A convenient and selective truth

Proclaiming that, “the nations top climate scientists,” give Al Gore’s movie, “five stars for accuracy,” this AP story gives the convenient impression of unanimous agreement of all our nation’s top climate scientists. But how many scientists exactly did this reporter interview to achieve such an all encompassing endorsement?

A Convenient Endorsement for Gore

The nation's top climate scientists are giving An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy. ~wired.com, AP story

Really? Wow. How impressive...

Actually, the title really does say it all. This article is yet another great example of journalistic malfeasance (or perhaps laziness). Luckily, I sometimes skim more than just the headline.

The former vice president's movie -- replete with the prospect of a flooded New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets -- mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.

Incredibly, our nation only has 19 climate scientists! This is news! Perhaps this should be the real focus of the article because having only 19 climate scientists in America seems to put an enormous climate science workload burden on this nation's 19 climate scientists.

Did I mention we only have 19 climate scientists in this nation of 250+ million? Yeah, it seems odd to me as well.

And did I mention that all 19 agree with every detail of Al Gore's absurd premises? Kind of fishy, eh? That's what I said too, so I kept reading.

The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited release, or read the book.

But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

So, just for review... 'attempting' to contact 100 sources for their opinion is exactly the same as getting all their opinions. And if all 19 of those who just happen to have seen the movie or read the book, and miraculously respond to your invitation to give their opinion, all agree 100% with Al Gore, well, then it's ok, journalistically speaking, to say that the nation's top climate scientists all agree.

See how that works?

Posted by Eric Simonson at June 28, 2006 3:00 AM
Comment #162703

Is there one, just one, actual climate scientist (no degrees from Liberty of Bob Jones) who disagrees with the movie? Maybe if we strapped them all down, forced them to watch and then asked them what they thought, maybe then you would give some attention to the facts. Maybe when your children are buying ocean front property in Pittsburgh, maybe then you’ll think there’s a problem. Maybe, just a slim chance on this, if God himself parted the heavens, came down and whispered in your ear that we’re screwing up the planet, maybe then you’d change your behavior. But I doubt it. Way too important that you be able to drive an SUV and Exxon make another billion.

Posted by: David S at June 28, 2006 11:52 AM
Comment #162705


I think it is actually remarkable how many hoops these guys jumped through just to publish a simple article. They obviously knew the right-wing blogosphere would be scrutinizing them, so they cut off any possibility of reasonable criticism by contacting more than 100 experts. Alas, there is no way to ward off unreasonable criticism from a biased critic.

Posted by: Woody Mena at June 28, 2006 11:59 AM
Comment #162711

Eric -

So, you can’t refute what is in the movie, and you can’t refute that 19 climate scientists agree with the movie…and you even quote that scientists who have seen the movie agree that “Gore conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels.”

What’s you issue? Is it that this movie isn’t marketed well enough to garner any criticism?

Also, can to explain what your title “A convenient and selective truth” has to do with Gore’s movie?

btw - my business partner’s 8 yr old daughter thought it was boring… maybe you can spin that to your use.

Posted by: tony at June 28, 2006 12:09 PM
Comment #162717

Good point.
You’re reaching. And all your ammo against the story comes from the story itself.

Posted by: Schwamp at June 28, 2006 12:20 PM
Comment #162721

Sounds like your endorsing the issue. Thanks. Al Gore would be flattered that the you weren’t disagreeing with any of the facts, but only that not every climate scientists gave their opinion.

There not many people who can disagree that global warming is fact, and we humans have caused it, and you are confirming that.

Posted by: nick at June 28, 2006 12:34 PM
Comment #162725

I understand your questioning the alleged cherry picking of 19 scientists, however since they are all agreeing with each other, we know this is not a scam cooked up by the Democrats. On the other hand, what do Republicans need to take global warming seriously? It would be great to continuously deny the existence of negative issues. I’ll try that as I ride through this hurricane season here in South Florida. I can relax knowing that even though the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic ‘feel’ warmer and the readings on thermometers are higher, hurricanes should be weak because global warming does not exist.

Posted by: europheus at June 28, 2006 12:44 PM
Comment #162726

Here are some questions that a respected climatologist, Dr. Roy Spencer, who does not agree with the movie, would like to ask Al Gore.
10 Questions for Al Gore

It would be nice if the MSM would occasionally present another side to the whole “global warming” debate, but that will probably never happen.

Posted by: SWMichiganBill at June 28, 2006 12:49 PM
Comment #162727

“Maybe, just a slim chance on this, if God himself parted the heavens, came down and whispered in your ear that we’re screwing up the planet, maybe then you’d change your behavior. But I doubt it. Way too important that you be able to drive an SUV and Exxon make another billion.”

Yeah, Maybe scientists could explain to Gore how we had (at least) 5 ice ages; was it the (Republican) dinosaurs that used “big oil” to heat the earth?!

Posted by: rahdigly at June 28, 2006 12:53 PM
Comment #162729

Ah, well, got to forgive big media for swallowing the hook on this - they have their agenda. What? To elect Big Al of course, as he was cheated out of his birthright by the Republican chads.

Posted by: Seminole 6 at June 28, 2006 12:54 PM
Comment #162736

I hope people actually look at those “ten” (actually 8) questions, because the guy is obviously a smart aleck who isn’t interested in having a real debate. He even accuses Gore of being a sore loser about the 2000 election…

Posted by: Woody Mena at June 28, 2006 1:10 PM
Comment #162737

It would seem, that even if humans are not the cause of the recent increased in global warming, that one must admit we are at least contributory to the problem. If the result of global warming include the increase number of drought days and intensified storms, airborne illnesses, etc., then we should be interested in finding a way to reduce those impacts.

I don’t understand the belligerance from the right on this. It would seem there is a major opportunity for innovation, new businesses and new profits that would result from research and development of new fuel technologies.

Perhaps it is because Al Gore is the messager. If it had been a conservative I wonder if the we would be seeing all the bleating about this. By the way, Theodore Roosevelt would probably be very interested in this subject and would spend the time to research it thoroughly. I can’t imagine the current president doing the same. Another big “left-winger”, Richard Nixon, established the EPA. Even he understood we have one planet to live on and if we despoil it, it’s not a great example of conservative principles.

If we are contributing to the problem, doesn’t it make sense to find a way to lessen the impact? I’d think we could find a way to do this without destroying the economy. George Bush the elder castigated Al Gore and said if Clinton-Gore was elected in 1992 that “we’d be up to our necks in owls and unemployed”. I don’t recall this occuring in the 90’s.

Posted by: Dennis at June 28, 2006 1:10 PM
Comment #162742


How about a non-partisan scientist(not posting on Republican websites or working for NASA, one of the worst offenders in environmental issues)?

The real issue is that Republicans hate anything proposed by Dems and are completely incapable of non-partisan thought.

While I’ll admit that I’m no scientist, and really can’t distinguish fact from fiction on either side of this, I tend to come down on the environmentalist side for two reasons. First, I try to see who stands to lose the most if they lose the argument and who stands to gain. There is so much money at stake for those who would protect the status quo that I question their motivations. While on the other side, the environmentalists don’t really have much at stake financially, nor do they stand to gain much if their point of view prevails, aside from a reduction in polution. Which brings me to my second point: the science can be debated, by both laymen and experts, but if there is even a question as to whether or not we are causing the changes in the environment, why not change our behavior? Better safe than sorry, right?

Posted by: David S at June 28, 2006 1:19 PM
Comment #162747

“If we are contributing to the problem, doesn’t it make sense to find a way to lessen the impact? “

We have a responsibility to confirm the “if” in “if we are contributing”. The truth is, there hasn’t been an (unanimous) concurrence of scientists on global warming; some think it’s caused by humans, some believe it’s the sun getting hotter.

Posted by: rahdigly at June 28, 2006 1:35 PM
Comment #162752


Where is the scientist that is disagreeing that the earth’s climate is getting hotter and that humans are very likely to blame. You have the whole internet at your disposal. C’mon, stop this farce! You can do it! By the way, Michael Crichton is not a scientist. He sells books at airports. Getting your science from Michael Crichton is like getting your religion from Tom Cruise.

Posted by: Max at June 28, 2006 1:53 PM
Comment #162758

rahd - So you’re in a locked room with 10 people choking to death on smoke, their eyes stinging, and falling down from heat, and you want all 10 to unanimously agree that the room is on fire before you call the fire department?

Posted by: DOC at June 28, 2006 2:02 PM
Comment #162759

Spencer’s arguments fall apart a little like this:

1)It’s the increase in severity and frequency that’s the issue, not making all those things look like they only happened recently.

2)Because most Scientist do agree that much of the CO2 increase is not natural. Which other source did you have in mind?

3)Judging from the Box Office, Gore has not alienated TOO many viewers. He plays to packed houses. As for making fun of the Republicans on Global Warming issues, it’s not his fault they seem so obtusely bent on taking folks with an interest in maintaining fossil fuel consumption at their word on Carbon Emissions.

4)Nothing about the science means the other aspects of the atmospheric picture aren’t in play. This just spices it up, if you will. There is nothing that makes increases in CO2 owing to warming and increases owing to emissions mutually exclusive. Both can work at the same time, especially in places like the tundra, where newly thawed organic material begins decomposing at an accelerated rate.

5)Both societies, while poor, are developing, and could be expected to be much more wasteful. Indeed they are more heavily polluted than the U.S. That in mind, I know China at least is requiring high fuel efficiency in their cars. India may very well be doing the same. He is confused if he thinks the purpose of any Democrat is to have the nation live in poverty.

6)This is happening, and Pack Ice is moving farther north. Spencer may find it hard to believe, but his incredulity is not the evidence by which such things are measured. As for showing an animated bear instead of a real one, I suppose Spenser is also an expert on the expense and trouble it takes to go to the arctic and shoot some footage, all for one lecture. As for Sea Ice concentrations, why does Gore have to wonder? Would there not be measurements and records on the subject?

7)Who is we, Kemosabe? And the reason why, is not about current temperatures, but instead those of the future. The trouble with this argument is that there is two-fold. First, a common argument against pollution controls has been expense. As it turns out, many of these devices have not been all that expensive. Addtionally, technology becomes cheaper as it becomes better used. The secon problem is the lack of alternatives from the naysayers. if Kyoto is bad and ineffective, what’s their alternative?

8)I’m sure Al Gore is not expecting the world to change without a shift in technology. Gore’s purpose is to highlight the problem, to get people working on the technological solutions. We don’t know that Nuclear will be a viable solution anyways, with the persistent problems of radioactive waste. We might not be able to tackle these problem that well, if the policy remains status quo oriented.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 28, 2006 2:03 PM
Comment #162761

One opposing study among many. read this over

Posted by: JR at June 28, 2006 2:09 PM
Comment #162763

Dr. Roy Spencer:

Member of The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a libertarian think tank funded by the Carthage foundation, Sarah Scaife foundation, ExxonMobile, and Chevron. The Scaife foundations, founded by Richard Scaife, direct both the Carthage and Sarah Scaife foundations. Richard Scaife who inherited his fortune in Mellon industry, oil, uranium and banking.

The Scaife foundation fund conservative causes. One interesting enough, is the IWF, the Independent Women’s Forum. Who oppose gender equity programs such as Title IX, affirmative action and the Violence Against Women Act. IWF members include academic women who are paid to write papers that denigrate the idea of equity for girls and women in education.

As far as environmental issues, the Scaife Foundation subscribes to neo-liberalism, which rejects government interference in a free market society.

Dr. Roy Spencer somehow doesn’t sound like an unbiased source of dissent, for the accepted theories of Global warming.

Posted by: Cube at June 28, 2006 2:09 PM
Comment #162764

One opposing study among many. read this over

Posted by: JR at June 28, 2006 02:09 PM
“From Source Watch

Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
From SourceWatch
Founded in 1998 and based in Tempe, AZ, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change is “dedicated to discovering and disseminating scientific information pertaining to the effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on climate and the biosphere.” [1] (http://www.co2science.org/center.htm)

The Center has links to the fossil fuel industry, both through personnel and funding.

According to Center for Science in the Public Interest, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change received $10,000 from ExxonMobil in 2001. [2] (http://web.archive.org/web/20011031010631/www.exxonmobil.com/contributions/public_info.html)

StopExxon.org reports Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has received $65,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2003. [3] (http://stopexxon.unfortu.net/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=24)

The Center works with the Greening Earth Society, a front group of the Western Fuels Association.

The Center is run by Keith E. Idso and Craig Idso, along with their father, Sherwood B. Idso. Both Idso brothers have been on the Western Fuels payroll at one time or another.

The Center produces a weekly online science newsletter called CO2 Science Magazine. “

Now, the Center’s analysis may be correct. I’m not saying it’s not. For once, though, I’d love to see an opposing view point regarding climate change from scientists that are not affiliated with the energy industry.

Posted by: Dennis at June 28, 2006 2:18 PM
Comment #162765

more questions here.

Posted by: JR at June 28, 2006 2:19 PM
Comment #162766

So a very well qualifiey scientist is written up in a publication as Federal Patriot. Because he is not a leftist, liberal and so on, he is not knowledgable about “global warming”. The only thing that man contributes to global warming is the hot air coming from Washington and leftist/liberal individuals who really don’t know what they are talking about.

Keep up the good work ES

Posted by: tomh at June 28, 2006 2:20 PM
Comment #162767

So, Eric, are you trying to claim that most scientist don’t believe that the Earth is warming up, and that C02 from human activities is the likely culprit?

Here are the steps by which Republicans evaluate science, it seems:

1) Talk with corporations who have an interest in maintain the use of certain products.

2) Buy without critical analysis reports and testimony by paid employees and beneficiaries of corporate money, even when that information presents theories at odd with scientific consensus

3) Claim those backing that consensus are just elitist liberals trying to control people’s lives.

4) Use Thomas Kuhn’s notion of revolutionary science (aka paradigm shift) to argue the truth of a theory by implying that it’s going to be the next big thing… even when the science is based on information that is outdated, or rejected by scientific authorities long ago.

5)Jump on any uncertainties as proof of the dominant theory’s illegitimacy, even though all scientific theories are constructed as tentative, pending further study. Present uncertainties as a reason that any theory could be correct, neglecting the fact that even where the ambiguities and uncertainties are true, they constitute ignorance of what is the right answer, not the opportunity to give any answer you want.

6)Make belief in scientific a matter of personal preference, even though the whole point of science is to take personal prejudices out of the equation and found theory on what can be verified as true.

Ultimately, the Republican approach to science is one reason why I became a Democrat. Things are what they are. Wishful thinking will not change that.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 28, 2006 2:21 PM
Comment #162774

Max, for a different scientific take go to GLOBAL WARMING.com. Took me all of five seconds to find it. This is exactly why so many people don’t buy into Gores’ vision of the apocolypse. Why discuss issues when you can rant instead?

Posted by: scolx at June 28, 2006 2:25 PM
Comment #162781

The Senate has reacted to the AP story praising Gore.


Posted by: Jim T at June 28, 2006 2:38 PM
Comment #162782


Not exactly a reputable source.

Posted by: David S at June 28, 2006 2:38 PM
Comment #162783

More fodder against doomsday this is interesting

Posted by: JR at June 28, 2006 2:38 PM
Comment #162788

David S

First, I try to see who stands to lose the most if they lose the argument and who stands to gain.

Well it would seem to me that Kerrys wife would have to get rid of here SUV and Teddy Kennedy would have to block his wonderful view from his house with windmills. They are big losers in this battle. At least they think so since they have not changed for the better.

The huge assumption being said here is we have a problem. The evidence to back this up slime and has to be very narrowly interpretted remember this is just theory. Currently the weather cycle the earth is in is still within historical parameters. Why should we panic now? Where is the actaul science?

People who are puting forth that we are on a road to catastrophe give no actual data to show that. I would love to see it. I realize that we see temperatures rising but nothing that is out of historical ranges. Why should we believe it will ever go past what has already been?

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at June 28, 2006 2:43 PM
Comment #162789

Jim T-

Careful how you word that. That was a statement released by Republican sentaors, not the entire senate. Shocking as it is that Republicans don’t belive the movie, is anyone surprised that there are some scientists out there who disagree? Take any issue and you can find an expert who takes whatever position you need to prove. The question is what does the overwhelming majority say?

Posted by: David S at June 28, 2006 2:43 PM
Comment #162791


You still haven’t answered the basic question: Why not better safe than sorry? Is it worth risking?

Posted by: David S at June 28, 2006 2:45 PM
Comment #162792


Al Gore:
Former Vice President of the United States
Author of radical environmentalist work Earth in the Balance
Partisan political activist

Posted by: JimmyRay at June 28, 2006 2:46 PM
Comment #162793

Politicizing science is an exercise in self-delusion. Ultimately, Politics must respond to science, not try to shape its conclusions. With little or no evidence, the Republicans claim that the consensus on Global Warming is the product of Liberal politics, when in fact it is the product of years of study of atmospheric physics, climate, and meteorology. These conclusions has become better and better refined as things have gone along.

But that is inconvenient to those who sell fossil fuels, and the vehicles that run on them. So, they will combine that faux populist bullshit about ordinary people knowing better about science than the scientists with overgeneralized notions of the uncertainty of science, and finally add a good dose of libertarian stubbornness for good measure. And what comes of this toxic brew? Not only a false sense of the scientific picture of Global Warming, but also the kind of general misunderstanding of scientific issues and reinforced ignorance that is letting our country slide to the bottom of scientific literacy.

Science is not whatever’s convenient for the authorities, it is a discipline that seek so explore what could be true, and a process by which those possibilities are pared down to the truest among them. You are not guaranteed to like what you hear, or what you might have to do about things, but there are worse consequences for getting science wrong than there exist for letting go of politics for two seconds and seeing the world clear of its filters.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 28, 2006 2:48 PM
Comment #162794


All 19 scientists that saw the movie agreed. This is but one headline. In the movie itself, we learn that of about 928 scientific studies, not one disagreed with what Gore is saying.

It’s common knowledge. Just look around you. You can disagree on idea but you can’t disagree on facts.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at June 28, 2006 2:49 PM
Comment #162796
You’re reaching. And all your ammo against the story comes from the story itself.

The post is about bias in the news story itself, therefore it is not about Gore’s movie, which I also have not seen.

Assume that we are talking about Fox News and they ‘said’ they contacted 100 climate scientists and they only had 19 willing to comment or who had seen the movie and they all unanimously disagreed with Gore’s premise and the facts he presents. What would your liberal intuition tell you about the article?

Posted by: esimonson at June 28, 2006 2:51 PM
Comment #162799

At the beginning of the oil age (in this country, around 1859), the Earth had a human population of around 1.5 billion. In 1950, the population was around 2.5 billion. It is now well over six billion, and we are on our way to nine billion by 2025.

I believe there is more than enough evidence that human impact on the Earth is a significant and growing concern. As the Earth’s population grows, the quality of life diminishes. The facts are out there for anyone with eyes to see.

If we are to preserve a sustainable quality of life that allows for meaningful and creative lives, we as a species are long past due in facing the simple fact that we live on a spaceship with limited resources, with limited ability to absorb waste, to sustain agriculture, to provide for human needs.

You can argue until Doomsday whether the weather and global warming is caused by human factors. What cannot be argued is that human actions are out-stripping the Earth’s ability to support human consumption and to absorb the waste of that consumption in the manner that is taking place now in industrialized countries. The Earth can support one to two billion people in a sustainable and quality-assured way, or it can (possibly) support 10-15 billion people in abject poverty.

David S.’s point about “following the money” on this issue should be a telling point in this discussion. What is the motivation of the Chamber of Commerce, of Gobalized business, of government? What is the motivation of environmentalists and others concerned about the growing evidence that we are doing irreparable damage to the Earth’s systems?

Frankly, I find it hard to believe there are people who can seriously doubt we are in crisis mode environmentally—whether they choose to see or not.

And for you libertarians and conservatives out there who despise government and think it useless—this is an issue that can only be addressed by joint efforts by the world’s governments. It will take tremendous effort and sacrifice and planning to get humankind into a life-sustaining mode.

The consequences for not doing so we are beginning to see all too clearly.

Posted by: Tim Crow at June 28, 2006 2:52 PM
Comment #162802

David S

I know, they don’t walk in lock step with the doomsday devastation club, so obviously they are disreputable. Talk about throwing a wet blanket on a real debatable issue. You suspect the source so the science is wrong? Or you didn’t bother to check the science, just saw someone you wanted to disagree with and pooh poohed it! How very progressive and inclusive and open minded of you - such regard for diversity of thought! Screw the message and messenger if you don’t want to research something contrary to that viewpoint in which you’ve been indoctrinated? You represent you party and it’s philosophy admirably.

Posted by: JR at June 28, 2006 2:53 PM
Comment #162805

Dave S

“How about a non-partisan scientist(not posting on Republican websites or working for NASA, one of the worst offenders in environmental issues)?
The real issue is that Republicans hate anything proposed by Dems and are completely incapable of non-partisan thought.”

One reason that you will only find dissenting voices about global warming on Conservative websites like The Patriot Post is that you can’t EVER find anything like that in the MSM because it may not fit their agenda.

I guess you did not look at this man’s credentials listed at the bottom of the article:

Dr. Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. In the past, he has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. ??Dr. Spencer is the recipient of NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement and the American Meteorological Society’s Special Award for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work. He is the author of numerous scientific articles that have appeared in Science, Nature, Journal of Climate, Monthly Weather Review, Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology, Remote Sensing Reviews, Advances in Space Research, and Climatic Change. Dr. Spencer received his Ph.D. in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin in 1981.

He sounds a lot more qualified than Al Gore to me.

I suppose that all of the scientists that support global warming theories are all neutral in their politics, too…

Posted by: SWMichiganBill at June 28, 2006 2:57 PM
Comment #162807

There are certain unexplained anomalies associated with Newton’s theory of gravity. This makes the theory totally unreliable and just plain wrong. Gravity does not exist! Do you think we can find a few scientists to agree with this statement if we pay them well for their opinions.

Posted by: jlwilliams at June 28, 2006 3:01 PM
Comment #162808

Let’s try this on for size. (regards Lindzen)

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 28, 2006 3:02 PM
Comment #162809

See therin lies the other edge of the conservative sword. While war should not be guided by comnittee, reality should.

Posted by: DOC at June 28, 2006 3:03 PM
Comment #162812

You people need to know one simple fact. Al Gore put this movie together to get himself back in the National scene so he can run for president again. This is not about the environment, its about HIM, plain and simple.

This is ALL politics. There is NO consensus as to whether we are experiencing global warming resulting from CO2 emissions or a normal climate shift. NONE. PERIOD. End of discussion. Go do your research and stop listening to Algore and the rest of his AP cronies.

Posted by: bz at June 28, 2006 3:06 PM
Comment #162817

Is there anyone on the left who will agree that to take Gore’s movie as the end all and be all of environmental research is a bit, well, scary?

Is the issue a forgone conclusion in your minds inspite of many highly respected dissenters?

Can we debate it without politics?

I’m guessing the answers are;
maybe - yes - no

Posted by: JR at June 28, 2006 3:14 PM
Comment #162819

Ditch the Hypothetical. Go out, do an impartial survey of Climate Scientists, and find out what they believe. If you truly did that, I doubt you’d find the kind of skepticism you’re looking for.

As for Bias? There are two kinds of bias: that which you think exists, and that which actually does. How do you tell the difference?

You’re right. It doesn’t fit their agenda: reporting the facts. You see, they’d be lying if they presented the consensus as being against Global Warming, and anthropogenic forcing.

As for Dr. Spencer’s credentials? Well, is he the only person in the world with credentials? Credentials are important to judging sources like him, but they do not guarantee correctness, especially where specialization comes into play.

Additionally, I doubt Gore could have developed his roadshow without the help of a number of consultants of equally credentialed status. It’s non-starter in terms of arguments.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 28, 2006 3:20 PM
Comment #162820

Okay, you’ve made your claims. What’s your evidence? What would indicate that the movie is only a political ploy? How have you established, in all your observation that there is no consensus on Global Warming?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 28, 2006 3:22 PM
Comment #162821

Give me what I want and give it to me now. Nothing else and nobody else matters but me.

It doesn’t matter if other people suffer, if we destroy the future, or we destroy the environment.

Give me what I want and give it to me now.

God Bless the U.S.A (and only the U.S.A, nobody else!)

Posted by: mem beth at June 28, 2006 3:22 PM
Comment #162822

“According to the National Academy of Sciences, the Earth’s surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century, with accelerated warming during the past two decades. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Human activities have altered the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of greenhouse gases – primarily carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. The heat-trapping property of these gases is undisputed.”

Anyone care to guess who wrote this?

Posted by: tony at June 28, 2006 3:22 PM
Comment #162824

If we can just debate this issue for another 20 years, the oil corporations will be ready to switch everyone over to Hydrogen at a premium price.

Posted by: jlw at June 28, 2006 3:24 PM
Comment #162832

I AM a scientist - I have a degree in degree in geophysics and a degree in biology: ecologic systems, obtained in the 70’s and 80’s, respectively. While not a climatologist, I definitely have a “feel” of what is happening to this planet. And I believe the opinions of those scientists cited in the article do carry some credence!

If you failed to read the article through, let me refresh you on who they were:

  • William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University
  • Robert Corell, chairman of the worldwide Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group of scientists
  • Michael MacCracken, who used to be in charge of the nation’s global warming effects program and is now chief scientist at the Climate Institute in Washington
  • Brian Soden, a University of Miami professor of meteorology and oceanography
  • Tom Wigley, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research
  • Jeff Severinghaus, Scripps Institution geosciences professor

And, apparently, there were 13 others who saw the movie and/or read the book, and they agreed.

And you don’t think there is any merit to what was said? Or is it you are just keeping in step with bush baby in his lame attempt to protect his PayDaddies (Monsanto, Dow, Union Carbide, et al.) from accepting any responsibility and helping to try to fix this thing?

The only thing “green” about bush is the lining of his pockets (from aforementioned sources, et al.), but I would really expect most Repub’s to see through this eventually! The fact that we are virtually the only country NOT entering into some agreement to study it and fix it should tell EVERYONE something!

BTW, when an article states “…all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions…” it is NOT saying “our nation only has 19 climate scientists!”

And bush won’t even go check it out? What a lame-brain.

And rahdigly >> the question is not “if we are contributing” (of course we are!) but how much are we contributing. Granted, there is reasonable debate about that; but we CAN do something to lessen what we DO contribute, thereby helping out at least a little bit!

Posted by: myles at June 28, 2006 3:40 PM
Comment #162838

I’m sorry ES, I don’t understand your point. The article made no claim on how many climatogists there are in the U.S., only of the 19 who had responded and had scene the movie, responded favorably. I doubt AP was trying to project this article as the results of a statistical poll. That they got a nineteen responses out of a hundred scientists, I think is very good. I doubt you could get nineteen responses out of a random sampling of a hundred people for any other random movie. That all nineteen responses were positive, is even more impressive.

Prior to being elected, President Bush said he believed that Global Warming was taking place and that CO2 output should be restricted. After being elected, his stance has been that CO2 restrictions would unfairly target the United States. It was a major position change that took place during his first year of his Presidency.

Posted by: Cube at June 28, 2006 3:53 PM
Comment #162842

The title of Ron Suskind’s riveting new book, “The One Percent Doctrine,” refers to an operating principle that he says Vice President Dick Cheney articulated shortly after 9/11: in Mr. Suskind’s words, “if there was even a 1 percent chance of terrorists getting a weapon of mass destruction — and there has been a small probability of such an occurrence for some time — the United States must now act as if it were a certainty.” He quotes Mr. Cheney saying that it’s not about “our analysis,” it’s about “our response,” and argues that this conviction effectively sidelines the traditional policymaking process of analysis and debate, making suspicion, not evidence, the new threshold for action.

If this quote from Ron Suskind of the Vice-President is correct and the “One Percent Doctrine” has now become standard operating procedure for the administration, why isn’t it being applied to global warming? Even if there’s only a one percent chance of the proponents of man-made global warming being correct, shouldn’t we be acting as though it were a certainty? Were we this critical of WMD intelligence on Iraq? I think not.

Posted by: Christian at June 28, 2006 4:07 PM
Comment #162847

Debate climate issues on their merit, look at all the data and make an informed decision. The inconvenient truth is you guys have already made up your minds, why is that?

Please, no more keyboard cursewords, I can’t come up with a reasoned and reasonable answer to such overwhelming, insightful, educated responses.

Posted by: JR at June 28, 2006 4:20 PM
Comment #162848

Good point, Christian!

Of course, the difference in the two is the war MADE money (e.g., Haliburton) while the Global Warming will take it away (e.g., clean up your acts, industry!)

And as we all know, those indu$trie$ are crucial and critical to bu$h and his future!

Posted by: myles at June 28, 2006 4:20 PM
Comment #162854


And as we all know, those indu$trie$ are crucial and critical to bu$h and his future!

And they are even more critical to the survival of humankind.

Posted by: Tim Crow at June 28, 2006 4:34 PM
Comment #162862

Can we just get this over with already?

Bush stole the 2000 election. He was in on the planning of 9/11. He lied about WMD and went to war in Iraq for oil. He is listening to all our phone calls and is reading this blog as we type. He has access to all out financial records and is making a database from which he will go door to door, kicking in the door without knocking and placing all liberals in GITMO for torure an beheading. After that he’ll declare a Theocracy and place Jerry Falwell in charge of the State Church. All who don’t attend will be beheaded. For lunch, he counts his Haliburton profits and eats a kosher meal with his Israeli handler. For dinner he counts his EXXON profits and relaxes by the fire, reading his Bible. At night he says his State mandated prayers and goes to sleep. He dreams of a world at constant war - where he can be President for life. He awakes to authorize the bombing on innocent women and children in Iraq and keeps the Special Forces group from capturing his friend Osama. Later he will increase carbon dioxide output via his big business contacts. Did I miss any of your rants guys? How about we debate the issue set before the blog? Whew!

Posted by: JR at June 28, 2006 4:45 PM
Comment #162866


The truth is, there hasn’t been an (unanimous) concurrence of scientists on global warming; some think it’s caused by humans, some believe it’s the sun getting hotter.

If 4 out of 5 doctors told you that your labs and x-rays indicated cancer, would you wait for a unanimous opinion before pursuring treatment? Would you wait until your own autopsy confirmed the diagnosis?

Posted by: pianofan at June 28, 2006 4:51 PM
Comment #162872

Do you accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

Posted by: phx8 at June 28, 2006 4:55 PM
Comment #162878

ahhh, Tim, I’m glad you set me straight on that.

Now, tell that to the people around the abandoned Brio Refinery, a 58-acre site 20 miles south of downtown Houston: 245,000 tons of toxic sludge (vinyl chloride, dioxins, PCBs, mercury, among others) left by Monsanto and Atlantic Richfield, et al., never been cleanud up.

Posted by: myles at June 28, 2006 5:04 PM
Comment #162880
If 4 out of 5 doctors told you that your labs and x-rays indicated cancer, would you wait for a unanimous opinion before pursuring treatment? Would you wait until your own autopsy confirmed the diagnosis?

And then, when the 5th doctor is convinced and the findings are unanimous, would you say “Kind of fishy, eh?” like esimonson does and devolve into conspiracy theory?

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 28, 2006 5:07 PM
Comment #162886


My point was that those industries’ behaviors are critical to human survival—and as you point out with the Houston situation, such criminal behaviors supported by lax governmental regulation, MSM lack of coverage and political conniving have effects on our quality of life that we can no longer ignore.

Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear—sorry.

Which brings up a crucial question—when will humankind, and Americans in particular, start to realize that capitalism and corporatism is failing us as a people (and a species!) just as surely as communism failed the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc?

Posted by: Tim Crow at June 28, 2006 5:39 PM
Comment #162923

The so called “greenhouse effect” is typically neamed as the cause of global warming. while it is inaccurate, it is a usefull analogy for the situation. basically, water vapor and CO2 are transparent in the visible range and fairly opaque in the important infared frequencies.

Now say our greenhouse is a frame that can hold 100 window panes. About 60 of those panes are in place due to water vapor and are essentially permanent. Another 5 panes are in place due to our current level of CO2 (about 300 ppm). Now if you double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (to about 600 ppm), you add another 3 panes. But then if you double it again (1,200 ppm), you only add another 3 panes because the “greenhouse effect” is logarythmic in nature, no linear. To add another 3 panes you have to get to toxic levels of CO2. The maximum level of greenhouse blockage CO2 can provide is about 15 panes, a quarter of that due to water vapor.

Sorry to bore you guys, but this means that even if (a hugh if) we are responsible for CO2 levels, this has little overall effect on global warming. I’m not personally willing to double the cost of my transportation to reduce the world’s temperature by 0.01%.

BTW, I’d also liket o argue the global warming is a GOOD THING. If I thought it were possible for us to affect it, I would be arguing we start a world-wide effort to pump out CO2! Look what the affects of the “little ice age” and “little warming” had on Europe in relatively recent history.

Posted by: Martian at June 28, 2006 7:19 PM
Comment #162929

I’m sure that if you pay enough money you can find one scientist (I didn’t say reputable) who will refute the notion of global warming. How about the guy that saw brain activity in Terry Schivo?

Perhaps 19 is just a sampling of scientists. Would it help to say that 100% of those polled agreed? Oh, that’s right, Republicans don’t believe in polls.

Posted by: Stan at June 28, 2006 7:26 PM
Comment #162949

You’re assuming an atmosphere that tends towards stability rather than metastability. Ice ages are proof in and of themselves of your error in thinking, in that they are known to be the product of runaway cooling, brought on as increased snow surface reflects light back to space, among other things.

These are complex systems here, and it’s not just carbon dioxide that’s trapping more heat, and coming into the atmosphere in greater amounts. Water Vapor is not a constant, by any stretch of the term. Neither is the albedo (that is reflectivity) of the planet, or a number of other characteristics of climate. What Global Warming scientist are believing is that the Carbon Dioxide, while not entirely responsible on its own, is kickstarting a bunch of other processes that add to the heating.

So tell me, where did you get your example?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 28, 2006 8:13 PM
Comment #163015

“I realize that we see temperatures rising but nothing that is out of historical ranges. Why should we believe it will ever go past what has already been?” -Randall Jeremiah


Let me ask you something. If someone starts a fire in your basement with plenty of fuel when do you stop looking at the history of your house and try to put out the fire? A more applicable question would be, at what point is it too late to put out the fire without extreme loss?

How about this one. You go to your doctor for a physical. Let’s say your weight has fluctuated between 175 to 190 lbs your whole life (we should all be so lucky). 6 months ago you weighed 180lbs but now you weigh 185lbs. You’ve discovered your new found fondness for double stuff oreo cookies has really added to your daily caloric input. What does your doctor say he thinks your weight might be in a couple of years if you don’t change your habits?

According to modeling of our very complex system called global climate by many of our best scientists we are adding enough carbon to change the climate. The changes can have drastic consequences to human beings and the environment. Why is this so hard for you to understand or even acknowledge we need to do something about what the GREAT majority of scientists believe needs our attention now?

Posted by: Chris2x at June 28, 2006 9:32 PM
Comment #163026

Let’s make something clear here: I see just as many KerryEdwards2004 bumper stickers on cars/trucks/SUV’s that get crappy gas mileage as I do vehicles with “W” stickers on the back. Unless you’re walking to work and don’t own anything made from petroleum products (let’s say- like the computers we’re all typing on now), then its a little silly to scream about how anybody’s got the moral high ground here. Let’s say that we scrap ALL cars, buses, trains, and planes today. We’d still need 60% of the oil we import every day, for things like your starbucks coffee to the the faux leather animal-friendly belt on your polyester-slacks. Oil isn’t going anywhere. It is obvious that we like our lifestyle as is and aren’t willing to change it. On the off-hand chance that we puny beings are ruining a planet that will be here long after we’re gone, can we at least agree that we want to ruin it with the lowest-cost gasoline and fossil fuel based products we can find? Quit the posturing, and own up to the way you actually live your life, red and blue state lemmings.

Posted by: Matt Lyons at June 28, 2006 9:41 PM
Comment #163090

Bush when ask if he was going to see he said no. His Sience adviser would probably because thesubject matter would over his head and he could not comprehend, not saying he is stupid but igorant. He has stated that global warming is a problem wants more studing done wait until 2/3 of Florida is under water.

Posted by: earl at June 28, 2006 11:49 PM
Comment #163099

lol… Martian, I am not arguing the goods or bads of it all, only the meat-head tendencies to not recognize the “potential” of what we (mankind) are doing. Or, in bush’s case, just not caring what happens with it all in order to save some cronnies some bucks.

Personally? Yeah, I agree with you - I’d like the beach to be a little closer, the summer to stay all year ‘round, and maybe the global climate changes would move this damn tornadoe alley somewhere else!

Just enjoying another day of planetary evolution ;)

Posted by: myles at June 29, 2006 12:09 AM
Comment #163112

I spell tomatoe that way too.

Posted by: myles at June 29, 2006 12:40 AM
Comment #163155

Matt Lyons-
By your logic, our recent ancestors would have been justified in maintaining the cities and towns of America as non-electrified. I mean, it would be just have been too much trouble to change from the technology we had.

Technological change is never easy, but the upside is, it never stops, and if we look in the right places, we can find ourselves in better condition sooner than we’d expect. Nothing comes without risk. Why should we hold to the status quo when we know we’re going to get screwed by it in the end?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 29, 2006 7:50 AM
Comment #163163


Nice sarcastic use of poor typing, spelling and grammar. I like how you intermingled irony and satire in your statement…..wait, you made all those mistakes intentionally, didn’t you? Oops, mae bee eye spolk two sooon. By the way, I hate ‘igorance’ too. :)

Bush when ask if he was going to see he said no. His Sience adviser would probably because thesubject matter would over his head and he could not comprehend, not saying he is stupid but igorant.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 29, 2006 9:01 AM
Comment #163219

For once, I completely agree with you, Eric.

Posted by: gergle at June 29, 2006 12:42 PM
Comment #163259


Well-spoken. It’s appreciated.

Posted by: Tim Crow at June 29, 2006 2:43 PM
Comment #163280

one point about the movie and the message :

American auto makers complain that California’s fuel effeciency standards could unfairly hurt their busniess. Basically, this standard calls for the US Auto Industry to (in 11 years from now) where China’s uato industry in now functioning. (Forget even looking at the truly financially successful auto companies like Honda or Toyota - they are far our of our league.)

It’s not that the US would have to perform even on average with the rest of the world, but simply get to where the also-ran companies are performing now… in other words, we should legally only have to perform above “really sucky.”

Posted by: tony at June 29, 2006 3:14 PM
Comment #163296


“…we should legally only have to perform above “really sucky.”

Would this apply to Congress and Presidents?:-)

Posted by: Tim Crow at June 29, 2006 3:40 PM
Comment #163305

Careful how fast you want to raise the bar… might stub your toe.

Posted by: tony at June 29, 2006 4:08 PM
Comment #163320

I can remember back in the 70’s and 80’s all the “fringe” scientists saying we were facing an impending global ice age. How did that turn out?

To think that 5 billion “ants” can control this planet’s weather patterns when the true culprit rises in the east each day—escapes me. The sun (a small star) bombards earth with violent thermo-nuclear activity every day. Occam’s Razor leads us to conclude the answer to global warming is solar in nature.

Posted by: nikkolai at June 29, 2006 4:39 PM
Comment #163326

Why would our sensitive handling of the environment have any negative repercussions? Have we ever damaged any habitats in the past? Is there really a hole in the atmosphere caused by man-made products? I’m sure Eric would agree that none of these are true.

Posted by: Lead By Example at June 29, 2006 4:47 PM
Comment #163329

Eric, exactly what is your point?

Posted by: David at June 29, 2006 4:50 PM
Comment #163339

To joebagofdoughnts sorry for the misspelling and bad grammer it was late @nite and I did not proof readit. you got the point I was trying to make. How many countries had GW visited before he became Prez. I believe it is none. On global warmming debate take a look at pictures of Glaciar national park 50 years ago and compare them to today. At the rate the glaicer are disapearing there wont be any left in another 50 years. A Teddy rosevelt Republican

Posted by: earl at June 29, 2006 5:12 PM
Comment #163382

Well, let’s see what Wikipedia has to say about that:

Global cooling in general can refer to a cooling of the earth; more specifically, it is a theory positing an overall cooling of the Earth and perhaps the commencement of glaciation. This theory gained temporary popular attention due to press reporting following a better understanding of ice age cycles and a temporary downward trend of temperatures in the 1970s. The theory never had strong scientific support. At present, the Earth is not considered to be cooling, but rather to be in a period of global warming mostly attributed to human activity.

The article goes on to say that the scientific literature doesn’t support the view that Global Cooling was such a big thing among scientists.

Additionally, you must understand that climate modelling is considerably more advanced today than it was yesterday. Models have been refined. Feedback cycles are better understood. Nothing’s completely certain, but with atmospheric physics, chaos is bound to intruded. The first inklings of chaos theory, in fact, came about from a simple computer model of winds in an atmosphere.

If you’re saying scientists are as uncertain about global warming as they were about global cooling, you’d be wrong. If you’re saying they’re just as bad at formulating theories about things then as they are now, you’re wrong. They’re better, and more importantly, they have more computing power at hand than ever before.

As for us ants? Consider that an ant can cause great discomfort to a larger human. put a bunch of ants together to work on him, and they could even kill him.

And if the guy is allergic to ants? even one might do the job. The atmosphere is a complex system, as is a human body.

Human being according to this wikipedia article contribute about 24 1/8 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. Before you try to minimize this, consider that volcanoes only release 131.5 to 231.3 million metric tons of the gas annually.(discrepancies, if you notice them, are based on my conversion of the standard ton to the metric, to aid comparison)

The atmosphere was not entirely stable to begin with; our little experiment is adding CO2 to the atmosphere that the system isn’t equipped to take out all that quickly, and you’ve got to hand on thing to us: we’re persistent and consistent about our output. The question is how much you want to push things.

It’s not a small contribution, by any stretch of the imagination.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 29, 2006 7:17 PM
Comment #163385

Sorry: here’s the link on Worldwide CO2 emissions.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 29, 2006 7:20 PM
Comment #163434

There is a hole in the O-zone Ooo we are all going to die!Y-2-K Ooo we are all going to die!Global Cooling Ooo we are all going to die! Global Warming Ooo we are all going to die!Mad Cow Disease Ooo we are all going to die! Second hand cigarette smoke Ooo we are all going to die! Bird flue Ooo we are all going to die! Al Gore’s presidency was stolen Ooo we are going to die!John Kerry’s presidency was stolen Ooo we are all going to die! North Korea has a missle siting on the pad Ooo we are all going to die!The U.N.takes our Gun’s away Ooo there all going to die.You breath in oxygen and exhale Co2 Ooo we are all going to die!Is the issue a forgone conclusion in your minds inspite of many highly respected dissenters?

Can we debate it without politics? No Ooo No we are all going to die.

Posted by: Angry White Capitalist Pig at June 29, 2006 9:31 PM
Comment #163442

Yeah, we all die. Question is, how long do you want to live? If you want to die young with your brain eaten away by Creutzfeldt-Jacob’s Disease, be my guest. If you want to die earlier of Skin Cancer because the atmosphere isn’t taking the energy out of those UV rays, be my guest. If you want to suffer the effects of a changed climate, be my guest. If you want to drown in bed when the Avian flu fills your lungs with your own fluid and blood, be my guest.

After all, nothing really matters, does it. It doesn’t matter that the UN conference in question deals with Arms Dealer’s as its subject. It doesn’t matter that Global Cooling had nowhere near the scientific consensus that Global Warming has, or that climate Scientist have improved their models, their theories, and their hardware for examine the problem. And no, it doesn’t matter that respected dissenters are faced with plenty of respected proponents of the theory. Especially not with the fact that some of your dissenters gain more than respect from their dealings with the fossil fuel and energy industries.

One can run away from problems, and act like that’s the tough thing to do, rebelling against those damn scientific elites. I mean, what do they know. It isn’t like they’ve devoted their lives to studying these subjects in-depth. Why, if they did that, they might know something we didn’t. Then it might be smart for us to listen to them. Ah, but where would the fun be in following the rules like that, when you can break free of all that conformity?

Oh yes, all you have to do is buy a talking point along with millions of other Republicans, and adopt the same attitude as all those pundits out there, who magically seem to form the same consensus with the same rhetoric within hours of each other.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 29, 2006 10:00 PM
Comment #163471


Posted by: seatown at June 30, 2006 1:41 AM
Comment #163520

Stephen Daugherty: I understand that the weather patterns are trending warmer—some say the planet is hotter than it has been in 2000 years. What was happening 2000 years ago to make the temperature rise? Fossil fuel? CO2 emmissions? I don’t think so. Weather patterns are going to happen no matter what mankind does. In my opinion that the sun has more to do with it than we do.

Again, refer to Occam’s Razor: The simplest explanation is most often correct.

Posted by: nikkolai at June 30, 2006 6:35 AM
Comment #163534


You’re argument is a misapplication of Occam’s Razor.

Occam’s Razor says that if you have two competing hypotheses for a phenomena, and both hypotheses explain the phenomena equally well, prefer the hypothesis that requires fewer inputs.

Your hypothesis (blame the Sun) is certainly simpler than the scientific consensus (human activity is a major cause), but you’ve jumped to the second part of Occam’s Razor without taking care of the first part.

Global Warming is a phenomenon of a change in the environment over time. The input we get from the Sun is constant (or nearly so). Blaming a constant input for a variable output doesn’t work, no matter how simple the idea is. The scientific consensus expalins the phenomena; your hypothesis doesn’t.

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 30, 2006 9:01 AM
Comment #163547

Again—I certainly do not have all the answers. But, if we are now as hot as the earth was 2000 years ago—what accounts for the temperature increase back the?

Posted by: nikkolai at June 30, 2006 10:19 AM
Comment #163549

I don’t know. It’s some other factor which we either don’t understand, or we do understand and have incorporated into the current model.

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 30, 2006 10:37 AM
Comment #163571

Tim Crow,

Which brings up a crucial question—when will humankind, and Americans in particular, start to realize that capitalism and corporatism is failing us as a people (and a species!) just as surely as communism failed the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc?

When the evidence will be everywhere to see. That means, when it’s too late to correct the failures.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 30, 2006 12:00 PM
Comment #163604

the suns output is (not)entirely constant nor is the amount of sunspot activity there was a period of very low sunspot activity in the latter half of the 17th century called the maunder minimum it coincides with an abnormally cold period in northern europe sometimes known as the little ice age since the formation of the solar system the suns output has increased by about 40% to say that global warming is caused by man sounds like a political issue.

Posted by: alan at June 30, 2006 1:33 PM
Comment #163607

“Global warming” is another environmental junk science offering to scare people into adopting a lib/green political agenda.

In the 1960, Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring which predicted the DDT used to kill mosquitos and other pests would cause mass death among bird populations.

(BTW: Carson’s agenda was based on her personal belief that chemicals were the cause of her many health problemns. She wasn’t even a scientist.)

So, lib/greens took up the cause and got DDT banned, despite never proving the alleged link. The result: millions of Third World residents have contracted/died of malaria and other insect-borne disease.

But, hey at least the survivors can still hear the birds sing.

In the 1970’s “scientists” were saying we were heading into “the next Ice Age”. Where did all their evidence go?

In the 1980s, every school kid in America was in danger from Alar. This is a preservative sprayed on apples to keep them ripe longer on store shelves. Guess what, its used throughout Europe today and no great calamity has occured.

In the 1990s, we were told by “scientists” that “a silent killer” by the name of radon was in all of our homes. After, billions of wasted dollars and much hot air, there is still no provable link between radon and a single death.

All this “Chicken Little” caterwalling results in billions of wasted dollars, unnecessary government regulation, untold public stress and the further dimunition of the credibility of “scientists”.

Nice legacy, guys.

Posted by: Right-of-Way at June 30, 2006 1:40 PM
Comment #163654
Nice legacy, guys.

You forgot pasteurizing milk, inventing computers, splitting the atom, eliminating smallpox, sending a man to the moon, finding the Titanic, invention of plastics, and pretty much everything else that makes modern life possible.

My point is that your litany of what you see as the errors of science misses out on the fact that science and scientists have gotten a heck of a lot more than they’ve gotten wrong.

So, if you want to throw out some science because of your comparatively small list, you should probably throw out all of it instead of just being selective.

So, can I have your computer? Since you don’t believe in science, I’m sure you don’t trust it. I’ll take it off of your hands.

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 30, 2006 2:50 PM
Comment #163724


I suppose that qualifies as humour among lib “thinkers”.

My point, as you well know, was that “global warming” is the latest environmental cataclysm fad.

I happen to like science. But, only the kind that can be proven. The rest is more accurately described as “theory” not “science”.

Just because conservatives point out that the theory of “global warming” is unproven doesn’t mean we reject all science.

Your “reasoning” is suspect at best and disingenuous at worst. It may qualify as clever in lib circles, but it only proves science is too important to trust to libs.

And as for my computer… Remember the Internet started as a Department of Defense project… Not in Al Gore’s garage.

Posted by: Right-of-Way at June 30, 2006 6:02 PM
Comment #163731
It may qualify as clever in lib circles, but it only proves science is too important to trust to libs.

And the fact that you refer to valid science as a fad if it’s inconvenient for you shows that science is too important to be trusted to you.

That doesn’t mean that it should be entrusted to liberals - it should be entrusted to scientists. And they are nearly unanimous in disagreeing with you.

Don’t call it a fad just because you don’t like it.

Actually, Gore’s involvement in the history of the internet was critical. Yes, the ARPANET was created by the DoD, but it might never have become the Internet without the push by the junior Senator from Tennessee:

In response to this controversy, Internet pioneers, Vint Cerf and Robert E. Kahn, wrote an e-mail dated 2000-09-28, stating the following:
As the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore’s contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 30, 2006 6:11 PM
Comment #163827

Steven, Steven! when you by into and live your life, for democrat , left-wing socialist liberal doomsday , bloger propaganda talking points I don’t feel sorry for the crappy little world your shared collective paranoia has placed apon your personal and political party aspiration’s —-(par’a’noi’a),n.[NL.,fr.Gr.paranoia. See para-nous.] Psychiatry. A chronic mentel disoder characterized by systematized delusions of persecution and of one’s own greatness,sometimes with hallucinations.—par’a.noi’ac (-ak),adj.& n.

Posted by: Angry White Capitalist Pig at July 1, 2006 1:00 AM
Post a comment