This entry was posted on February 12, 2010 at 8:54 am and is filed under Free For All . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
I believe an industrialized society dumping a bunch of chemicals into the atmosphere may be behind the climate change agenda. But you’re right…nothing to see here..
-dumping a bunch of chemicals into the atmosphere-
This is called “pollution”. Bad stuff (my professional medical opinion). Unfortunately, “pollution” in the general sense is not included in the science of the current theory on global warming. While reducing the amount of pollution being “dumped” into our atmosphere is a worthy goal in its own right, this will not necessarily result in lower CO2 emissions. Similarly, reducing CO2 emissions will not necessarily clean the atmosphere.
In other words, the “global warming” argument doesn’t equate with “air quality”.
While reducing the amount of pollution being “dumped” into our atmosphere is a worthy goal in its own right, this will not necessarily result in lower CO2 emissions. Similarly, reducing CO2 emissions will not necessarily clean the atmosphere.
Indisputably true. However, acid rivers are not only bad in their own right, they contribute to the acidification of the oceans, making them less able to absorb carbon.
You’re probably technically right, Al, but the Right’s insistence on pretending nothing is happening to the atmosphere that isn’t naturally caused is baffling.
‘Al, but the Right’s insistence on pretending nothing is happening to the atmosphere that isn’t naturally caused is baffling.’
It’s absurd as well as bizarre.
Somehow they think that all of these peer-reviewed studies over the past 25 years in fields ranging from earth science to atmospheric science to ocean science are all, not just wrong, but part of a giant hoax. All of them. A big scam.
It strongly seems that they didnt’ get it absolutely ‘right.’ The IPCC report – or parts of it – is shockingly sloppy. But to dismiss all of this research in a dozen-and-one fields for several decades is just stupid.
I look at the left and shake my head. Then I look at the right and I cringe.
Follow the money. Sometime over the past 25 years of studies the science became too closely muddled with research funding. I have a similar criticism in how medical studies are conducted, including my own. Initial writings are “spiced up” – no lies, just reaching a little beyond what is a reasonable expectation. The next group comes along and uses some of those claims to “spice up” their own related work. It’s bad enough just dealing among ourselves, but what happens when political forces get interjected into the battle for funding?
One often forgotten principle of the scientific method is that experimental outcomes must be reproducible and they match their predicted values to a degree that is convincing to the sceptical as well as to the theory’s proponents. Thus far, climate science has (admittedly) failed all three. The burden of proof is on those who make the claim, not on those who challenge it.
Cable news puts on “experts” to debate the topic. We haven’t been served well by this. Maybe it is because those who show up on camera are the ones who want to be on camera…
… A couple of weeks ago Fox News had a story on a new drug for multiple sclerosis patients that is nearing FDA approval. To give us the details on why this is exciting, how it works, etc., Fox had on one of its “Medical A-Team” docs, no doubt an accomplished and highly qualifies physician. His answers sounded intelligent and informed, but through my ears there was no doubt this guy hadn’t a clue what he was talking about. I suspect the same is true when “experts” are being interviewed about global warming.
If I hear an scientist use the word “denier”, that’s enough to convince me that his professional opinion has been compromised. Probably for money.
Follow the money. Sometime over the past 25 years of studies the science became too closely muddled with research funding
Perhaps, but if you go back to the late 1980s and 1990s – when AGW was first being theorized – you’ll see a number of technical papers on the topic. This was long before the grant gravy train and press attention corrupted the process. And it has been corrupted.
I think that even if one accounts for confirmation bias, human error and pride and financial corruption that the other evidence can’t be dimissed.
I don’t disagree, steve. And the premise of those technical papers, that releasing into the atmosphere CO2 that has been mostly locked away underground for millions of years could affect the Earth’s overall climate, doesn’t seem far-fetched at all.
Unfortunately the real science to back up the theory hasn’t progressed much since the 80s and 90s. It is an extremely complicated system so that isn’t a surprise that predictions haven’t panned-out. One competing theory postulates that a span of warming occurs each time the planet transitions from the end of an intra-glacial period into an ice age, and because we’re currently in one of those periods and inexorably moving into the next ice age…
Who knows? But they shouldn’t be forcing massive societal changes on the basis of inferior science, and for a cause whose most ardent proponents seeking those changes have a major financial stake in its acceptance.
After all he attacks on Palin over the crib notes on her hand..it turns out that Dianne Feinstein used them 20yrs ago in a debate(where you weren”t allowed too)….so one again Palin is held to a different standard when doing something that all Politicians have done.
I’m not sure that the mainstream press is covering it ( I haven’t seen much reporting) but the “man made” Global Warming Hoax is falling apart big time!!! Even Phil Jones is questioning the so called scientific consensus. Too many stories to report here so for a small peak go to http://wattsupwiththat.com/
I’m never surprised how politically liberal our press is. They really don’t report stories that don’t fit the liberal agenda.
February 12, 2010 at 9:40 am
Bill O’Reilly “Are You A Socialist”
Under the Pink. Green Is The New Pink. Who is behind “Climate Change Agenda”
http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/2010/02/tgif-circus-life-under-pink-clouds-on.html
February 12, 2010 at 9:59 am
I believe an industrialized society dumping a bunch of chemicals into the atmosphere may be behind the climate change agenda. But you’re right…nothing to see here..
February 12, 2010 at 10:52 am
Of course there’s a liberal media bias…
http://mediamatters.org/columns/201002090002
February 12, 2010 at 11:37 am
-dumping a bunch of chemicals into the atmosphere-
This is called “pollution”. Bad stuff (my professional medical opinion). Unfortunately, “pollution” in the general sense is not included in the science of the current theory on global warming. While reducing the amount of pollution being “dumped” into our atmosphere is a worthy goal in its own right, this will not necessarily result in lower CO2 emissions. Similarly, reducing CO2 emissions will not necessarily clean the atmosphere.
In other words, the “global warming” argument doesn’t equate with “air quality”.
February 12, 2010 at 11:51 am
While reducing the amount of pollution being “dumped” into our atmosphere is a worthy goal in its own right, this will not necessarily result in lower CO2 emissions. Similarly, reducing CO2 emissions will not necessarily clean the atmosphere.
Indisputably true. However, acid rivers are not only bad in their own right, they contribute to the acidification of the oceans, making them less able to absorb carbon.
February 12, 2010 at 11:56 am
You’re probably technically right, Al, but the Right’s insistence on pretending nothing is happening to the atmosphere that isn’t naturally caused is baffling.
February 12, 2010 at 12:07 pm
‘Al, but the Right’s insistence on pretending nothing is happening to the atmosphere that isn’t naturally caused is baffling.’
It’s absurd as well as bizarre.
Somehow they think that all of these peer-reviewed studies over the past 25 years in fields ranging from earth science to atmospheric science to ocean science are all, not just wrong, but part of a giant hoax. All of them. A big scam.
It strongly seems that they didnt’ get it absolutely ‘right.’ The IPCC report – or parts of it – is shockingly sloppy. But to dismiss all of this research in a dozen-and-one fields for several decades is just stupid.
I look at the left and shake my head. Then I look at the right and I cringe.
I got nowhere to go.
February 12, 2010 at 2:46 pm
-Peer Reviewed Studies-
Follow the money. Sometime over the past 25 years of studies the science became too closely muddled with research funding. I have a similar criticism in how medical studies are conducted, including my own. Initial writings are “spiced up” – no lies, just reaching a little beyond what is a reasonable expectation. The next group comes along and uses some of those claims to “spice up” their own related work. It’s bad enough just dealing among ourselves, but what happens when political forces get interjected into the battle for funding?
One often forgotten principle of the scientific method is that experimental outcomes must be reproducible and they match their predicted values to a degree that is convincing to the sceptical as well as to the theory’s proponents. Thus far, climate science has (admittedly) failed all three. The burden of proof is on those who make the claim, not on those who challenge it.
Cable news puts on “experts” to debate the topic. We haven’t been served well by this. Maybe it is because those who show up on camera are the ones who want to be on camera…
… A couple of weeks ago Fox News had a story on a new drug for multiple sclerosis patients that is nearing FDA approval. To give us the details on why this is exciting, how it works, etc., Fox had on one of its “Medical A-Team” docs, no doubt an accomplished and highly qualifies physician. His answers sounded intelligent and informed, but through my ears there was no doubt this guy hadn’t a clue what he was talking about. I suspect the same is true when “experts” are being interviewed about global warming.
If I hear an scientist use the word “denier”, that’s enough to convince me that his professional opinion has been compromised. Probably for money.
February 12, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Follow the money. Sometime over the past 25 years of studies the science became too closely muddled with research funding
Perhaps, but if you go back to the late 1980s and 1990s – when AGW was first being theorized – you’ll see a number of technical papers on the topic. This was long before the grant gravy train and press attention corrupted the process. And it has been corrupted.
I think that even if one accounts for confirmation bias, human error and pride and financial corruption that the other evidence can’t be dimissed.
February 12, 2010 at 8:34 pm
I don’t disagree, steve. And the premise of those technical papers, that releasing into the atmosphere CO2 that has been mostly locked away underground for millions of years could affect the Earth’s overall climate, doesn’t seem far-fetched at all.
Unfortunately the real science to back up the theory hasn’t progressed much since the 80s and 90s. It is an extremely complicated system so that isn’t a surprise that predictions haven’t panned-out. One competing theory postulates that a span of warming occurs each time the planet transitions from the end of an intra-glacial period into an ice age, and because we’re currently in one of those periods and inexorably moving into the next ice age…
Who knows? But they shouldn’t be forcing massive societal changes on the basis of inferior science, and for a cause whose most ardent proponents seeking those changes have a major financial stake in its acceptance.
February 13, 2010 at 11:35 am
After all he attacks on Palin over the crib notes on her hand..it turns out that Dianne Feinstein used them 20yrs ago in a debate(where you weren”t allowed too)….so one again Palin is held to a different standard when doing something that all Politicians have done.
February 13, 2010 at 1:47 pm
don’t you guys feel a little silly have to search back twenty years so you can say “see? everybody does it”?
February 13, 2010 at 4:38 pm
About as silly as you feel talking about Richard Nixon and the ‘Southern Strategy’ as proof that the Republicans are a racist party.
February 13, 2010 at 5:36 pm
“don’t you guys feel a little silly have to search back twenty years”
Not really it just enforces the point that attacking Palin for this..now that’s what’s silly.
February 13, 2010 at 7:53 pm
About as silly as you feel talking about Richard Nixon and the ‘Southern Strategy’ as proof that the Republicans are a racist party.
Touche.
February 14, 2010 at 5:57 pm
I’m not sure that the mainstream press is covering it ( I haven’t seen much reporting) but the “man made” Global Warming Hoax is falling apart big time!!! Even Phil Jones is questioning the so called scientific consensus. Too many stories to report here so for a small peak go to http://wattsupwiththat.com/
I’m never surprised how politically liberal our press is. They really don’t report stories that don’t fit the liberal agenda.
February 14, 2010 at 11:25 pm
How bad must things be going for Jimmy Johnson that he’s doing commercials for Extenze?
February 14, 2010 at 11:41 pm
-Extenze-
I saw that during the Daytona 500. Unbelievable. Did he invest with Bernie Madoff?
February 14, 2010 at 11:44 pm
Guess that hair won’t pay for itself.
February 14, 2010 at 11:52 pm
He does have ‘big’ hair.
February 15, 2010 at 12:14 am
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/Message-to-Chris-Matthews_-Shut-up_-84159957.html