote their professional lives to seeking evidence for hypotheses (especially well-funded hypotheses) they’ve chosen to believe.”
sounds more like a description of the clergy than of scientists
December 5th, 2007 at 4:44 pmsounds more like a description of the clergy than of scientists
Comment by dim wit — December 5, 2007 @ 4:44 pm
Or Dick Cheney.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:45 pmI don’t get it…the free market should embrace this challenge and exploit it, right Mr. Jenkins? You think the free market can handle everything else. Healthcare. Insurance. Social Security. This is the opportunity of a lifetime!
December 5th, 2007 at 4:45 pmIf Global Warming had been championed by anyone else but Al Gore, it would probably have gotten a better reception.
Comment by raynman — December 5, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
I don’t know. I think ExxonMobil could have mounted just as effective a disinformation campaign against anyone else.
Besides, conservatives liked some Gore policies. NAFTA, for instance.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:47 pmThey just hate, hate, hate the fact that Gore won the Nobel.
It’s like a pathology with these people.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:49 pmThey just hate, hate, hate the fact that Gore won the Nobel.
It’s like a pathology with these people.
Comment by Frosty Cupcake — December 5, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
they just hate.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:53 pmJenkins insults the entire scientific community as people who “do not wait for proof“
Exactly what does he mean by “wait for proof”. Are supposed to wait until we have no water and no crops before we acknowledge Global Warming? By then it will be waaay too late.
What an idiot.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:54 pm“they just hate.”
Comment by dim wit — December 5, 2007 @ 4:53 pm
:D
You crack me up.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:54 pmWhat he says is actually true, some “scientists” do reject certain data sets that dispute their favored hypotheses in favor of more friendly data…particularly when some monetary reward is associated with supporting said hypotheses. However, what he fails to realize is that this argument is in fact more effective when applied to climate change deniers who are largely funded by oil, coal, and natural gas companies. This line of reasoning is essentially worthless when considering the scientific comminity at large which has embraced the theory of climate change with no monetary reward beyond their standard research budgets and/or salaries.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:54 pmThey don’t really distrust science at all. They know perfectly well that science has defeated ignorance and superstition every single time. There are NO examples over the course of history of science losing a fight, because the very nature of science is that ideas are tried and then tested and tested and tested until the community accepts it as law.
The rightwing hysteria over global warming stems simply from the fact that they refuse to pay for polluting the world. Everything else is pure semantics.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:55 pmThey just hate, hate, hate the fact that Gore won the Nobel.
Maybe we should get them a NoBell award, any they probably wouldn’t know the difference anyway.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:55 pmIf Global Warming had been championed by anyone else but Al Gore, it would probably have gotten a better reception.
Comment by raynman — December 5, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
I strongly disagree. The attack on Gore is one of mere convenience. The real attack is aimed at the science, regardless of the messenger. This is amply demonstrated by the withering attacks being mounted on scientists in general by right wingers. Ultimately it is driven by free market ideology. I suspect that most of the right wing attack dogs and their funders know darn well that global warming is real. But they worship at the altar of their imaginary free markets, so they will tell any lie to forestall any government action directed at global warming, then sit on their hands and wait for their imaginary free markets to work their magic.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:55 pm“Are supposed to wait until we have no water and no crops before we acknowledge Global Warming? By then it will be waaay too late.
What an idiot.”
Comment by bilbobaggins — December 5, 2007 @ 4:54 pm
I’m increasingly reading that it already is too late. Gods, I hope not.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:56 pmThen what happens to industry when the chicken littles of the world happen to be wrong?
Comment by cold_hard_left
As opposed to the “chicken littles” of the world being right? There is no downside to being wrong, the downside to being right and doing nothing about it is frightening.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:58 pmComment by cold_hard_left — December 5, 2007 @ 4:50 pm
You are a f***ing idiot.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:58 pm“The rightwing hysteria over global warming stems simply from the fact that they refuse to pay for polluting the world.”
Comment by lefty — December 5, 2007 @ 4:55 pm
Absolutely. Anything to make a buck for the next quarter.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:58 pmEven the fact that there are things happening that can only be explained by a massive global climate change, things that can be empirically shown, isn’t enough for these people to take their heads out of the sand.
Despite the fact that we are seeing things that are unprecedented in history, all we hear is “Climate Change is cyclical! We’re going into a warm phase, and then we’ll go into a cool phase”.
Yes, once the atmosphere ceases to be replaced because all of the oxygen producing plants can no longer exist, and the Earth is a gasless sphere, then the temperatures will go the other way.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:59 pmthey just hate.
Comment by dim wit — December 5, 2007 @ 4:53 pm
——–
So a government appointed committee of five Norwegians gave AlGore and Yasser Arafat a prize. That hardly makes them infallible.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 5, 2007 @ 4:54 pm
Exhibit A
December 5th, 2007 at 5:00 pm#16…nothing happens to industry. American companies will be making money off the patents that they own because they innovated solutions. This is America damn it! You don’t thin Americans can figure out how to get out from under Saudi Arabia’s thumb? Man, I thought YOU were supposed to be the one with faith. Why is it me–a “lib”–that has faith that America can kick ass again in technology? You’re scared and weak.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:00 pm“they do not wait for proof; many devote their professional lives to seeking evidence for hypotheses (especially well-funded hypotheses) they’ve chosen to believe.â€
sounds more like a description of the clergy than of scientists
Comment by dim wit — December 5, 2007 @ 4:44 pm
I disagree, dimwit. Devoting one’s professional life to seeking evidence sounds to me like science.
Clergy doesn’t seek evidence.
What’ss so bad with seeking evidence to support hypotheses, anyway?
December 5th, 2007 at 5:00 pmSo a government appointed committee of five Norwegians gave AlGore and Yasser Arafat a prize. That hardly makes them infallible. http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ Norwegian_Nobel_Committee
Comment by cold_hard_left
Come on hard one. Can’t you come up with something original. This one has been done over and over and over again until it has become very boring. You need to go back to the RNC and get some new material.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:01 pmmany are using the issue of global warming to limit personnal liberties (and also shut down debate).
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 5, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
Explain how the scientific consensus on climate change has “limited personnal liberties.”
December 5th, 2007 at 5:02 pmGo away, cold hard left–your anti-americanism sickens me.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:02 pmmany are using the issue of global warming to limit personnal liberties
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 5, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
Example please?
December 5th, 2007 at 5:03 pmmany are using the issue of global warming to limit personnal liberties (and also shut down debate).
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 5, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
Explain how the scientific consensus on climate change has “limited personnal liberties.â€
Comment by toasterhead — December 5, 2007 @ 5:02 pm
And be sure to get Southern Man involved in the discussion, because he’s quite convinced that nothing like that ever happens.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:05 pmMany people have faked religious beliefs and claimed things that didn’t happen as fact, in order to control people. I don’t know, but this issue is ripe for the same abuse. Let the debate control; with a healthy skeptism.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 5, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
Yeah, I’d hate to have to give up my dependency on foreign oil and my incresingly larger power bill for coal provided electricity. Give me expensive fossil fuels or give me death!
December 5th, 2007 at 5:05 pmThe sky is falling! The sky is falling!
Or is it? http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/moregw.htm
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 5, 2007 @ 5:00 pm
Please. We’ve seen all of your links already, and they’ve all been proven be bullshit. Why don’t you come back when you can provide some actual scientific evidence for your claims?
December 5th, 2007 at 5:05 pmmany are using the issue of global warming to limit personnal liberties
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 5, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
Example please?
Comment by ralph the wonder llama
They are afraid that they will be made to recycle and drive a fuel efficient car. That would take away their personal liberties to create more garbage than the world can handle and to choose their big monster trucks.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:06 pmWow.
WE have Al Gore. Brad Pitt. George Clooney. Bono.
THEY have Chuck Norris. Britney Spears. Ann Coulter.
No wonder they’re so friggin’ cranky all the time. ;o)
December 5th, 2007 at 5:07 pmAnd be sure to get Southern Man involved in the discussion, because he’s quite convinced that nothing like that ever happens.
Comment by gummitch — December 5, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
No no no – it’s only liberals who take away the God-given right to run their SUVs on $1.15/gallon gas. Conservatives would never take away civil liberties ever.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:08 pmI’m not a scientist. You probably aren’t either. I’m not really sure if the world is warming because man is polluting.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 5, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
I have been a practicing scientist for 20 years. I am sure that the world is warming because of manmade pollution. The consensus in the community is absolutely overwhelming. If you aren’t sure, it is because you are either ignorant, stupid, or in deep denial. The notion that a worldwide cabal of scientists could exist to promote a global warming hoax is bizarre, paranoid, and delusional. The notion that the scientific community in the modern science era could achieve and sustain this level of consensus on a theory and be completely wrong is ludicrous.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:08 pmLosing an argument is not someone “shutting down debate”. Come on.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:08 pmComment by cold_hard_left — December 5, 2007 @ 5:00 pm
You are an absolute f***ing idiot.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:11 pmComment by cold_hard_left — December 5, 2007 @ 5:00 pm
This isn’t about Al Gore or the Nobel committee. It is about the worldwide scientific community and its overwhelming consensus on global warming. If you can’t debate the point, then get the f**k out of here.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:13 pmVerbalkint makes a very intelligent point.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:19 pmGosh VK, the depth of your intellectual arguments amazes me.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 5, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
I’m not the one prattling on about Al Gore as though that is somehow a rebuttal to all of science. When I call you a f***ing idiot I am not making an intellectual argument. I am simply making an observation about you personally that I think will resonate with most people at this site.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:20 pmGosh VK, the depth of your intellectual arguments amazes me.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 5, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
This is not surprising. Based on your posting history, I’m guessing that you’re still amazed by shiny objects and games of peek-a-boo as well.
P.S. When you drop something from your highchair, it doesn’t cease to exist. MIND BLOWN YET???
December 5th, 2007 at 5:22 pmGosh VK, the depth of your intellectual arguments amazes me.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 5, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
When he’s dealing with the slightly-damp pool-floor of an argument you present, not much depth is required to swamp it.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:22 pmGosh VK, the depth of your intellectual arguments amazes me.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 5, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
Here is an intellectual argument, in case you missed it:
The consensus in the community is absolutely overwhelming. The notion that a worldwide cabal of scientists could exist to promote a global warming hoax is bizarre, paranoid, and delusional. The notion that the scientific community in the modern science era could achieve and sustain this level of consensus on a theory and be completely wrong is ludicrous.
History backs me up on this. You have absolutely nothing backing you up. Personally, I am sick and tired of all the lowlife rightwing freaks like you who deliberately spread anti-science, anti-truth propaganda to serve your own non-reality based ideology.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:23 pmThere is no “overwhelming consensus†VK. See 240+ links at http://schnittshow.970wfla.com/globalwarming.html.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 5, 2007 @ 5:20 p
You are just peddling lies, and I think you know it.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:25 pmHistory backs me up on this. You have absolutely nothing backing you up. Personally, I am sick and tired of all the lowlife rightwing freaks like you who deliberately spread anti-science, anti-truth propaganda to serve your own non-reality based ideology.
Comment by VerbalKint — December 5, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
Just fyi – he’s never going to understand that. You may want to break down some of those big, scary words into something monosyllabic.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:25 pmCapitalism Magazine is a peer reviewed scientific journal?
December 5th, 2007 at 5:25 pmComment by cold_hard_left — December 5, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
Wow, the Schnitt Show again…really??? I seem to remember someone picking apart that supposed list of detractors just a matter of weeks ago. Please find new sources of disinformation.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:26 pmThe report finds that, based on observable evidence gathered by scientists, climate change is accelerating. The head of the IPCC, the normally understated Rajendra Pachauri — a scientist and economist — said
“If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.â€
Fortunately, the IPCC synthesis report makes clear that a review of the peer-reviewed literature — and real-world experience — concludes that avoiding catastrophic outcomes is very affordable, and would slow global GDP less than 0.12 percentage points a year.
http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/05/wall-street-journal-attack-on-global-warming-science-al-gore-nobel-prize/
See? I can copy and link to web sites that back up MY position, too! Isn’t the inernets cool?
December 5th, 2007 at 5:26 pmObviously I cannot contain my utter contempt for the paid liars who are trying to divert attention from this planet-threatening problem.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:28 pmObviously I cannot contain my utter contempt for the paid liars who are trying to divert attention from this planet-threatening problem.
Comment by VerbalKint — December 5, 2007 @ 5:28 pm
Who’s asking you to contain it? I’m quite enjoying watching you drop some pwnage on these idiots. :)
December 5th, 2007 at 5:33 pmNo more spurious links, CHL…time to step up and be part of the future. America needs you. This is not a joke…the innovation in the countries that will lead in the future has to begin now. Are we going to lead in the future or are we going to buy shit from China for the rest of history? The future is not Iraq and a few more years of oil–that is a dead end and a distraction. Whether Gore is correct or not is irrelevant. In fact, I hope the whole global warming thing is overblown. I don’t want the good farming land to go to Canada and leave the center of this country a desert. That would be a disaster for our country. Pretty much the only plus for the US is that Florida would be reclaimed by the ocean. But the fact is, oil is the technology of the 19th and 20th centuries. We’ve got to move ahead.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:33 pmWhy would anyone want to hide from being a liberal?
December 5th, 2007 at 5:36 pmObviously, the term “progressive†is no more than a term used by liberals who want to hide the fact that they are liberals.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 5, 2007 @ 5:34 pm
And CHL erects another tiny little straw man.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:37 pmBetter get back to the abstinence thread, boy, you’re taking a beating there too.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:37 pmThe actual fact regarding consensus on this issue is that there are many more scientists who dispute the claims regarding global warming than there are who support them.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 5, 2007 @ 5:38 pm
What you say here is a flat out lie. A review conducted of 938 articles on global warming published in the peer-reviewed literature over the past 10 years showed that not a single article disputed the basic premise of global warming. These articles were not cherry-picked, they were obtained by a straightforward search of the Science Citation Index.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:42 pmThe actual fact regarding consensus on this issue is that there are many more scientists who dispute the claims regarding global warming than there are who support them.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 5, 2007 @ 5:38 pm
Are you comfortable making this statement of irrefutable “fact”? If so do you think yourself some kind of freakin’genius which the world has over looked. Island nations such as Tuvalu are making plans to abandon islands, the US military is developing contingency plans, nations around the world are signing treaties and strategizing how to tackle a problem and on and on. Yet a computer nobody says with confidence there is no issue? Seems freaking ridiculous. Oh and your statement fails to state what “claims” about GW you are so confident are refuted by a majority of scientists
December 5th, 2007 at 5:45 pmVerbal, go easy on Cold_Hard. Flat-out lies are all he’s got left.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:45 pmAnd CHL erects another tiny little straw man.
Comment by VerbalKint — December 5, 2007 @ 5:37 pm
Must be running out of straw, has to make itty bitty ones to stretch out the straw supply…
December 5th, 2007 at 5:47 pmThis cold hard left is a stooge of the Petroleum Institute. He hates America and want us to become a confederation Emirates sucking at Dubai’s teat.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:47 pmAs if Murdoch’s takeover hadn’t already done enough to destroy the credibility of that rag-for-rich-righties – Heckuva job, Mr. Jerkin’ Jr.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:48 pmIt may seem strange that scientists would participate in such a phenomenon. It shouldn’t. Scientists are human; they do not wait for proof; many devote their professional lives to seeking evidence for hypotheses (especially well-funded hypotheses) they’ve chosen to believe.
I find it ironic, that when deniers say things such as this, you can simply imagine then talking into a mirror to find the real truth.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:50 pmOh, man. We need some smarter trolls.
But I guess “smarter troll” is an oxymoron, isn’t it?
December 5th, 2007 at 5:52 pmhttp://www.digitaljournal.com/ article/ 162241/ 17_200_Scientists_Dispute_Global_Warming
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 5, 2007 @ 5:38 pm
17,200 scientists? Including such science luminaries as Michael J. Fox, John Grisham, Perry Mason, and Dr. Geri “Ginger Spice” Halliwell?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_petition
December 5th, 2007 at 5:52 pmWhen it comes right down to it, we still don’t have good “proof” as to how gravity works.
I guess we’ll just keep falling off the edge of the earth here.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:55 pmThat is a pretty lame retreat.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:59 pmp.s. Where were all of those major tropical systems the global warming alarmists told us were coming to Florida this season? My generator is still sitting in a box, unused. Oh well, at least it was made in the U.S.A.
Comment by cold_hard_left — December 5, 2007 @ 5:57 pm
True, we didn’t have any major storms hit the continental US this year. They’ve been hitting the Philippines, Bangladesh, Oman, China, Mexico, Belize, Guatemala, Haiti, and other places, many at Cat 4 or 5 strength. But not to worry – other countries don’t count as part of the “globe,” right?
December 5th, 2007 at 6:01 pmAnd Rupert Murdoch wasn’t going to change things at the Wall Street Journal. What a surprise that that statement was false. Why doesn’t everyone who subcribes to anything published by Murdoch just cancel their subscriptions immediately and send a message to that traitor.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:03 pm#69,
Let’s see, the single link in the article you link to points to the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, of Robinson, Robinson, and Soon fame.
And do you care to support any of your insinuations? Like a name, or something?
I am so sincerely embarrassed for you.
Enjoy your typing.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:05 pmeveryone who subcribes to anything published by Murdoch just cancel their subscriptions immediately and send a message to that traitor.
In fact, I just cancelled my daily Buddhist wisdon email from BeliefNet, which he just bought.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:09 pmI sent them an email via the contact info on their page telling them why.
It came back undeliverable… Jeebus.
17,200 scientists?
Comment by toasterhead — December 5, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
Yeah, this is the famous Oregon Science Institute petition that has been thoroughly debunked. For those who don’t know, try the google on the internets (series of tubes) to learn more about OSI. It is basically six guys in a backwoods shed in Oregon masquerading as a research institute. The three “disciplines” studied there are: “home schooling curricula”, “survival techniques for nuclear war”, and “global warming”. I kid you not. The petition was signed by a few real climate scientists many years ago, back when there really was some controversy remaining on the subject, but nearly all of the names are from people who are not practicing scientists.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:10 pmScientists are human
Unlike trolls.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:10 pm17,200 scientists?
Comment by toasterhead — December 5, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
They have conferred scientist status on each and every mushroom growing behind the shack.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:11 pmSorry, #84 has it right, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Check out their web site. It’s a hoot. Also check out this site, which details the frauds committed by Arthur Robinson and Frederick Seitz and their notorious institute:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
December 5th, 2007 at 6:19 pmThat CHL would cite OISM as a credible source on global warming is pathetic, pathetic, and pathetic.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:20 pmVK, and you expected…???
December 5th, 2007 at 6:20 pm? capt.? were you aware that whatever personality you may have once possessed is gone, and that you are now merely a temporary storage location for Rush Limbaugh’s thoughts?
I’ve said it before, but, if any of us wanted to know what Rush had to say, we’d tune in to his show. Having Righties stop by all day parroting him benefits no one.
Get something original going, or beat it. Your posts are about as interesting as a Fred Thompson stump speech.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:31 pmGood-bye Wall Street Journal
December 5th, 2007 at 6:41 pmHello Rupert Murdoch
Captain, your theory could certainly be plausible when talking about individual scientists, but you’re impugning the entire body of worldwide scientists, simply because their research leads them to conclusions your… I don’t know… masters… overlords… personal stubbornness… something won’t let you accept.
And what exactly are the demonstrated “costs to economy and liberty” of which you speak?
December 5th, 2007 at 6:42 pm“costs to economy and libertyâ€
Freedom to buy 8 mpg hummers…
December 5th, 2007 at 6:43 pmComment by CaptainMantastic — December 5, 2007 @ 6:25 pm
How did you feel about such landmark legislation as the Clean Air or Clean Water Acts? Was their costs to the economy and liberty too great.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:52 pmOh, lord. Smarter trolls, please!
Manny, that last bit was downright embarrassing. Really.
December 5th, 2007 at 7:01 pmIn much the same way, I believe there could be a similar motivation for today’s scientist to be less than objective when finding data that is inconclusive. It would be easy for someone who believes that remedies for global warming will make the enviroment better; regardless of the reality. Especially when it is politically correct and advantageous to personal funding. And also, without considering the costs to economy and liberty.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 5, 2007 @ 6:25 pm
Exactly ass-backwards, as usual. Your ideology trump rational thought every time, in your world, which is unfortunately ours as well, and yoinsist on making it uninhabitable for you great-grandchildren so that a white man can buy his 4th vacation house. Clueless.
December 5th, 2007 at 7:07 pmCaptain Mantastic is as big a whore as that small group of PhD’s who deliver science on demand for a price. Scientists for oil companies that deny global warming are just like scientists for tobacco companies who deny smoking has adverse health effects.
FYI Captain, a scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
December 5th, 2007 at 7:10 pmIn much the same way, I believe there could be a similar motivation for today’s scientist to be less than objective when finding data that is inconclusive. It would be easy for someone who believes that remedies for global warming will make the enviroment better; regardless of the reality. Especially when it is politically correct and advantageous to personal funding. And also, without considering the costs to economy and liberty.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 5, 2007 @ 6:25 pm
It’s a terrible and foolish analogy, because priests and monks were fettered by ideology and science is entirely the opposite.
If you want to point fingers at scientists who are “less than objective” you need look no farther than those who are funded by petroleum institutes.
December 5th, 2007 at 7:26 pm2012 isn’t far off (one election cycle) Too bad Al isn’t running. We need someone besides a DLC type Dem. Edwards comes to mind.
December 5th, 2007 at 7:26 pmIf it doesn’t make the stock market go up, it isn’t true. WSJ.
December 5th, 2007 at 7:32 pm“But, I suggest they supported the ideas, because they were politically correct at the time and they also believed that an ignorant public was better served by believeing in the religious ideas, to help them live better lifes; regardless of the truth.”
They “supported the ideas” because it put (tithed) food on their own plate, and money in their purses.
December 5th, 2007 at 7:32 pmRHF, of course Captain Mantastic believes “there could be a similar motivation for scientists”. You hit it on the head.
Conservatives have no problem seeing scientists as corruptly promoting a flawed policy because they know they’re capable of it. Hell, they’re almost predestined for that kind of behavior.
Hence they see it all around them.
December 5th, 2007 at 7:56 pmHow Gore and Media Fabricated a Global Warming Consensus.
December 5th, 2007 at 8:38 pmyou’re just so right captain – there’s no way that developing next-generation, high-efficiency energy technologies would ever make anyone money.
global warming denial and the stubborn rejectionism that accompanies it are just the saddest phenomenon i’ve had to witness in my time on earth.
we’ve known the industrial lifestyle is killing the planet for 50 years or more, and still can’t make a damned bit of progress to correct it because of some people’s fear of losing any of their luxury and convenience, or sense of being better off than someone else.
shortsighted, greedy little monkeys we are….even some of us who should know better.
December 5th, 2007 at 9:23 pmGee, Captain, I would have thought that if Gore were seeking to fabricate a “crisis” in order to make money, he’d have gotten his financial ducks in a row — for instance, joined a venture capital firm — BEFORE unleashing his dastardly plan on the world.
I’d also think he’d have gone a different route than the cliché “documentary-film” path to riches. It’s been done to death, right?
December 5th, 2007 at 9:37 pmDon’t think their isn’t a downside to agreeing to global warming initiatives.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 5, 2007 @ 8:56 pm
Yeah, some Republicans might live. That does suck.
Al Gore will make money on saving the planet. What a drag for you mass-murdering Chimp-blowers.
December 5th, 2007 at 9:37 pmLet me get this straight — the Right obviously doesn’t believe global warming is a real threat, but if it is, they don’t want government involved in taking measures necessary. The Free Market should be able to take care of things, right?
Well, isn’t that EXACTLY what Al Gore is doing by joining a venture capital firm to promote green opportunities?
Why would wingnuts criticize Al Gore for seeking market-based solutions to the problem?
December 5th, 2007 at 9:44 pmWhy would wingnuts criticize Al Gore for seeking market-based solutions to the problem?
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — December 5, 2007 @ 9:44 pm
Because Al has embarrassed them and their “leadership” so badly that they would gladly sacrifice the planet to prove a point. Of course, the point they will prove is that Al was right.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:16 pmIn much the same way, I believe there could be a similar motivation for today’s scientist to be less than objective when finding data that is inconclusive. It would be easy for someone who believes that remedies for global warming will make the enviroment better; regardless of the reality. Especially when it is politically correct and advantageous to personal funding. And also, without considering the costs to economy and liberty.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 5, 2007 @ 6:25 pm
Are you seriously comparing scientists today with the priests and monks of 1,000 years ago?
1,000 years ago most people were ILLITERATE. The few people who could read held the power. Now we all can read. We have the ability to read the IPCC working group reports and the studies they’re based on, and evaluate for ourselves whether or not the science makes sense. It’s really not that difficult once you understand the concepts.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:27 amHaving read the trolls one is left with the following conclusions: Not all conspiracy theorists are rightwing, but all rightwingers are conspiracy theorists.
I mean seriously, you have an evil cabal of mad, mad I tell you, scientists out to rule the world?
Yeah, and we all saw Superman flying around the daily planet last week.
December 6th, 2007 at 7:49 am