To The Greens: The Only Thing We Have To Fear Is The Lack Of Fear Itself
Speaking of The Algore...
His new movie "An Inconvenient Truth" is all the rage among the raging enviro-jihadists. But just who is dodging that inconvenint truth? Jonah Goldberg says the title is ironic considering some of the facts that the alarmists ignore. From LATimes.com:
His new movie "An Inconvenient Truth" is all the rage among the raging enviro-jihadists. But just who is dodging that inconvenint truth? Jonah Goldberg says the title is ironic considering some of the facts that the alarmists ignore. From LATimes.com:
...Gore is not alone. A host of new environmental scare books are out or on the way. Last month, Time magazine's cover warned, "Be Worried. Be Very Worried." Those renowned climatologists who make up Vanity Fair's editorial board have unveiled a "green issue" that informs us that "green is the new black" and that global warming is a "threat graver than terrorism." It says so right there on the cover, above Julia Roberts' hip. And she's dressed like a forest nymph, so it's got to be true.The earth is billions of years old. Humans have been around for the equivelent of a picosecond on the great geologic clock. We've only been keeping accurate climate records for a few decades. We can't determine with only a few years worth of studies what the earth is going to be like tomorrow, much less in a few decades or centuries. Get a grip people.
Now, it's true that Earth has gotten warmer — one degree since the 19th century — and it will probably get warmer still. And it's probably true that human activity plays a significant part in all that. But it's also true that we don't have a clear picture of what's happening now, never mind what will happen. Just ask the 60 climatologists from around the world who wrote Canada's prime minister that "observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future." But that's all beside the point to Gore & Co., who say the time for debate is over. And if you disagree, get ready for the witch hunt. Major news media have gone after scientists who argue there's still time to study global warming rather than plunge into some half-baked environmental jihad that could waste possibly trillions of dollars.--- --- ---But Gore & Co. aren't troubled by such details because the smears are all for a good cause. That's why Gore saw nothing wrong in bullying dissident climate change scientists when he was a senator or waging a mean-spirited campaign to discredit the work of his old mentor, Harvard oceanographer Roger Revelle, because Revelle thought alarmism was unwarranted.
Hence the irony of the title "An Inconvenient Truth."
Posts
11 comments:
But the penguins, QC!!! For the love of God!! THE PENGUINS!!!
It's true our knowledge of climatology is incomplete (as are all bodies of scientific knowledge by their epistemological nature), but that certainly doesn't mean we should wait to act until we know everything we could possibly know about climatology while we destroy the biosphere in the mean time. Did you support the invasion of Iraq when our knowledge of Iraq's WMD programs was incomplete (as all intelligence estimates necessarily are)? Many people supported the war based on these estimates because the potential consequences of not acting seemed so dire.
We know FAR more about global warming than we ever did about Iraq. And unlike the pro-war case, no one has a real political incentive to scare the public about global warming. What do you think they would gain? You don't exactly sail into elected office by telling voters they should give up all their beloved SUV's and assorted products shipped (using gas) around the world for their amusement.
No, people would much rather stick their heads in the sand and find un-scientific ways to dismiss the unpleasant suggestion that we can't go on being this materialistic. One good way to avoid unpleasant arguments is with an ad hominem attack: Just label people who actually care about something other than their narrow self-interest as "enviro-jihadists" -- then you don't have to take any of their points seriously.
Anonymous: No one is suggesting we sit idly by while earth burns.
But we shouldn't fly off willy nilly with half-baked plans that could cost trillions of dollars and either be unnecessary or not work.
What's need is too take a deep breath do some honest research. The Algore and the enviro-yahoos are being alarmist; and their "green" tirades are more political ploy than anything else.
In fact there is very little evidence of extreme global warming at all. But when you do show the actual graphs to many of the environuts they say those are industry figures. The green movement is raising tons of money for their causes and not least of their motivation is causing our political and economic system harm.The Kyoto treaty is an example of this.Mixing science and politics is a bad idea and can lead to very bad results-as embodied in the eugenics movement of the 1930s.For an excellent treatment of this topic I suggest you check read "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton in which he uses a novel to present some really important real graphs, information and websites as well as a truly excellent bibliography to show exactly what is going on in politics to affect science.It also illustrates that what is endlessly repeated is still not necessarily true.
I'm still baffled by Deva and QC's claims that people calling for action to address global warming are (a) gaining political advantage by raising the issue and (b) have some sinister motive to destroy the economy . Absent some conspicuous ecological disaster that the public can't ignore (e.g., the Cuyahoga River catching fire), there is little political advantage in telling voters that some abstract meteorological process is going to put their city underwater unless they radically change their lifestyles.
And scientists, myself included, don't want to radically alter their lifestyle any more than the rest of the public. We also have much better things to do than scare everyone just for the hell of it.
The supposedly hysterical claims about global warming did not easily become the consensus of the scientific community -- on the contrary, no one wanted to believe the problem could be so serious. But over time even leading researchers who were still skeptical of global warming 15 years ago conceded that the evidence human activity was responsible for the sudden spike in climate change had become overwhelming.
So I'm afraid you're mistaken, Deva, that there is "little evidence" of global warming. You needn't take my word for it. Rather than reading Crichton or other sources that fit your preconceived opinion, go down to one of the many excellent academic libraries you have in Atlanta. Then do a search on global warming using a scientific database (BIO-SIS, etc) and *randomly* pick 50 articles or so. Then can get a ratio of how many studies find support for global warming vs support alternative hypotheses. You can even compare this ratio of work done in the last 5 years to the same ratio of work done 20 years ago, if you want to get a sense of just how much the consensus in favor of global warming has grown.
In short, to deny that global warming is happening and that it is indeed a very serious threat, one would have to believe in a massive, international conspiracy to systematically forge data in hundreds peer-reviewed journals -- all to create phony evidence as a basis for telling people the sort of unpleasant facts they are most resistant to hearing. The motivation for this elaborate conspiracy? Obviously it's a political ploy -- part of a mean-spirited effort to spoil everyone's economic fun, of course.
Here's the view from an MIT professor, which may well explain why "scientists" may be behind the funding efforts.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
Hey anonymous! Get a moniker willya? And please stay around, you look like a man worth trading remarks with even though I’m about to roast you! (Nothing personal…)
…Absent some conspicuous ecological disaster that the public can't ignore (e.g., the Cuyahoga River catching fire), there is little political advantage in telling voters that some abstract meteorological process is going to put their city underwater unless they radically change their lifestyles.
Beg to differ. Alarmism is a potent political force, and let’s face it, one doesn’t necessarily have to convince the people, only their representatives and the media – who never met a bundle of other people’s money they didn’t want to spend.
And scientists, myself included, don't want to radically alter their lifestyle any more than the rest of the public. We also have much better things to do than scare everyone just for the hell of it.
Not all of us (yes, I’m one too…). You want for scare tactics? Two words: James Hansen.
The supposedly hysterical claims about global warming did not easily become the consensus of the scientific community -- on the contrary, no one wanted to believe the problem could be so serious.
Hmm… there’s been plenty of precedent for seriousness. During most of the Seventies the “scientists” rallied behind Global Cooling. Remember the first Earth Day, on today’s very date? The populace was sternly informed of this menace and all the good little enviro-liberals demonstrated against evil capitalism’s total disregard of this problem they were causing, the bastids.
But over time even leading researchers who were still skeptical of global warming 15 years ago conceded that the evidence human activity was responsible for the sudden spike in climate change had become overwhelming.
That phrase, “leading researchers”…? Very revealing. Whom are they leading? Us sheep? Us lemmings? As for “the sudden spike in climate change”, that’s called argument by assertion of facts not in evidence. (But I’ll leave that as an assertion too, for now…)
So I'm afraid you're mistaken, Deva, that there is "little evidence" of global warming.
A more accurate phrasing would be, “mixed evidence”; then he would not be mistaken.
You needn't take my word for it. Rather than reading Crichton or other sources that fit your preconceived opinion,
Ha! And what sources do *you* read? Prof. Lindzen, Dr. Fred Singer, almost any vulcanologist…? Apparently not. Or just google for skeptics, one needn't rely on Crichton (who by the way is a Harvard MD):
http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2001/000010.html
http://www.junkscience.com/apr99/singer.htm
...go down to one of the many excellent academic libraries you have in Atlanta. Then do a search on global warming using a scientific database (BIO-SIS, etc) and *randomly* pick 50 articles or so. Then can get a ratio of how many studies find support for global warming vs support alternative hypotheses. You can even compare this ratio of work done in the last 5 years to the same ratio of work done 20 years ago, if you want to get a sense of just how much the consensus in favor of global warming has grown.
Yes. Science by consensus. What a concept! No, the value of pi has not been determined but most of us are pretty sure it’s 3.07. You can take it from us, we’re the [soi disant] experts.
Those were the days! Earlier I posted an article from the MIT fellow that explained how “scientists” can be lured into consensus, and if you haven’t read it yet, please do so.
In short, to deny that global warming is happening and that it is indeed a very serious threat, one would have to believe in a massive, international conspiracy to systematically forge data in hundreds peer-reviewed journals -- all to create phony evidence as a basis for telling people the sort of unpleasant facts they are most resistant to hearing.
No, it’s a far easier task than forgery. Drawing the Mist over people’s minds is definitely the affordable way to go, with the media as willing co-conspirators. Why, just tonight the TV is having a show called, “Too Hot Not to Handle”. From all reports its going to be what one must call a piece of unalloyed boosterism, put there to frighten the public. Will it delve into the politicization of science? Will it even hint there are hundreds of skeptics within the scientific community? I’m going to go out on a limb here…
The motivation for this elaborate conspiracy? Obviously it's a political ploy -- part of a mean-spirited effort to spoil everyone's economic fun, of course.
Naturally. But let me leave you with this question: If yours is such an open-and-shut case, then why do there have to be dishonest TV shows to gull the citizens?
Nice talkin’ to ya, anon. Look forward to more. Maybe we can spend some moments together later on a warm beach in Alaska.
Hey, Kevvy!
I read something hilarious a week or so ago...the 'Greenies' will turn red with anger/humiliation over this one: The Earth is getting warmer because of CLEANER air!
W/O the dust particles of pollution swirling around in the upper-reaches of the atmosphere, we haven't nearly the protective cover from the sun that we used to!
HA! I love it.
:-D
Hey Ragin!
Where'd you read that? Sure would like to get my hands on it.
Wllwng, it was a link on Drudge Report, ... of course! HA! I'll try to, uh, ... drudge it up for you. Or, DREDGE, I mean, ha!!
Well, Wllwng, just go to the search box on drudgereport.com and enter Global Warming...there's a shit-pot of results returned (of previous headlines), as you can imagine, and I don't have time to wade through it all, but that is where I saw it! Best Wishes!
Laura
Post a Comment