Al Gore Wins Nobel Peace Prize For Promoting The False Religion Of Global Warming
[posted by Justin Levine]
News just coming in that Al Gore has indeed won the Nobel Peace Prize.
Let’s see here – Yasser Arafat awarded the Peace Prize for his terrorism against Jews, Jimmy Carter awarded the Peace Prize explicitly as a way for Europeans to protest George Bush’s foreign policy….Seems like the Nobel Peace Prize committee continues to build a steady track record of evolving into a collective left wing circle-jerk.
I just saw that. I will never take a Nobel prize in any discipline seriously again. When someone mentions so-and-so is a Nobel prize winner I will laugh and, if possible, fart in their general direction.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/12/2007 @ 1:14 amYou know, they were making bets over at places like Balloon Juice that that would be the very first thing the rightblogs would say.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8847#comments
Couldn’t you have been a little less predictable?
Itsme (33733e) — 10/12/2007 @ 1:39 amComing up:
Al Gore’s house.
Al Gore’s air travel.
Itsme (33733e) — 10/12/2007 @ 1:58 amOn the contrary.
Al Gore’s lies.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/12/2007 @ 2:20 amItsme –
You can always count on me to articulate the truth. I’m happy to be predictable in that fashion. No appologies here.
Justin Levine (20f2b5) — 10/12/2007 @ 2:22 amWhat does GW have to do with peace? I thought the fact that the UK said his film contained serious errors would have nixed this silly prize. Anyway, look at the bright side: Maybe he will get the nomination. I would love to have Gore waddling around the country lecturing audiences in his condescending sing song voice.
dave (dcf56d) — 10/12/2007 @ 3:01 amAs governments seize billions and billions of productive dollars to solve a non-existent problem, as governments prevent economic growth to solve a non-existent problem, eventually it will cause riots and wars as people fight for their share of a shrinking pie.
Thanks Al!
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 10/12/2007 @ 3:09 amAnybody wanna bet Clinton-Gore…
Hazy (c36902) — 10/12/2007 @ 3:25 amOr better yet Gore-Clinton, boy would she scream.
If she doesn’t get the nomination early on, this could happen.
Hazy (c36902) — 10/12/2007 @ 3:29 amIt’s important to note that the Nobel Prizes for advances in science are an entirely different matter than the Nobel Peace Prize involving different awarders and even a different country.
nk (6e4f93) — 10/12/2007 @ 3:39 amWell, I say the air force should take that into consideration when analyzing targeting data.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/12/2007 @ 3:44 amAl Gore, congratulations on winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Now it is time to announce your wish to become America’s president, take your seat in the White House, and be the leader we have all been waiting for to move beyond the corrupt system of Empire and towards Earth community. Kudos to the Nobel Committee for realizing that sustainability is peace.
Erol (1f09f7) — 10/12/2007 @ 4:30 amIs this a joke? Me — I would love to see Gore run in that it would derail Hillary and ensure a Republican victory. The democrat blood bath would also provide high entertainment. Hail Al!
dave (dcf56d) — 10/12/2007 @ 4:37 amA Hillary-Gore ticket would be absolutely unbeatable.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/12/2007 @ 4:41 amThere is no way that Al Gore is going to be the bridesmaid and not the bride. Plus, Gore hates the Clintons and with good reason.
dave (dcf56d) — 10/12/2007 @ 4:44 amNo dave…
I think Erol is completely serious…
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 10/12/2007 @ 5:06 am“But have no fear, because I am here to save you. And someday, when the world is rid of Manbearpig, everyone will say, ‘Thank you, Algore. You’re super awesome.’ The End.”
TB (98cc7a) — 10/12/2007 @ 6:10 amThere was a graph over on one of those left-wing sites that the Arctic ice cap is shrinking even faster than the most extreme models predicted.
Is there a possibility B here? That Global Warming is real and the collection of industry flacks, wannabe scientists, and contrarian economists who deny it are wrong?
Andrew J. Lazarus (586925) — 10/12/2007 @ 6:14 amNo.
dave (dcf56d) — 10/12/2007 @ 6:18 amThe Nobel Committee has finally jumped the shark. Or, as Confederate Yankee put it: “I wasn’t even aware that they had a Nobel Prize for deceptive rhetoric.”
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 10/12/2007 @ 6:27 amHeh. My wife just reminded me that Al Gore has also won an Oscar and an Emmy. Grand Slam.
nk (6e4f93) — 10/12/2007 @ 6:35 amIt is quite possible, even likely, that there is a man-made warming trend. Carbon dioxide levels are at higher levels than they have been in millions of years, and those levels are directly attributable to burning hydrocarbons.
However, what there is no consensus about is the degree of danger this represents. Al Gore has been an irresponsible alarmist, about on the same level as the John Birch Society was regarding the “soviet threat.” And about as sane and truthful.
What a travesty.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 10/12/2007 @ 6:35 amSo he stopped ManBearPig after all. Good work Al!
Gabriel (6d7447) — 10/12/2007 @ 6:37 amWhy would Gore want to be President? He’s making so much money and getting so much recognition off this junk science he’s peddling why should he want to stop. Plus as it’s being debunked he has plausible deniability. He can claim he’s not a scientist and he relied on the experts. It’s a perfect gig for a prig like Gore.
daleyrocks (906622) — 10/12/2007 @ 6:40 amOf corse they would also have given it to YASSIR ARAFAT and terrorist leader and to JIMMY CARTER americas worse presidents until BILL CLINTON i think that ALFRED NOBEL is spinning in his grave. those judges should sent to the spive mines of kessel or to HOTH
krazy kagu (484aa9) — 10/12/2007 @ 7:17 amI’ll be curious to see if in 10-20 years he’ll be forced to return his many awards.
dave (dcf56d) — 10/12/2007 @ 7:25 am“False religion,” crimeny. You sound like a 9/11 truther.
Russell (cf89ed) — 10/12/2007 @ 10:16 amI don’t know if this is new or not, but I had coffee come out of my nose from laughing.
Not sure if I can embed a YouTube video or not in a comment. If it doesn’t work, use this link to go to the NRO Corner and look for the YouTube video put up by Kathryn Lopez at 9:07 am.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/
WLS (bafbcb) — 10/12/2007 @ 1:01 pmNope. You can’t embed but you can link if the you-know-what allows it. Let’s see.
nk (6e4f93) — 10/12/2007 @ 1:12 pmIt worked. Click on “link” in comment #29 for the video WLS is referring to.
nk (6e4f93) — 10/12/2007 @ 1:13 pmIts the Southpark short on Al Gore and extermination of Manbearpig. I’m thinking that maybe this isn’t new and many have seen it already. But it was new to me and I thought it was really funny.
WLS (bafbcb) — 10/12/2007 @ 1:17 pmI think it’s an episode from a couple of years ago. You should see the whole thing if you can.
DRJ (74c23b) — 10/12/2007 @ 1:42 pmDoes anyone know if the Nobel Prize Committee had any recounts before the results were announced?
daleyrocks (906622) — 10/12/2007 @ 3:35 pmNah, Daley, no recounts are needed because the desired result has been obtained. Before or after.
Paul (983476) — 10/12/2007 @ 3:40 pmAJL #18…
IF arctic ice fields are shrinking, what explains the noted increase in ANTARCTIC ice cover????
Could it possibly be a change in REGIONAL weather patterns, and not global climate change?
All Hail Al!……..All Hail Al!
Plus, he already wears black, probably in anticipation of the Global Cooling that was predicted (30-years ago).
Another Drew (8018ee) — 10/12/2007 @ 6:32 pmI can’t wait to read Justin’s next post condemning Christopher Columbus for promoting the false religion of a spherical earth.
Oregonian (d35afc) — 10/12/2007 @ 10:27 pmSpherical Earth, Global Warming, Cigarettes Cause Cancer, Evolution, all lies! lies and machinations of a vast lefty scientist conspiracy to get more grant money!
The best thing about Global Warming is that since most of the really noticable effects won’t take place until everyone arguing about it is dead everyone gets to be “right”. Everyone wins!
EdWood (7a90f2) — 10/12/2007 @ 10:47 pmI can’t wait to read Justin’s next post condemning Christopher Columbus for promoting the false religion of a spherical earth.
You know that’s a myth cooked up by Washington Irving right?
Taltos (c99804) — 10/13/2007 @ 2:06 amIn 20-30 years, Gore’s movie will be as ridiculed as “Reefer Madness.”
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 10/13/2007 @ 2:17 amMichael Moore deserved it more for his riveting paen to the virtues of socialized medicine.
daleyrocks (906622) — 10/13/2007 @ 4:09 amAll religions are false. Thats why its so useful to some to smear secular ideas as being ‘religious.’
whitd (10527e) — 10/13/2007 @ 6:01 amYou know that’s a myth cooked up by Washington Irving right?
Exactly so. There was a scientific consensus about the spherical earth long before Columbus set sail, and there was a scientific consensus about global climate change long before Gore made his movie. But Justin is not the kind of fellow to let science, logic, or history stand in his way.
Next up: Isaac Newton wins a knighthood after promoting the false religion of physics, proving that the British royal family is a collective left wing circle-jerk.
Oregonian (a83c69) — 10/13/2007 @ 10:05 amThere was a scientific consensus about the spherical earth long before Columbus set sail, and there was a scientific consensus about global climate change long before Gore made his movie.
The triumph of democracy. “Consensus” can make the Earth not only warmer but round too. Where’s ada? Isn’t that part of the belief of Druidism?
nk (6e4f93) — 10/13/2007 @ 10:39 amJustin LeVine #5:
I have no doubt you can be counted on to say things like Yasser Arafat was awarded the Peace Prize “for his terrorism against Jews.”
I have no doubt it’s entirely predictable too.
Itsme (f1b2da) — 10/13/2007 @ 1:01 pm‘“Consensus” can make the Earth not only warmer but round too. ‘
You got your cause and effect backwards. Try learning science again.
whitd (10527e) — 10/13/2007 @ 2:24 pmYou got your cause and effect backwards. Try learning science again.
Consensus is not science. It’s religion. And try learning irony.
nk (6e4f93) — 10/13/2007 @ 3:06 pmAnd, it’s entirely predictable that you would say it was predictable. It is the current leftard talking point.
dave (afbb68) — 10/13/2007 @ 3:28 pmHe’s the one who said he was predictable.
Itsme (f1b2da) — 10/13/2007 @ 4:22 pm“Consensus is not science. It’s religion. And try learning irony.”
‘consensus’ can describe the state of science. it is certainly not democracy. The earth’s roundness leads more and more people to agree that it is round. Thus, consensus.
whitd (10527e) — 10/13/2007 @ 4:25 pmWhat is “truth” in science is definitely decided by consensus…..and lots of peer reviewed, incessantly argued data…. lots and lots of it. For some sciences the consensus is backed up better by actual results than others. Like engeneering. You can argue that your model is right all you want but if a building falls down then your model was missing something. Other sciences, particularly ecological sciences, have the real problem that their predictions describe processes that normally play out over very long periods of time. So its 1200 yea’s vs 120 nay’s, nay’s are wrong…..until someone comes up with better evidence or a more rigorous analysis of the data etc… uh..ok…guess I’m off the point of the thread, but I had to say it.
EdWood (060ab3) — 10/13/2007 @ 4:59 pmYou’re on point, Ed.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/13/2007 @ 5:01 pmOk, consensus can decide that if I hold an apple above a “consenser’s” head and drop it, it won’t fall if enough “consensers” say it won’t. Science is “tried and proved” — consensus is “that’s the fashion of the day”.
nk (6e4f93) — 10/13/2007 @ 5:58 pmAlternative comment: The Earth couldn’t give a rat’s ass about how many little specks on it think it’s round.
nk (6e4f93) — 10/13/2007 @ 6:01 pmThis is baloney. The readily observable phenomena that things fall off the sides of spherical objects led to the common sense consensus that the earth must therefore be flat. It isn’t. Consensus was wrong. Consensus does not describe fact but agreement. And you can’t agree that something is a fact. You have to be able to prove it.
And although Ed has it right about the global warming models being presented as verifiable when they are not, he’s off on the consensus end also.
Consensus in the scientific community has a role in accepting first cut theories or models as acceptable approaches towards understanding observations. Consensus has nothing whatsoever to do accepting explanation of those observations as fact. That requires being able to either reliably reproduce both cause and effect, or reliably predict the effects of observable instances of cause. It is subject to the acceptance of peers that you are indeed predicting, reproducing, or describing what you say you are, but not consensus as the term is being used here.
The effects of human civilization on climate and climate change is theory, not fact. Observations are shoehorned into frameworks convenient to the observers preconceptions on both sides. There is nothing close to acceptance in the scientific community that Gore is crusading with verifiable facts.
For that matter, there is nothing close to consensus either for what little that is worth.
Just Passing Through (ff997a) — 10/13/2007 @ 6:12 pmGiven Ed’s comment on consensus, this might be a good time to share the Board of Directors Statement on Climate Change from the American Association for the Advancement of Science:
For any of you who don’t know about AAAS…
If you’re looking for consensus in the scientific world, it doesn’t come any stronger than a statement from AAAS. So who are you going to trust for your scientific info? Will it be the group that publishes the world’s most widely read peer-reviewed scientific journal… or Rush Limbaugh, Senator Inhofe, and our good friend Justin Levine?
Oregonian (51552c) — 10/13/2007 @ 6:13 pmIt took 50 years for medicine to recognize and accept that germs cause disease and operating rooms should be sterile. Three men – Pasteur, Lister, and Koch – finally succeeded in convincing the world’s doctors but it took years even after their research was well-known.
NK is right. Consensus has nothing to do with science.
DRJ (74c23b) — 10/13/2007 @ 6:15 pm“Ok, consensus can decide that if I hold an apple above a “consenser’s” head and drop it, it won’t fall if enough “consensers” say it won’t”
Again, you have it backwards. “consensus” doesn’t make things so. It just describes the state of knowledge. Are people in agreement? or no?
“Consensus does not describe fact but agreement.”
I know.
“The effects of human civilization on climate and climate change is theory, not fact.”
Theory is pretty good!
whitd (10527e) — 10/13/2007 @ 6:30 pmNewton’s law of universal gravitation is a theory.
Eintein’s theory of relativity is a theory.
Heliocentrism (earth rotates around sun, not vice versa) is a theory.
Itsme (f1b2da) — 10/13/2007 @ 6:39 pmOregonian, what nk and DRJ said. Consensus has nothing to do with science. A statement from the AAAS Board is not the same as a carefully written and vetted article in the pages of Science. That will describe observations, present a theory about cause and/or effect acceptable to peer review (or it would not make it into the pages of the magazine), and experimental data that supports the theory. The same theory explaining the same phenomena can be and has been disproven a year later in the same magazine with contradicting data. (Trust me on this. I get that and similar publications delivered to my door and their’s is far from the best – too general, not enough focus but that’s just my opinion.)
It is seldom if ever that the first or even many attempts at transforming theory into fact is accepted by scientific peers.
The consensus of the board has no relationship to this process. That was a policy statement, not science. It is internally inconsistent to the point that it would never make it into the pages of their own magazine directed at the review of the scientific community.
They blow it in their own statement by generalizing about accumulated data on observable phenomena and presenting them as effects in support of a theory about cause without ever providing the evidential linkage to the statement that we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions (which I don’t say is a bad thing).
Again, agreement over commonly held opinion may be consensus but it is not factual.
I’ve no use for proselytizers or dogmatics whether scientists or river bank revivalists.
Just Passing Through (ff997a) — 10/13/2007 @ 6:51 pmWhat has AL GORE ever done for peace anyway what did YASSIR(THATS MY BABY)ARAFAT ever done who next ASAMA BIN LADEN?
krazy kagu (9b4d22) — 10/13/2007 @ 6:59 pmTouche. I wasn’t clear enough of the relationship between hypothesis, theory, and fact. It easier expressed and understood when stated in simpler terms:
A hypothesis is accepted as theory once the preponderance of supporting evidence reaches a certain point. It will never reach that point until contradictory evidence is accommodated either by modifying the original hypothesis or disproving the relationship of the contradictory evidence.
My definition off the top of my head but take it to the bank. And it is why while Gore may be right in the long run, he is not promoting anything remotely acceptable as a theory consistent with current understanding of all the facts and evidence available at this point in time.
To whit: one should not ignore solar cycles simply because they are inconvenient to what you want to believe.
Just Passing Through (ff997a) — 10/13/2007 @ 7:07 pmJTP #62:
Do you know that the proponents of the view of climate change espoused by Gore are actually ignoring solar cycles? Put another way, is there no evidence that they have “accommodated” the hypothesis of solar cycles?
Itsme (f1b2da) — 10/13/2007 @ 8:40 pmWhen some critical mass of scientists all agree (consensus), and yes, yes, based on, like I said above, lots and lots of data that is peer reviewed, then there tends to occur a change in how the scientific community thinks about whatever it is they are arguing about. Consensus in science jargon is called a paradigm, and this mass changing of minds is called a paradigm shift (see Kuhn, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions…very dense book). There was just a big paradigm shift in physics…physicists decided that Newtonian Physics was inadequate to explain all physical phenomena in the universe, and now we have quantum theory. So I guess that is what I meant when I said that consensus is what determines “truth” in science. A new “truth” is a paradigm shift, backed by lots of data, that some majority of scientists agree is the best MODEL of reality for now.
The global warming that the AAAS believes in is the the best model of reality for now. I wouldn’t call it a paradigm shift yet because there is still lots of debate going on about the details (right there in the pages of Science). As more data comes out, soon hopefully coz the clock is ticking here, that model will definintely change and, we hope, get better.
The really interesting question that I don’t think that science can answer (barring some Harry Seldon-esque psychohistorian out there) is, IF we take as given that it’s true (whether it was the industrial revolution’s “fault” or not) how are we humans going to adapt (or not adapt) to the changes.
Of course scientists are pretty sure that the entire Antarctic ice cap is not going to slide off into the ocean, instantly raising sea levels by several meters, nor will backwards cyclones suck super cooled air down from space (boy was that a lame movie).
EdWood (dd68f0) — 10/13/2007 @ 8:54 pmA statement from the AAAS Board is not the same as a carefully written and vetted article in the pages of Science.
You want articles? We got articles:
“Arctic Air Pollution: Origins and Impacts,” by Kathy S. Law and Andreas Stohl, Science, 16 March 2007, vol. 315. no. 5818, pp. 1537-1540.
“Recent Sea-Level Contributions of the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets,” by Andrew Shepherd and Duncan Wingham, Science, 16 March 2007, vol. 315. no. 5818, pp. 1529-1532.
“Perspectives on the Arctic’s Shrinking Sea-Ice Cover,” by Mark C. Serreze et al, Science, 16 March 2007, vol. 315. no. 5818, pp. 1533-1536.
Hurricanes, Climate, and Katrina, A special collection from Science Online
“Warming and Earlier Spring Increase Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity,” by Anthony L. Westerling et al, Science, 18 August 2006, vol. 313, no. 5789, pp. 940-943.
“Changes in the Velocity and Structure of the Greenland Ice Sheet,” by Eric Rignot and Pannir Kanagaratnam, Science, 17 February 2006, vol. 311, no. 5763, pp. 986-990.
“Stable Carbon Cycle-Climate Relationship During the Late Pleistocene,” by Urs Siegenthaler and colleagues, Science, 25 November 2005, vol. 310, no. 5752, pp. 1313-1317.
See also a related AAAS.org news story: New Research in Science Shows Highest CO2 Levels In 650,000 Years
“Climate Change Science: Adapt, Mitigate, or Ignore?” by David A. King, Science, 9 January 2004, vol. 303, no. 5655, pp. 176-177.
The same theory explaining the same phenomena can be and has been disproven a year later in the same magazine with contradicting data.
And yet… you don’t seem to be able to give a single reference to back up that claim. Imagine my surprise.
I get that and similar publications delivered to my door and their’s is far from the best
If you can’t successfully spell the word “theirs,” you most certainly cannot read or understand a single sentence from Science. Give it up.
Oregonian (ebcd2f) — 10/13/2007 @ 10:16 pmI get that and similar publications delivered to my door and their’s is far from the best
If you can’t successfully spell “theirs,” you certainly aren’t going to read or understand a single word of Science. Who on earth do you think you’re fooling?
Oregonian (ebcd2f) — 10/13/2007 @ 10:26 pmHave I been banned?
Oregonian (ebcd2f) — 10/13/2007 @ 10:26 pmNo, but you’re showing you’re an idiot for focusing on a spelling error in a blog comment, rather than the science discussed. At that level of “reasoning”, no wonder you don’t understand the scientific method is not a consensus.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/13/2007 @ 10:29 pmYou got me. Completely invalidates any point I might have made.
As to the meat of your comment, I do read science periodicals. Voraciously. Admittedly more that are targeted towards my profession. I get them delivered to my door or my office. I work in an environment where people leave them in break rooms and in front of terminals at test stations for a little light reading when they get bored.
You on the other hand pull down articles from the net that support the consensus that you yourself favor. Cherry picking data is a marvelous way to reach consensus. Quick anyway.
This incredibly naive comment:
That you do not know this to be true shows me you have no familiarity with the process. Give me your mailing address. I’ll send you a couple of examples.
I realize one thing you do not. Consensus is the enemy of the advancement of science. In your world there is consensus in group A. It agrees with what you want to believe. Group B cautions that conclusions are being drawn from an incomplete data set and contradictory evidence is being ignored. However, Group B needs to give it up because the ‘leading scholars’ have reached consensus. The earth is flat. Accept it.
Gore may be right in the long run in whole or in part. However he received his prize for being a strident advocate for the absolute truthiness of the model he favors.
Feel free to vet my grammar and spelling.
Just Passing Through (ff997a) — 10/14/2007 @ 5:23 amJPT #69:
I’ll add this to your excellent comment: the late Dr. Carl Sagan wrote a tour de force on the scientific method and how violating any of the steps (like calling a consensus “proof”) blocks the advancement of science, titled “The Demon-Haunted World.” I strongly recommend anyone wanting to learn how to think critically and separate truth from fiction read it.
I don’t agree with many opinions he held, but I do agree with his methods as a master scientist.
To Oregonian: Carl Sagan was a PBS-approved scientist, so the book is safe for you to read.
Paul (d71395) — 10/14/2007 @ 6:16 amI’m going to quote myself from comment#54 to get all this back to the point I was making originally.
Consensus about how to interpret observations without a coherent framework of data that lets you reproduce or predict effect related to cause is the basis of conventional wisdom, not science.
Quoting my comment#62.
That is science.
Carl Sagan, a smart fellow who should have known better, stepped outside his discipline and violated his own standards of scientific methodology back in the 80’s and became an advocate for the nuclear winter hypothesis.
Consensus occurred. Hypothesis became conventional wisdom. Movies treating conventional wisdom as unassailable fact analogous to An Inconvenient Truth and Day After Tomorrow came out with the obligatory cautionary text in the credits warning the viewer about the dangers of not buying in. Book after book. Plenty of scientists solemnly describing horrific scenarios of brutish survivors in a new ice age. Skeptical of the science? Warmonger. Skeptical of the advocation? Who the hell are you to dispute with CARL SAGAN.
A new ice age cometh unless we all work together to purge the world of the weapons that might/will cause it. (Interesting that when considered in light of the new conventional wisdom that everyone must act now to pre-emptively defeat the looming spectre of effects of global warming, but I digress.)
Conventional wisdom pandering to popular ignorance reinforced by condescending Hollywood bullshit artists with a penchant for cause célebre posturing. Anti-nuclear and unilateral disarmament demonstrations galore. Save the children.
Absolute horseshit, nuclear winter.
Whether Mr Gore’s proselytizing is eventually vindicated as the models coalesce is irrelevent to the point of the thread. He’s a fool and a jackass for pandering to conventional wisdom. That pandering is more likely to push understanding of the extent, nature, and correlation of climate change and human activity further out the timeline than not.
Just Passing Through (ff997a) — 10/14/2007 @ 6:37 am“The same theory explaining the same phenomena can be and has been disproven a year later in the same magazine with contradicting data.”
Thats another place where consensus comes in: people aren’t finding contradictions and disproving previous theories. This is science’s strength. You turn it around and consider it its weakness.
whitd (10527e) — 10/14/2007 @ 6:57 amCarl Sagan, a smart fellow who should have known better, stepped outside his discipline and violated his own standards of scientific methodology back in the 80’s and became an advocate for the nuclear winter hypothesis.
Which may have been a reason why he wrote The Demon-Haunted World, the last book he published before he died. He neglected to mention the subject of nuclear winter in the book, but seeing the consequences of violating the scientific method before his eyes could have been a motivating factor to devote an entire book to the subject of the scientific method.
Paul (d71395) — 10/14/2007 @ 7:41 amwhitd – Actually, there *are* contradictions and many theories have major flaws. (It’s worth pointing out that there isn’t a single “theory” of global warming– the most you can generally get folks to agree on is that people make it hotter. After that….)
Come on, even I know that. There’s already been a mention here about the ice melting on one end, but growing on the other.
There’s also the hanky-panky with the NASA readings, which shows that the data a lot of folks uses is corrupt– AND that there are folks corrupting data for a set result at all.
Oregonian- please take a logic course and avoid the bloody fallacies! Misspelling a single word does NOT preclude reading and understanding (ad hominem); the common-speech “theory” is not the same as the scientific use of “theory” (amphiboly).
Interesting you should bring up Columbus– he supposedly died insisting that his theory of the earth being far smaller than the scientific community was true, and it had been proved because he’d landed in the East.
Foxfier (f765f6) — 10/14/2007 @ 7:58 am“Come on, even I know that. There’s already been a mention here about the ice melting on one end, but growing on the other.”
The global warming theories i know of are not contradicted by this. Climate patterns will change Some places will get colder. Others hotter. The average will be hotter.
whitd (10527e) — 10/14/2007 @ 8:44 amWhitd is correct. That is why people are not calling it global warming anymore, they are calling it global environmental change. People are changing the language in order to take in the new model of “truth” presented to them by better math models and better information. That’s how science moves forward, entirely unapologetic about its past claims. When new data changes the current model(and it will) no scientists are going to apologize, they will just say “wow, how exciting” and keep moving forward.
EdWood (d2fd8e) — 10/14/2007 @ 11:01 amLiked the list of articles above, too bad Oregonian blew his(her?) argument with an Ad Hominem comment. Now nobody will think about the articles, just about the pointless and silly attack. Al Gore blew his argument by leaving in all the “sky is falling” alarmist stuff. Now his movie will be about the alarmism and not about the overall, generally better substatiated message.
Which is a damn shame.
For how long? Similar changes are apparent in historical record and though other investigatory means and both from periods long before human activity contributed in any significant way to greenhouse gas emission.
This is utter bullshit and will be until you move away from the term consensus when describing maturation of hypothesis into theory. Consensus doesn’t have a damn thing to do with hard evidence and data.
Give it up. Consensus gives rise to conventional wisdom. Conventional wisdom and the results of applying scientific methods to questions of hard science are the same only by happenstance. Leave consensus to the soft sciences where everybody can agree on what the deep meaning of smoking cigars is.
Except when it’s just a cigar.
Just Passing Through (ff997a) — 10/14/2007 @ 1:14 pmwhitd #75:
“Come on, even I know that. There’s already been a mention here about the ice melting on one end, but growing on the other.”
The global warming theories i know of are not contradicted by this. Climate patterns will change Some places will get colder. Others hotter. The average will be hotter.
I also wonder how much people account for the fact that the arctic is ocean surrounded by land and Antarctica is land surrounded by ocean.
Itsme (85caba) — 10/14/2007 @ 1:22 pm