Bringing a knife to a gun fight

Palin (0.00 / 0)

is essentially a moron...really.  And fortunately, with the exception of the major whacko's out there (about 15% of the population), Palin doesn't resonate in a positive way.

Why the media continues to pay attention to her is a mystery.  

---

by: big sage @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 20:15:46 PM UTC

Why? (0.00 / 0)

Sells advertising.

---

by: JC @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 21:10:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

?? (0.00 / 0)

Did any of you guys (other than Jay) read Krugmans OP-ed?

Krugman is right on the economy - as we are all seeing right now the Obama 'Hope & Change' economy is failing rapidly -

As far as the 'Cap & Trade' debate, Krugman is wrong.

Do me a favor, and google up these words:

GLOBAL WARMING CONSENSUS

and you will find literally hundreds of scientists and climatologists with good reputations saying that the notion of man-made global warming is overblown & politicized.

Hardly a consensus. Hardly bringing a knife to a gun fight.

---

by: Eric Coobs @ Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 15:55:15 PM UTC

Eric haven't we (0.00 / 0)

been down this road before? How about you post the name of a "scientist",  or climatologist,  that is not getting money from the coal/oil/gas industry that shares your view of this?

---

by: big sage @ Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 22:41:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

yes - (0.00 / 0)

Obviously you didn't take time to read the piece (I did)

and you obviously didn't google up those words either -

I'm not a scientist, I'm not a climatologist - and thus don't have a point of view to agree on -

I'm simply saying that if you actually research it, and avoid the global warming religion promoted by Al Gore, you will find that there is no scientific concensus.

So - once again - google up there words:

GLOBAL WARMING CONSENSUS

then actually do some reading -  

---

by: Eric Coobs @ Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 15:24:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

here's #3... (0.00 / 0)

Logical Science:

Climate change critics like Richard Lindzen try to say "There's no consensus on global warming." in the Wall Street Journal, in front of Congress, and many other places.  This argument has also been made repeatedly on Fox News.1,2  Other researchers like Dean Dr. Mark H. Thiemens say this "has nothing to do with reality".1,2,3   The following is a list of quotes from scientific organizations, academies, scientists, industry spokesmen, etc supporting the existence of man made climate change and the need to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  Many of these quotes reference the IPCC or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which is widely regarded by mainstream scientists as either the "most reliable" or one of the most reliable sources for accurate information on climate change.  As you will notice,  the evidence against the consensus critics like Lindzen and pundits on Fox News is overwhelming.  If you are confused as to whose opinion matters, just pay attention to the peer review science journals and the National Academy of Sciences.  For those that don't know, the National Academies are like the Supreme Court of science.  The number of climate scientists in the US can be found by examining the members of the American Geophysical Union (AGU).  As of November 10, 2006 we know that there is a minimum (no official count of foreign climatologists is available) of 20,000 working climatologists worldwide 1,2.   An important fact to remember is that many high profile critics you see in the news do not qualify as climate scientists when these standards are applied.  Keep both of these concepts in mind the next time you see a handful of self proclaiming "climate scientists" with dissenting opinions.  It is also important to note that Exxon Mobil is funding a $10,000 bounty for climate denialists and skeptics.  If only 2% of the 20,000 climatologists were bought out then we'd have 400 deniers (skeptics are convinced by science not money).

That bit about referring to peer-reviewed scientific journals for the science on climate change is excellent advice.

A pundit, say, on Fox News claiming there's no consensus is  a poor point of reference.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 19:45:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

er... (0.00 / 0)

...so I googled like you asked, and this is what I found:

"The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that this warming is likely attributable to human influence has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries. At present, no scientific body of national or international standing has issued a dissenting statement. A small minority of professional associations have issued noncommittal statements."

So...um...

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 19:36:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

here's #2 result... (0.00 / 0)

From "Science":

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

It just goes into more detail after that. It ends with this:

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 19:41:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

thanks for the advice (0.00 / 0)

while it already reinforced my knowledge that the scientific community nearly wholly believes global temperatures are rising and that human activity is responsible, I found some great new links to refer folks to...

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 19:48:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]