Update, 6/3/07: And some Kyoto skepticism from an unlikely source.
14 comments:
Anonymous
said...
NASA director Griffin may or may not keep his job because of that ill-informed comment. He's way out in right field, not unlike like Intelligent Design "scientists."
No, it isn't worth reading since about all "Phil" the astronomer does is tell us how shocked he is that anyone could entertain the slightest doubt about anthropogenic global warming.
After a few more cogent comments like "We know the Earth is warming. There is no doubt about this. None." and "He is definitely saying that we cannot say for sure if we should do anything or not. That’s utter nonsense." he finally gets to the hard science of anthropogenic global warming: I am still reeling that the head of NASA — which, at its heart, is a scientific agency — would say something so ridiculous.
Some astronomer.
Maybe he figures a scientific debate isn't complete without throwing around a few insults. He certainly doesn't seem to be to be willing to inconvenience himself by being bound to the science.
I thought scientists were supposed to base their theories on facts. Instead we have them believing what amounts to unsubstantiated rumors pushed by political parties as a wedge issue. Where are the real scientists? I know a few have lost their jobs for daring to express skepticism over the theory of Global Warming. It's the Amarna period with Akhenaten all over again, only with weather.
Gotta tell ya, Climate Change "skeptics," the debate in the real scientific community is over on this stuff. The evidence is in and 1. Global climate change is real and 2. Humans exacerbate the problem.
Sticking your head in the sand and trying Karl Rove tactics (deny-deny-deny--and get FOXnews to report the denials) won't hold up against peer-reviewed science.
The case is closed on evolution, the round earth, and the existence of atoms, too. Science doesn't demand open-mindedness on issues where the evidence is conclusive.
If you can get past that, there's still good news for your scorched-earth tendencies. (I don't know why you guys hate the earth so much, but I've given up trying to sort through your "logic.")
The good news for y'all is that it's too late to make much of a difference. Sure we can mitigate a little here and there, but there is an extent to which the die is cast. We're rollin' down the hill with considerable momentum. So you can cheer on Wyoming and Texas for their disproportionate greenhouse gas emissions.
Rest easy; humans are destroying the earth with abandon. And with China and India coming on line, the pace will accelerate. So celebrate: your dreams will still come true!
PS. I'm sorry, Allen; I pointed you to Phil's blog where Phil discusses things as Phil sees them. From now on, stick to Darren's blog where Darren discusses things as Darren sees them. Whole different concept!
And Ellen K, it's funny to read your words in light of Griffin's statement itself, let alone how this Administration quells the real science on stem cell research and birth control meds. A "scientist" might have a hrd time finding a job if they denied the existence of atoms, too. In your book that would be the Amarna period with Akhenaten all over again, but with the Periodic Table. In the scientific world, it's simply "rightsizing" the nutcases.
Sorry, Anonymous, I'm not buying what you're selling. In my lifetime I've seen the Population Bomb, Peak Oil, Global Cooling (the new Ice Age), Nuclear Winter, the Bird Flu Pandemic, and now Global Warming. Notice anything similar about them? If not, allow me to inform you: they're all apocalyptic, they all require massive government intervention, and they're all *wrong*.
The so-called science regarding global warming *isn't* settled except in the minds of those who just *need* a cause like this in order to feel good about themselves. There's too much counter-information out there for someone who is reasonable and logical to accept the global warming story hook, line, and sinker.
I hate to bring this up, but given the lefts love for all things controversial, including euthanasia, it worries me that a leftist/liberal Congress will begin motions to identify every citizen based on their carbon footprint. At what point will someone's footprint outweigh their usefulness to society? What provisions will be made to keep a mad government from eliminating those who are aged, disabled or those deemed "unwanted?" Given the blindness of the agenda of late term abortions, it is a scary thought. If Global Warming is deemed real, then the Slippery Slope theory of ethics has just as much weight. Please note, I am not a loony pro-life nut, but I know kids who gestations wasn't much more than those in late term abortions. And if we are willing to pair that with euthanasia, then can cataloging our carbon footprints against our usefulness be far behind. I know it sounds like science fiction, but then again, so did space travel in the 50's.
Well anonymous, I see you must be a scientist as well. You're preference for insult over information puts you firmly in the camp of Phil the Astronomer.
I'm just wondering, and perhaps you can help me here, what's the word you use for someone who responds to questions with answers? Clearly, that can't be "scientist" because both you and Phil claim the scientific high ground without all that tedious question-answering preferring instead insults of substantial creativity and great entertainment value. I was particularly impressed with the persuasiveness of the reference to Karl Rove.
Another item I noticed was your touching faith in the peer-review process.
Let me clue you in.
Turns out that the Intelligent Design folks have genned up their own peer-review process. All you need is some....wait for it....peers! So if the flat earth guys wanted to lay on a patina of scientific respectability they could fire up a publication with a peer review panel and publish peer reviewed papers as well. Neat, hey?
But your familiarity with science was brought into sharp focus with this interesting declamation, "Science doesn't demand open-mindedness on issues where the evidence is conclusive."
Although I'm sure you don't realize it - how could you having written what you did - but the words "science" and "conclusive" don't belong in the same sentence. Science is never conclusive because scientists are never right. Scientists are just righter then their predecessors.
Einstein wasn't right, he was just righter then Newton. Newton's still right enough to use to calculate orbits but he's not quite as right as Einstein who, it should be noted, is still having his ideas tested to this day.
That's right bucko, creeping up on a hundred years of being the rightest guy in town isn't enough to keep energetic young sprouts from testing just how right The Man, Big Al, is. You'd think a winning streak like that might result in someone ringing the "conclusive evidence" bell but no, physicists just go on being relentlessly open-minded even though science doesn't demand it. Good thing they haven't heard about anthropogenic global climate change. Heck, they might want to go out and test that!
It's just a darned good thing we have climatologists around who understand that once you've got the right answer you can stop looking and close your mind.
Ellen, Darren's too sweet to point it out, so I will. Regarding your theory, "[n]otice anything ... about [it]? If not, allow me to inform you: [it's] apocalyptic, ... require[s] massive government intervention, and [it's] *wrong*."
It's tough being "fair and balanced" when you're trying to argue points and maintain friendships at the same time.
Oh, and Darren; you can't slide on that old yarn of "just let liberals try to save the earth while I redouble my efforts to destroy it!" Nope. I'll support action that allows good people like you to be a part of the solution, too. I won't require that you like it.
I would support legislation that requires both you and me to be kinder to the homeworld. That is, you'll be required to reduce your carbon footprint right along with me. That's the only way such measures can be effective.
So while you invite me to reduce my carbon footprint, I extend the invitation back atcha.
Seems like you're backsliding here, Anonymous. A couple comments ago, you were willing to require me to do things, but not require me to like it. How typical of liberals--only give an option when you think people will choose the "correct" option. Paternalism, daddy-ment knows best, that sort of thing.
And I'll bet even money that my carbon footprint is smaller than most Americans'. I was even advised by a solar panel salesman that solar panels won't save me any money because I use, and I quote, "a ridiculously small amount of electricity." I put at most 12,000 on my vehicles (total) a year, and one of those vehicles is a 65mpg Honda Elite 250 scooter.
14 comments:
NASA director Griffin may or may not keep his job because of that ill-informed comment. He's way out in right field, not unlike like Intelligent Design "scientists."
This is worth reading.
No, it isn't worth reading since about all "Phil" the astronomer does is tell us how shocked he is that anyone could entertain the slightest doubt about anthropogenic global warming.
After a few more cogent comments like "We know the Earth is warming. There is no doubt about this. None." and "He is definitely saying that we cannot say for sure if we should do anything or not. That’s utter nonsense." he finally gets to the hard science of anthropogenic global warming: I am still reeling that the head of NASA — which, at its heart, is a scientific agency — would say something so ridiculous.
Some astronomer.
Maybe he figures a scientific debate isn't complete without throwing around a few insults. He certainly doesn't seem to be to be willing to inconvenience himself by being bound to the science.
I thought scientists were supposed to base their theories on facts. Instead we have them believing what amounts to unsubstantiated rumors pushed by political parties as a wedge issue. Where are the real scientists? I know a few have lost their jobs for daring to express skepticism over the theory of Global Warming. It's the Amarna period with Akhenaten all over again, only with weather.
Gotta tell ya, Climate Change "skeptics," the debate in the real scientific community is over on this stuff. The evidence is in and
1. Global climate change is real and
2. Humans exacerbate the problem.
Sticking your head in the sand and trying Karl Rove tactics (deny-deny-deny--and get FOXnews to report the denials) won't hold up against peer-reviewed science.
The case is closed on evolution, the round earth, and the existence of atoms, too. Science doesn't demand open-mindedness on issues where the evidence is conclusive.
If you can get past that, there's still good news for your scorched-earth tendencies. (I don't know why you guys hate the earth so much, but I've given up trying to sort through your "logic.")
The good news for y'all is that it's too late to make much of a difference. Sure we can mitigate a little here and there, but there is an extent to which the die is cast. We're rollin' down the hill with considerable momentum. So you can cheer on Wyoming and Texas for their disproportionate greenhouse gas emissions.
Rest easy; humans are destroying the earth with abandon. And with China and India coming on line, the pace will accelerate. So celebrate: your dreams will still come true!
PS. I'm sorry, Allen; I pointed you to Phil's blog where Phil discusses things as Phil sees them. From now on, stick to Darren's blog where Darren discusses things as Darren sees them. Whole different concept!
And Ellen K, it's funny to read your words in light of Griffin's statement itself, let alone how this Administration quells the real science on stem cell research and birth control meds. A "scientist" might have a hrd time finding a job if they denied the existence of atoms, too. In your book that would be the Amarna period with Akhenaten all over again, but with the Periodic Table. In the scientific world, it's simply "rightsizing" the nutcases.
Sorry, Anonymous, I'm not buying what you're selling. In my lifetime I've seen the Population Bomb, Peak Oil, Global Cooling (the new Ice Age), Nuclear Winter, the Bird Flu Pandemic, and now Global Warming. Notice anything similar about them? If not, allow me to inform you: they're all apocalyptic, they all require massive government intervention, and they're all *wrong*.
The so-called science regarding global warming *isn't* settled except in the minds of those who just *need* a cause like this in order to feel good about themselves. There's too much counter-information out there for someone who is reasonable and logical to accept the global warming story hook, line, and sinker.
But please, reduce *your* carbon footprint!
I hate to bring this up, but given the lefts love for all things controversial, including euthanasia, it worries me that a leftist/liberal Congress will begin motions to identify every citizen based on their carbon footprint. At what point will someone's footprint outweigh their usefulness to society? What provisions will be made to keep a mad government from eliminating those who are aged, disabled or those deemed "unwanted?" Given the blindness of the agenda of late term abortions, it is a scary thought. If Global Warming is deemed real, then the Slippery Slope theory of ethics has just as much weight. Please note, I am not a loony pro-life nut, but I know kids who gestations wasn't much more than those in late term abortions. And if we are willing to pair that with euthanasia, then can cataloging our carbon footprints against our usefulness be far behind. I know it sounds like science fiction, but then again, so did space travel in the 50's.
EllenK, please don't give them any more ideas!
Well anonymous, I see you must be a scientist as well. You're preference for insult over information puts you firmly in the camp of Phil the Astronomer.
I'm just wondering, and perhaps you can help me here, what's the word you use for someone who responds to questions with answers? Clearly, that can't be "scientist" because both you and Phil claim the scientific high ground without all that tedious question-answering preferring instead insults of substantial creativity and great entertainment value. I was particularly impressed with the persuasiveness of the reference to Karl Rove.
Another item I noticed was your touching faith in the peer-review process.
Let me clue you in.
Turns out that the Intelligent Design folks have genned up their own peer-review process. All you need is some....wait for it....peers! So if the flat earth guys wanted to lay on a patina of scientific respectability they could fire up a publication with a peer review panel and publish peer reviewed papers as well. Neat, hey?
But your familiarity with science was brought into sharp focus with this interesting declamation, "Science doesn't demand open-mindedness on issues where the evidence is conclusive."
Although I'm sure you don't realize it - how could you having written what you did - but the words "science" and "conclusive" don't belong in the same sentence. Science is never conclusive because scientists are never right. Scientists are just righter then their predecessors.
Einstein wasn't right, he was just righter then Newton. Newton's still right enough to use to calculate orbits but he's not quite as right as Einstein who, it should be noted, is still having his ideas tested to this day.
That's right bucko, creeping up on a hundred years of being the rightest guy in town isn't enough to keep energetic young sprouts from testing just how right The Man, Big Al, is. You'd think a winning streak like that might result in someone ringing the "conclusive evidence" bell but no, physicists just go on being relentlessly open-minded even though science doesn't demand it. Good thing they haven't heard about anthropogenic global climate change. Heck, they might want to go out and test that!
It's just a darned good thing we have climatologists around who understand that once you've got the right answer you can stop looking and close your mind.
Ellen, Darren's too sweet to point it out, so I will. Regarding your theory, "[n]otice anything ... about [it]? If not, allow me to inform you: [it's] apocalyptic, ... require[s] massive government intervention, and [it's] *wrong*."
It's tough being "fair and balanced" when you're trying to argue points and maintain friendships at the same time.
Oh, and Darren; you can't slide on that old yarn of "just let liberals try to save the earth while I redouble my efforts to destroy it!" Nope. I'll support action that allows good people like you to be a part of the solution, too. I won't require that you like it.
Anonymous, I have *no idea* what you're saying in the above comment. I'm afraid you'll have to be more clear.
Subtlety is indeed a lost art here.
I would support legislation that requires both you and me to be kinder to the homeworld. That is, you'll be required to reduce your carbon footprint right along with me. That's the only way such measures can be effective.
So while you invite me to reduce my carbon footprint, I extend the invitation back atcha.
Seems like you're backsliding here, Anonymous. A couple comments ago, you were willing to require me to do things, but not require me to like it. How typical of liberals--only give an option when you think people will choose the "correct" option. Paternalism, daddy-ment knows best, that sort of thing.
And I'll bet even money that my carbon footprint is smaller than most Americans'. I was even advised by a solar panel salesman that solar panels won't save me any money because I use, and I quote, "a ridiculously small amount of electricity." I put at most 12,000 on my vehicles (total) a year, and one of those vehicles is a 65mpg Honda Elite 250 scooter.
Please don't get holier than thou with me.
Is this a religious discussion or a scientific one? I am confused because there seems to be a big overlap.
I fear it's both, which is why I often refer to the Church of Global Warming.
Post a Comment