Science – You may have missed it, but April 22nd was National Day of Hope, Prayer and Reflection about Global Warming. In the political world Bush is becoming more and more isolated in his stance on this subject. Other public figures are acquiescing one by one. Even Arnold Schwarzenegger has been converted and is on the cover of Newsweek, twirling a fragile
Not a member? Sign-up today!
maneetion
nopatacious
pyuuuke
rontravel
prototyping.great
dondukdun
cptnkrk
mcmgk
00vanesa00
qilla
Nowalive
vesper42
mcarpentry
gregfromfla
uncogito
lisaneuc
Teagen
gsmaster
roychang
chrishusein
kwilco
TOtheMOON
KAVAHEAD1
froggy72
BronxBomber
.Santa
richwklein
copywriting
pawfoots
cretaceous-cat
thesonofhob
tazmo
rodnsyat
TonyByron
sberkey
saltyveruca
lmacmast
4cprocess
macb
alakazam
drunkenhunter
leffel9
Gven
Dogan98
gfarral
engineer
jrich
457)
Global warming has galvanized the developed world. Liberals sound the warning, Conservatives respond with gradually mounting enthusiasm. Clergy fall to their knees in prayer and repentance. Atheists find new purpose and a moral lodestone. Americans slap concerned bumper stickers on their SUVs and flock to "An Inconvenient Truth". Hollywood swoons and bestows on Gore's slideshow two Academy Awards. The scientific community churns out technical paper after paper in the journals reporting the mounting evidence.
Or do they?
Gore assures us of it, stating that there is no controversy. He refers to the multitudes of the world's top scientists voicing unmitigated concern through the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. He cites a study of a random sample of 928 articles on global warming, none of which were found to express doubt. There is a consensus.
However, Michael Crichton (best known for his novels but also a graduate of Harvard Medical School and a former postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies) warned his audience of the dangers of "consensus science" in a 2003 speech,
"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus.
I loved Jurassic Park. Michael Crichton should be named Secretary of Sciencetainment.
Hey Negophile! Don't you realize that your comments and negative votes are not in keeping with your responsibilities to the site? I thought you were given your position of responsibilty because you would demonstrate professional conduct. Leading by example is a good thing, you know. There is more to life than bashing Luv and the United States.
The name-calling is inappropriate and this comment is off-topic. By all means private message me to discuss this.
You have created quite the reputation for yourself.
Neo has been a contributor here long before he took on the responsibility of being a scout. Seeing to it that the terms of use are followed does not in any way infringe on his rights to pose and comment. It's remarkable how you only want people who agree with you to have rights here. truly shameful.
He is a hunter of any non-lib. Wrong or right.
It deserves to be discussed openly.
Your performance on this site has been shameful.
Why is it that the people who refuse to believe in global warning always use Michael Crichton as their source behind their beliefs? This has to be about the dozenth time I've heard him referenced over this subject. And why does going to Harvard Medical School qualify one to be an expert on climatology? My ear/nose/throat doctor went to Harvard Medical School as well, and he's the first to admit he has no expertise in the subject.
I also find it baffling that people, when faced with a choice between believing the repeatedly published research of literally hundreds of established and recongized climatologists around the world and one non-climatologist science fiction writer who went to Harvard Medical, they choose the science fiction writer.
He can write.
(unlike most who subscribe to the fossil fuel industries propaganda.)
When all you have are straws to grasp to support ridiculous claims, straws it is.
Michael Crichton unwittingly has become their straw man.
I actually checked the site out more where the original article was based and was amazed that there were more than 17,000 scientists were against Kyoto and did not agree that humans were responsible for the present global warming.
http://www.sitewave.net/pproject/s33p357.htm
Remarkable though but there are millions of people who refuse to take responsibility for anything at all.
Does that make them right.
Please explain your comment. It doesn't make sense to me.
so if there are 17000 scientists who believe this than why cite michael crichton?
what does that say about the 17,000 scientists creidibility of michael crichton holds more clout than they do?
and what does that say about the authors respect for science when he places michael crichtons opinion has more type worthy than any of those 17,000 people?
Perhaps it is more to the point that Michael Crichton is both smarter and better-educated than Al Gore. He is also financially independent.
Ah, while I seldom agree with Franken Berry, I don't think he shoudl be excluded from opining or ratings comments. I think all teh Netscape scouts, anchors whatever the hell you call them do. It's just a fomr of free speech.
And, who wouldn't want ot "bash" luv? lol, sorry luv, had to say it. Might be that Marilyn Monroe avatar. That woman still is hot as hell! Marilyn made me do it!
Frankenberry? I thought it was Fred Thompson.
'Global Warming' is a very lucrative business. 'Nuff said.
Thats ok Fomi...I took it as constructive critisism.
Try and get a strait answer out of him Form I didnt.
is that just a pun for mixing politics and science or are you implying that gore is abusign science for political gain?
im just asking.
and i have to say that i have not seen an inconvenient truth though i am a fan of al gores for any number of reasons, and I fully accept that global warming is an actual and nearly irreparable phenomenon.
I know, as this article attempts to point out, that science can clearly be misrepresented. an actual event can be used as "Evidence" of a phenomenon it is totally unrelated to out of this concept of group think, solution science, and good old fashioned putting the cart before the horse (see the iraq war planning for further examples).
but what an article like this really accomplishes, is further aiding Al Gore's cause because no matter how many small instances you somewhat discredit you still look foolish for ignoring the fact that global temperatures are rising in direct correlation with man made industrial waste.
you see?
in the end, one just looks stupid for doing the same thing they mock Al Gore for, using science to deny the obvious.
and besides, the dinosaurs died with the great flood and carbon dating is inherently flawed.
are you being serious?
i've seen alot of these christian crack-pots propose this, and watched some of their videos... do you really believe in that? or are you being sarcastic citing it because you've heard crazy people say it too?
"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
"From new estimates of the combined anthropogenic forcing due to greenhouse gases, aerosols, and land surface changes, it is extremely likely that human activities have exerted a substantial net warming influence on climate since 1750.
Worldwide, livestock production occupies 70% of all land used for agriculture, or 30% of the land surface of the Earth. Scientists attribute more than 18% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions to livestock and livestock-related activities such as deforestation and increasingly fuel-intensive farming practices.
It's not the fuel use. It's the flatulence....
Guess what, technocratic Christ is workin on it. You'll be eating bologna grown in a petri dish soon. No more free range till we leave this God foresaken planet.
I certainly agree with the flatulence concept. although disagree with the source.
Susan Parishâ;¦ your comments smell of loss, did someone take a hood ornament off your car, I know it stings. Let me say this, reverse observation and rationalization of your own personal critique of Americas new and popular moral politic is childish. Consensus science is not a scoundrel it's called theory then it's called law. People, besides maybe Michael Crichton , are not good at putting the pieces together. The universe has many laws, they should be referenced. If you really believe consensus science is more a politic scoundrel than the patriots supporting our recent plant the weapons and go war, you're just hurt and foolish. I advise you step back, like the greedy masses, examine the evolving moral politic. Realize it has teeth we can point at China and other economic evil doers and at the same time maybe it will prove this life and world are worth left living.
Vulgar: Did you get confused with the facts? Or is it your intolerance of another view? You can't be a scientist and I'm glad you're not.
You seem to miss the point. Just because the author doesn't see consensus does not mean that our release of an estimated 300 billion tons of formerly sequestered greenhouse gas is not affecting our climate. While the jury is not in, it is obvious from the raw data that the mean temperature is increasing thus indicating that the noise is also on the rise. This means that new equilibriums will develop. While it is absolutely true that the earth's climate is not stable we developed during a relatively stable mean. When climate changed in the past mass extinctions occurred.
It basically comes down to the fact that you hate the concept of a greater responsibility that is part of Gore's message because you see your immediate gratification as your only responsibility.
that exactly the point i was trying to make before...
whatever your belief on any specific scientific study or instance, it doesnt change the over-riding truth, that climate is changin, the reprecussions of this have never been anything short of disasterous, and we, to ensure our survival (whether now or generations down the line) steps must be taken.
Rain falls, you say it goes up, your going to get an argument.
Or should we be more tolerant of views on rain direction too?
Chriton was also known for promoting the chaos theory. As if to say that sometimes sh@t happens and thats that.
thats not chaos theory.
chaos is the yinto fractals yang. it says that within infinite order there is infinite disorder.
for instance, on rain direction: there is phenomenon of water condensation in which up drafts propell rain drops back into the clouds from which they fell before they hit the ground and they re-vaporize. in this case rain falls up.
the rain follows all of the truths of science, yet because of other truths of science, its behavior remains unpredictable...
or a geometric principle would be to take an equilateral triangle. and then, from the center third of each side fo the triangle, you protrude another equilateral triangle. now you have a shape that looks like a 6 pointed star. from the cnter third of each side of that star you protrude another triangle...
you can keep doing this indefinately, protruding sides from sides to make an increasingly more jagged shape that will have a maximum area, but no maximum perimeter.
chaos in fractals.
You sound intelligent tiredofwhiners do you have boobies?
Vulgar, you need a serious lesson in how scientific method functions. Who makes up this official scientific court of truth that gets to decide whether or not an issue is "settled." For centuries our best minds took Newtonian Mechanics as gospel. But then along came that Einstein guy. Oops.
Here's a solid data point you can roll around in your noodle. Every time atmospheric CO2 has reached around 400PPM, the world has gone into an ICE AGE. Every time. Check it. Perhaps you fail to understand the differences between causation and correlation. Or maybe you have your X and Y mixed up.
vulgar -
try to act your age and stick to the topic...comments such as yours are the reason that many a conversation breaks away from rational discussion and deviates into name-calling b*tch fests; and quite frankly, it's getting old. feel free to air your personal grievances concerning Susan Parrish through the utilization of private emails instead of open forums.
SusanParrish, Why not simply present your view and not copy the story in its entirety?
I omitted the last two sentences.
:P
The untold truth about the Global Warming religion is on this web site:
carbontax.org
GW has zero to do with temp change and everything to do with a new worldwide tax paid to the UN. And Gore supports the carbon tax scam.
Gore owns a carbon tax company.
"Gore owns a carbon tax company."
For which there is absolutely no accountability. Just how many trees have been planted and how many "carbon credits" does it take to plant one? And what is the impact?
The one big loophole in the entire CO2 causes Global Warming is when Scientists say the Earth warmed and that CO2 levels rose, therefore the warming is a result of increased CO2 levels.
They in no way attempt to eliminate alternative expalanations, which is the first priority of any research. For all they know, it's sun intensity causing it.
Second, they engage in classic logical fallacy: post hoc ergo propter hoc - After the fact, therefore because of the fact.
Many scientists say the CO2 levels have increased after the warming trends and not before, which goes against the whole "CO2 forcing" BS Gore pushes.
"Anthropogenic warming of the climate system is widespread and can be detected in temperature observations taken at the surface, in the free atmosphere and in the oceans. Evidence of the effect of external influences, both anthropogenic and natural, on the climate system has continued to accumulate since the dawn of time."
-Jesus H. Christ
The sun's effect is not significant when compared to the rapid increase in C02, 35 percent since the industrial revolution.
If there are too many cows, it's because there are too many people raising, using them for work animals, or eating them, so it's a second order anthropogenic consequence in any event.
Yo! RickyD!
Warm air is very inefficient for heating water. The water will evaporate and carry the energy away from the surface and very little heat will be absorbed by the water.
Combine this with the fact that warm water does not sink (remember- warm water rises and cold water sinks) so there will be no downward current to warm the lower levels of water.
Heating water by warm air would then be dependent on diffusion of the warm surface water with the deeper levels but remember warmth tends to rise not sink.
A heat lamp (or the Sun)will do a much better and more efficient job of heating water.
You have got to be joking, Ricky! 35% sounds like a huge number until you recognize that CO2 accounts for a tiny fraction of overall greenhouse gases. Everyday, run-of-the-mill clouds account for an overwhelming percentage of climate forcing factors.
The Sun's effect is not significant? What are you talking about, man?! Solar energy is THE most significant contributor to the Earth's energy budget. Love to have some of that stuff you're smoking. But it might add to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.
Lemme 'splain it to ya since ya wannabe dense about Ricky's statement. He is speaking in terms of deletorious effects of warming, not the beneficial ones. We benefit from the sun's warming; we do NOT benefit from global warming which is in addition to that of the sun. Hope this clears up the smog in your noggin'!
Ricky: I would like to know what percent of the atmosphere is CO2. Also what other greenhouse gases and their percentages and relative impact. I don't know and those facts would help. Also where do you get the quote from Jesus H. Christ to prove your point? Or is that Al Gore. And please explain the sun's impact as being insignificant. I always assumed that the sun's radiation variations had a major impact on earth's temperature.