If a woman decides to end her pregnancy, no matter how developed the fetus is, and no matter how frivolous the reasoning, that is her choice, dammit. If she decides to kill an 8-month-old fetus because the birth of the child might personally embarrass her, then how dare you criticize her, mister!
And at the same time:
If a family wants a child, and the baby is born but dies 2 hours into his young life — and the family chooses to bring the boy home to introduce the child to the rest of the family, then bwahahahahahaha. Pro-life freak. Let’s all point and laugh!
In case you still haven’t heard the news, global warming (regardless of its cause) does NOT cause an increase in hurricane activity according to the latest published study.
Knutson said Landsea ”makes a very good case,” but “I consider the science still unsettled.”
Even if the global warming doomsayers refuse to accept the study, the fact that they now admit that the science in this area is “unsettled” represents real progress in their thinking. That is certainly a change in tune from what they have been insisting over the past year.
I guess this means that we don’t have to worry about more hurricanes on Mars either.
“Kerry Emanuel, an MIT professor who had feuded with Gray over global warming, said Gray has wrongly ‘dug (his) heels in’ even though there is ample evidence that the world is getting hotter.”
The clear implication from this sentence is that Dr. Gray doesn’t believe that the world is “getting hotter” (and therefore, he is a kook who can be dismissed). But that sentence is an out and out lie. Gray has never disputed that the “world is getting hotter”. Instead, (more…)
I am admittedly confused about one thing: Why is ‘compromise‘ over language necessary when there is supposedly ‘consensus’? That’s ok. Whatever the ultimate outcome is – we can rest assured knowing that it is ‘science’. They just apparently need to meet behind closed doors and warn their people ‘not to divulge details of the negotiations’ in order to determine what the ‘science’ is. Obviously. Doesn’t seem political at all.
More global warming ‘science’ being reported here.
Hundreds of scientists struggled to find compromise wording Thursday on a landmark report set to declare that climate change is already discernible and could wreak devastation to human settlement and wildlife this century.
Grouped in national delegations, the climate specialists remained huddled in a European Commission conference room late into the night, hammering out the document’s all-important summary for policy makers — a guideline for government action — only hours before its scheduled release Friday morning.
Several sharp disagreements impeded progress, one Western delegate said.
Whereas Europeans sought to include stronger language and hard numbers warning about the dangers of global warming, the United States favored general statements about trends, he said.
“The Europeans want to send a strong signal. The US does not want as much quantification,” he said during a break in the negotiations, which have been underway since Monday.
China and Russia, he continued, have sought to excise some passages from the summary asserting that climate change had already had negative effects around the globe, arguing that the data in the 1,400 word main study is not solid enough to be included in the key policy document.
Now that sounds exactly like the kind of science I learned about in school – free from political considerations and biases…Can’t wait to read this ‘scientific’ report.
I linked to this Crichton speech in another post in this series, but I didn’t really emphasize it at the time. Crichton’s “Aliens Cause Global Warming” speech is must reading. I dare say that it is some of the best writing he has ever done. The scientific community should take it to heart.
Just a brief sample of a speech that is solid gold from start to finish -
Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.
This series of posts isn’t just to spout off my own personal opinions (after all, who really cares?), but to stimulate a much needed debate. However, one commenter asked me a legitimate question – what exactly do I believe or not believe as a self-proclaimed “skeptic” on the global warming issue.
Remember Carl Sagan? He wasn’t only a famous astronomer, but he was a self-proclaimed “skeptic” who tried to convince himself and others that he was dedicated to scientific principles over “pseudoscience and irrationality”.
However, that didn’t prevent him from falling into the common trap of using his “scientific credentials” to try and feign credibility on topics well beyond his area of scientific expertise: nuclear war, SDI, environmentalism, etc.
Have any of you actually seen “The Great Global Warming Swindle?” – the British documentary that debunks “An Inconvenient Truth” and the global warming fear mongers?
Do yourself a favor. Set aside 75 minutes to watch this vital program from one of numerous video sharingsites across the Internet. (If you are guilt ridden over copyright concerns, I can only say that it is your loss if you still wish to be as informed as possible over the global warming non-debate debate.)
It traces how current global warming theory got started and explains the evidence showing that it is actually global warming that causes increased CO2 – not the other way around. After considering the program’s claims, go ahead and (re)read the U.N.’s current summary on the issue and ask yourself what it has really shown.
Purveyors of man-made global warming theory refuse to recognize that some of thestrongestcritics of the theory are lead authors of the IPCC reports that they have come to fetishize. A number of them are featured in the documentary. (It also debunks the argument that all of the critics are simply on the payroll for big oil. There is little media scrutiny concerning the billions that are now behind research that is specifically tailored to try and legitimize global warming theory.)
As long as they show this program in schools, then I would be fine with showing “An Inconvenient Truth” and any other global warming documentary they want to try and rebut it.
Will Jonathan Chait have the guts to watch it and comment directly on it? I doubt it. If we follow Chait’s logic then, it must be proof that Democrats simply don’t believe in science.
But it will be fun to watch the religious zealots come out of the woodwork again to post comments here taking me to task for “refusing to believe settled science”. Grab some popcorn and observe their hyperventilations. And yes, you read the title of this post correctly - This is only part 1 of a contuning series. There will be future posts to also help bring forth the Pavlovian green spittle. Cheers!