It’s bumped Al Gore and his ridiculous money-making scam of global warming off the front pages… and has him whining like a little girl about it.

AL GORE is a man on a mission to save the planet – and is enraged that everyone else seems more interested in saving Paris Hilton.
[…]
But he struggles to get his message across when TV networks are donating the majority of their airtime to American socialite Paris Hilton’s stint behind bars.
[…]
“The planet is in distress and all of the attention is on Paris Hilton. We have to ask ourselves what is going on here?”

It’s because as lame as coverage of a delinquent Hollywood slut is, it still beats hearing a robot drone on about a trendy cause, simply so he can pad his bank account.

1. I wonder if we shoved a big fat Cuban cigar into that big gapping hole in his face if he would shut the hell up……

   Comment by MrCynic1 — 5:05 pm
   

2. Yes - something is - at best - silly about continuing to over-consume and rationalizing this over-consumption by purchasing “offset carbon” shares and green electricity.

   However - proving that there is hypocrisy within the global warming camp does not prove that the science is wrong. For that - you will have to respond to the science itself, about which there is near univerasal concensus among practicing scientists in the relevant fields — http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/306/5702/1686.pdf

   OF course - this type of concensus doens’t prove the global waming camp to be right - but it should at least make you take the issue more seriously than you do. But of course - that would be too difficult - which is why you resort to this diversionary strategy instead.

   Comment by djernigan — 7:16 pm
   

3. I’m disturbed by the growing global warming religion. I call it that because everyone asks me if I “believe in it.” Well I don’t “believe” in it, nor do I “believe” in Issac Newton’s laws of motion. I don’t need to “believe” in Newton’s laws of motion, because those are scientifically tested and proven.

   Science is not consensus. Science is testable provable theories. Taking a vote doesn’t make something true. Making a really really good guess (or as my associates call them, “models”) doesn’t make it true either. 500 years ago the consensus was that the earth was flat. 1000 years ago, the consensus was that we were at the center of the solar system. 5000 years ago the consensus was that if your heart weighed more than a feather you couldn’t get into Egyptian heaven. That third one is the only one we can’t really debunk.

   Djernigan is 100% right in that showing Al Gore for the hypocrite he seems to be doesn’t mean that Global Warming doesn’t exist. He’s right, we do need to respond to the science. And he’s right that a consensus doesn’t prove them right. But look back on a flat earth at the center of the universe, I can’t take this too seriously until all the votes are in.

   What about 1500 years ago? What about soil records showing warming trends? What about Mars? Why do we have some colder winters than normal? Why did the Paris (France not Hilton) report say that it was happening irregardless of human interraction yet it’s championed as proof of human involvement? Boil it down to clear, concise, unbiased science and I’ll get behind you 100%. (And please have it done by people who actually study weather and climate and such. Not a biologist, a geography man, and a high school science teacher like my town did.)

   Comment by CommonSenseRules — 11:15 pm
   

4. As I said before - Mars is easy. Periods of warming and cooling are a natural phenomenon - so it is unsurprising to find that Mars at present happens to be warming. Moreover, a period of warming on earth “could” also be quite “normal”. The problem is that the earth has exceeded that which is normal - a fact backed by plenty of serious data (http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/scientific_evidence.htm).

   In fact - this basically answers all of your questions. NOBODY among the global warming crowd says that global warming is an entirely unnatural phenomeon. The point is - that the degree of warming currently occuring is atypical. A few colder winters does nothing to disprove this overall trend. In fact what this means is that even with these cold winters you speak of - the temperature the rest of the year and around the globe has been even radically higher to make up for them in the overall average.

   And so, Commonsense, this - also - is a diversionary tactic on your part. The only scientifically credible way of responding to the scientific data - is by engaging it. Counter examples are unhelpful, because they do nothing to disprove the claim that an overall trend is occuring.

   That said - global warming activists who point at individual hotspots as evidence of global warming - are making the same mistake. The only thing that makes sense - is to look at that planet as a whole. Looked at this way - the evidence is very strong.

   Comment by djernigan — 10:15 am
   

5. Djernigan and others, the point is that ‘science’ used to look evidence, formulate a theory (hypothesis) and then set about disproving it (thereby proving it to be true). Today, ‘scientists’ look at evidence, render an opinion and search for a ‘consensus’ among peers (dissenters beware). Modern ‘science’ has turned into junk science at best. I’m still looking for the ice age that was supposed to occur a few years ago – there was a ‘consensus’ on that ‘belief,’ too, if I recall correctly. I guess ‘global warming’ countered it just in time.

   Comment by Old Soldier — 12:30 pm
   

6. “Djernigan and others, the point is that ‘science’ used to look evidence, formulate a theory (hypothesis) and then set about disproving it (thereby proving it to be true).”

   YES, Old Soldier. Karl Popper’s scientific method of conjecture and refutation is certainly the right way to do science. But as Thomas Kuhn points out, there is a very long history of “proving the phenomenon” in science - rather than attempting to disprove the phenomenon” (making for what you call junk science). Of making ad-hoc adjustments to theories to account for anomalies. Of course - this does not make it right. Conjecture and refutation is the way to go.

   That said - no doubt their is some ad-hoc adjusting going on within the global warming camp. Perhaps even too much. But I would argue that the amount of ad hoc adjustment among global warming activists (for lack of a better word) pales in comparison to the ad hoc adjustment going on among those who don’t believe in global warming. Those who don’t believe in global warming typically don’t even begin with a scientific premise - but with an economic one. That the proposed fixes to the problem will cost too much economically. Then - they try to find evidence which fits with their desire not to make the proposed fixes. So while global warming activists at least began with real data - proposed a theory to explain the data - and then began the process (at least to some degree) of subjecting that hypothesis to conjecture and refutation. Global Warming doubters don’t even begin with data - develop a theory out of nowhere (global warming is just a lefty-loony conspiracy) - and then scour the internet for random weather patterns which happen to fit their theory - while doing absolutely nothing to try and disprove THEIR theory that global warming isn’t happening.

   Now - what about Mars - and isolated and individual weather patterns. Are global warming activists making ad-hoc adjustments when they ignore these things? Most certainly not. When we talk of global warming - we are talking of global trends. Isolated examples do nothing to disprove that there might be a global trend. Show me something that disproves that their might be a global trend - and then I will pay attention. I PROMISE. Show me specific examples of global warming scientists not doing enough to disprove their theories - and I will criticize them. I PROMISE. But I will also forcefully criticize global warming skeptics who find random and irrelevant data to prop up their beliefs — something which I see all around me.

   Comment by djernigan — 10:30 am
   

7. djernigan, although I personally am skeptical regarding ‘Global Warming,” I am by no means a trained scientist; therefore, I will not enter into a debate regarding the subject as I merely substantiate my position as my opinion. If you desire to place your faith in the finding of said scientists [regarding global warming] that is your prerogative and there is no opposition from me.

   I suspect there may be some truth in the global warming issue, but do not accept the earth as we know it will be destroyed if we don’t change our ways immediately. I will not adopt a Chicken Little posture merely because a former Vice President has.

   I remind you there are credible scientists/climatologists who have examined the same evidence/information and postulated differently. Their argument is just as convincing as the ‘global warming’ folks; they just lack the consensus numbers.

   And, finally, my comment was meant to be jocular; obviously, I must have failed.

   Comment by Old Soldier — 11:16 am
   

8. “ Those who don’t believe in global warming typically don’t even begin with a scientific premise - but with an economic one. That the proposed fixes to the problem will cost too much economically. Then - they try to find evidence which fits with their desire not to make the proposed fixes.

   Its called cost/benefit analysis. Given that its highly unlikely the doom and gloomers are even close to being right… and given the fact there is still much doubt among some experts, it doesn’t make economical sense to impose regulations that could ruin the economy to impact a threat that may or may not be real.

   An asteroid could hit my house… There’s evidence they’ve hit the earth before and will continue to do so into the future… But it doesn’t make economical sense for me to build a house underground to protect me from the threat.

   Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 3:51 pm
   

9. “and given the fact there is still much doubt among some experts”

   I like how you hedge your bet here, Tex. Very. . . honest. I would like it even better if you directed me to one of these scientist’s work.

   Comment by djernigan — 6:29 pm
   

10. “I would like it even better if you directed me to one of these scientist’s work.”

    Ok. You can start with Dr. Edward Wegman, a professor at the Center for Computational Statistics at George Mason University, chair of the National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, and board member of the American Statistical Association, who assembled an expert panel of statisticians and entirely repudiated Michael Mann’s work - including the now famous hockey stick graph.

    Then you can check out Christopher Landsea of the Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory, a contributing author for the UN’s second International Panel on Climate Change in 1995, writing the sections on observed changes in tropical cyclones around the world. A research meteorologist at the Atlantic Oceanic and Meteorological Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, he was chair of the American Meteorological Society’s committee on tropical meteorology and tropical cyclones and a recipient of the American Meteorological Society’s Banner I. Miller Award for the “best contribution to the science of hurricane and tropical weather forecasting.” He is a frequent contributor to leading journals, including Science, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Journal of Climate, and Nature. He says the conclusion that global warming has altered hurricane activity does not reflect the consensus within the hurricane research community.

    When you’re done with him, you can move on to Duncan Wingham, who holds a B.Sc. and PhD. in Physics. He was appointed to a chair in the Department of Space and Climate Physics in 1996, and to head of the Department of Earth Sciences in October, 2005. He is a member of the National Environmental Research Council’s Science and Technology Board and Earth Observation Experts Group. He is a director of the NERC Centre for Polar Observation & Modelling and principal scientist of the European Space Agency CryoSat Satellite Mission, the first ESA Earth Sciences satellite selected through open, scientific competition. Last summer, Dr. Wingham and three colleagues published an article in the journal of the Royal Society that casts further doubt on the notion that global warming is adversely affecting Antarctica.

    If you’d like more, you can check out Richard Lindzen, who received his PhD in applied mathematics in 1964 from Harvard University and is a professor of meteorology in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and a member of the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate. He is also a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. He is a recipient of the AMS’s Meisinger, and Charney Awards, and AGU’s Macelwane Medal. He is author or coauthor of over 200 scholarly papers and books. He was among the first to criticize the scientific bureaucracy, and scientists themselves, for claims about global warming that he views as unfounded and alarmist.

    Then there’s Eigil Friis-Christensen is director of the Danish National Space Centre and a member of the space research advisory committee of the Swedish National Space Board, where he serves on the panel on space weather. He is also a member of a NASA working group and a member of the Earth-science advisory committee of the European Space Agency. The author or co-author of some 100 peer-reviewed articles, he has been chair of the scientific advisory group of the Institute of Space Physics. He holds a PhD in geophysics from the University of Copenhagen. He now chairs the Danish Space Consortium, heads a European Space Agency mission advisory group, and is vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy. Dr. Friis-Christensen questions the very premise that man-made activities explain most of the global warming that we see, and through his work he has convinced much of an entire scientific discipline to explore his line of inquiry. With his 1991 paper in Science, showing a startling correlation between global warming and the activities of the sun, he unleashed a wave of related research by solar scientists seeking to learn the mechanisms through which solar activity may influence climate on Earth. Thanks largely to his early efforts, and ongoing efforts, too, a growing proportion of the world’s solar scientists no longer place man at the centre of the climate-change universe.

    …and on and on and on…

    Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 10:18 pm
    

11. Wow Tex - You are REALLY good at hyperlinking to articles from National Post. Of course - there is more than one way to spin the findings of each of these scientists you reference(http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-missing-piece-at-the-wegman-hearing/) - so its nice to see how good you are at finding such a variety of voices to help you understand the debate. I’ll try to find the time to parse out all the spin added to the debate by National Post - but I have a lot of Salon reading to keep up on - so it might take me awhile.

    Comment by djernigan — 7:17 pm
    

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

You must be logged in to post a comment.