Does Al Gore read this website? I wonder. On "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" on MSNBC, former Vice President Gore was discussing global warming with Olbermann:
OLBERMANN: People who don‘t believe in global warming have said everything to you and about you and about the science in this, except to say global—there’s no globe. The earth is flat, we all know that.
GORE: Well, they’re in the—the people who still say that global warming isn’t real are actually in the same boat with the flat earth society. They get together and party on Saturday nights with the folks that believe the moon landing was in a movie lot in Arizona.
Well, he meant Nevada, not Arizona, since that’s where Area 51 is, but other than that he’s dead-on.
June 20th, 2006 at 3:06 pm
I totally agree with you and Al Gore. Too bad he didn’t become President. Maybe there would be less dummies in the White House.
June 20th, 2006 at 3:24 pm
I thought there wasn’t a flat earth society any more and it was all got up by Washington Irving anyway – that and some nut who thought the universe was a giant model of the Ark of the Covenant.
Other than that, it might equally be that Al listens to certain radio shows. So how you could tell is, you ask him how he liked some recent movies, and if he has certain specific objections to representations of celestial phenomena, he’s for sure one of us. (Come to think… our Bad Astronomer hasn’t been to the flicks recently?)
June 20th, 2006 at 4:27 pm
I think Al Gore is being a little unfair. I am not in the same boat as Moon HBs just because I’m skeptical of global warming.
Don’t believe me? I recently wrote and presented two major speeches. One was entitled “Global Warming: Reasons to be Skeptical†the other was entitled “How to Debate a Moon Hoax Believerâ€
You could also say that Al Gore is in the same boat as Eric Julien. After all, both of them are preaching the end of the world.
June 20th, 2006 at 4:34 pm
Is a distinction being made here between “Global warming is happening” and “Global warming is happening *and human activity is a major factor*”? ‘Cause that may be important.
June 20th, 2006 at 4:40 pm
WSJ just printed an article about a recent environmental study that said that human contributions to global warming are minor, dunno how true it actually is though.
June 20th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
Well, he meant Nevada, not Arizona, since that’s where Area 51 is, but other than that he’s dead-on.
He was Vice President. Maybe he knows more than he says… *cue dramatic music*
Not among the experts, like at Real Climate.
June 20th, 2006 at 5:09 pm
Robert Carnegie: “(Come to think… our Bad Astronomer hasn’t been to the flicks recently?)”
In the Omen remake There’s some Vatican comet hunting non-sense that’s sure to be a classic amongst the BA crowd.
Of course, actually remaking the Omen is some sort of spiraling logic sacrilege in and of itself…which is probably an omen, too.
June 20th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
Babbler, if I understand your sources at the Washington Post and Real Climate correctly you seem to think that I am skeptical that the earth is heating up. To quote your source:
“To be sure, no scientific conclusion can ever be proven, absolutely, but it is no more a “belief” to say that Earth is heating up than it is to say that continents move.â€
Please don’t misunderstand me. Myself and the scientific community have little to no doubt that the earth’s average atmospheric temperature is going up. That is one of the few facts in the global warming debate. What we are skeptical about is whether or not human activity is the cause.
Yes, I understand that the intergovernmental panel on climate change has stated that human activity is the likely cause, but the IPCC in a political organization, not a scientific one. It was established by people who already believed that global warming was a threat. While this doesn’t mean that their science was poorly done, it does mean you should put it under closer scrutiny.
Now about the theory that green house gas emissions are causing a temperature increase. “A theory is only as good as it’s next predictionâ€, to quote the BA. And so far, most models that label human emissions as the cause of global warming have not made the predictions necessary to earn the trust of the scientific community. In fact, the best these studies can do is point to a correlation in past data between atmospheric CO2 concentration and average surface temperature. But they ignore the parts of the data which do not fit this idea. The global decrease in temperature between 1940 and 1970 for example. I’m sorry, but climate science is not at the point where it can make predictions justifying the action that Al Gore is proposing. As for scientific consensus, I ran a quick search of the literature and found 20 pages worth of publications which are skeptical that human activity is causing global warming, or even that global warming is a threat. As for sources, I relay you here.
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
Keep an open mind Babbler, but not so open that your brain falls out.
June 20th, 2006 at 7:50 pm
Max has captured my general thoughts on global warming. Yes, I’d have to agree that in the short time frame of the last couple decades, the planet does appear to be getting warmer. We can measure that it is warmer now than it was in, say 1985.
We can even say, with some certainty, that it is warmer now than it was, oh, 30000 years ago.
What we can’t say with certainty is that what humans are doing is making the difference, because we can also say with certainty that the earth has been warm in the past. So is it warm now because of human activity, or because it’s just naturally warm? There’s a level of detail that’s missing. There’s also a lot of research being done. In time, I am certain there will be a strong conclusion one way or the other.
In the mean time, there’s conflicting evidence that does not, for me, lead to a conclusion that we’re turning the knob on the burner that’s cooking off the planet.
That doesn’t mean I think we should just light up buckets of oil for giggles. Burning fossil fuels POISONS the atmosphere and that’s a lot more dangerous in the short term than any amount of global warming, for example. Warm or cold, air that nothing can breathe doesn’t do anyone any good.
June 20th, 2006 at 8:08 pm
I’m sorry, but climate science is not at the point where it can make predictions justifying the action that Al Gore is proposing.
If Al Gore’s wrong, we will have wasted a lot of money, effort and resources eliminating greehhouse gasses.
Problem is if you are are wrong, we’re all dead.
So you gotta weigh the consequences…
June 20th, 2006 at 9:07 pm
Kevin,
You’re absolutely right, you do have to weigh the consequences. But you can’t live by the philosophy that all risks, however minor, must be confronted. You have to use judgment and science to decide which causes are worth addressing, and which are not.
For example:
If Eric Julien was wrong and we had listened to him, we would have wasted a lot of time, money, effort and resources averting the asteroid.
If the Bad Astronomer was wrong, we’re all dead.
Granted, the odds of Al Gore being right are much, much higher than the odds of Eric Julien being right, but where do you draw the line?
You can’t address every problem that carries a minor risk. That’s why we need science to tell us what kind of risk global warming presents.
June 20th, 2006 at 10:15 pm
For the past few years there have been two camps, and each come up with proofs and counter proofs to support their claims on global warming.
Maybe someone should ask the emperor penguins stuck on land because a huge iceberg has blocked their way to the sea…..
read the story here
But then people are too busy fighting wars and have no time to listen to penguin problems !!!!
June 20th, 2006 at 10:36 pm
Actually, Kevin, if Al Gore is wrong, we could cause the planet’s climate to overcompensate for our efforts and destablize the normal cycle of heating and cooling periods. Granted, that’s a really bad case scenario, but there’s danger no matter which direction we leap.
I think the main issue is that we’re still dealing with too small a dataset. No side yet has been able to properly predict the path global warming could take. In fact, in the 1970s, we were told we had 25 years to solve the issue of Global Warming or we’d all be dead. It’s been 25 years, and people are still ringing the death knell, so what is it? Now we’re told by Al Gore we have ten years before it’s too late. I have a feeling ten years from now we’ll still hear the same scare tactics and I’ll keep sweating every summer in Miami.
June 21st, 2006 at 3:19 am
I can’t beleive someone is citing junkscience.com as a credible source for anything. Why not just link to the Drudge Report while you are at it?
June 21st, 2006 at 4:29 am
Hi Max. You said:
“If Al Gore’s wrong, we will have wasted a lot of money, effort and resources eliminating greehhouse gasses.
Problem is if you are are wrong, we’re all dead.
So you gotta weigh the consequences…”
Yes. But if skeptics are wrong about anyone predicting Doomsday, then we’re all dead. Scientifically speaking, it’s not the potential consequences which must first be weighed, but the evidence, and nothing but the evidence.
An unanswered question remains unanswered even if knowing the answer can spell the difference between life & death.
June 21st, 2006 at 5:49 am
Santosh’s article is 5 years old.
June 21st, 2006 at 6:23 am
What disturbed me most about Gore’s interview was his dismissal – without even attempting to refute his statement – of the Canadian paleoclimatologist as a pawn of the sinister polluters. Where’s his evidence for that statement? And is what the scientist said true? Were CO2 levels at their highest during an ice age? If so, how is that not relevant? I would like a little better answer to those questions than just smearing the guy with some wacko conspiracy theory. That kind of argument puts Mr. Gore in the same boat with the flat-earthers….
June 21st, 2006 at 7:09 am
Note to those of you that continue to refuse to understand that we Homo sapiens sapiens have had direct effects on Spaceship Earth as no other “single” species has ever had:
WE ARE!
Yes, we are directly contributing to the increases in CO2 because we are burning the stored carbon in coal, oil, natural gas, methane, etc, pollution, jet-contrails, deforestation, desertification, the oceans, etc….
Past “hot” climates have happened before we evolved such as when the Siberian magmatic plutons erupted right through the coal, permafrost, and peat deposits significantly rising CO2 levels worldwide.
The Permian extinction was a sudden “hot” climate, too.
None-the-less, it won’t mean our extinction is near, it just means that significant climatic shifting will be taking place, sea-levels wll rise another 25 meters or so, and there will be biotic extinctions and evolutionary niches opening, etc.
It is more significant just what we will do as a species when climatic shifts get extreme and our species gets stressed out? We are the only single species on Spaceship Earth that can cause their own extinctions–nuclear, biological and chemical warfare. We don’t have a great history of a Utopian Species.
June 21st, 2006 at 7:17 am
Hmmm, maybe he really did mean Arizona. A Freudian Slip, perhaps? Maybe he knows the REAL TRUTH about the moon landings!
June 21st, 2006 at 8:18 am
Listen Chet,
No credible scientist is claiming a sea level increase of 25 meters, alright? Who ever told you that must have misunderstood the source. The most pessimistic studies say the sea level is rising between 2 to 3 mm/yr. That’s 6 to 9 inches every hundred years. The sea is not going to rise 25 meters any time soon.
In addition, the idea that a warmer climate will lead to less bio-diversity has been called into question over the last 30 years because it’s not happening. The Earth has warmed in the recent past, and we have observed no increased rate of species extinction. Not only that, but were still counting the number of species there are on Earth. It’s hard to get an accurate extinction rate when we don’t know how many species there are to begin with.
Humanity isn’t in danger from global warming, there are more important problems in this world.
June 21st, 2006 at 8:34 am
By the way. Mark Martin, I believe you mistyped in post 28512. I didn’t make the statement about the consequences of Al Gore being right, Kevin Conod did (28420). I was trying to correct him (28429).
June 21st, 2006 at 10:11 am
Other places than Area 51 have been suggested for the “soundstage” for the moon hoax believers.
Usually, they look for moon like features on the earth. So far, the Utah-Nevada test range (Somewhat south of the Bonneville salt flats) has been suggested as well as any number of ordinance testing facilities in the desert.
June 21st, 2006 at 10:22 am
junkscience dot com is the cesspit of Steve Milloy. I used to libnk to him, years ago, when his site just had a few articles that I thought were credible. He got more and more shrill, or perhaps I noiticed it more, but he is, from what I have read, bought and paid for by corporate interests. I would no more trust his site than I would the Discovery Institute.
June 21st, 2006 at 10:43 am
Hello Max. You said:
“By the way. Mark Martin, I believe you mistyped in post 28512. I didn’t make the statement about the consequences of Al Gore being right, Kevin Conod did (28420). I was trying to correct him (28429).”
Yes, you’re right. Sorry about that.
June 21st, 2006 at 11:30 am
No problem Mr. Martin.
The BA is not the first scientist I have heard discredit junkscience.com. So I am willing to withdraw my submission of it as evidence. If Mr. Milloy is considered uncreditable by so many scientists, he must be labeled as such.
I humbly submit as a substitute, the writings of such scientists as Patrick J. Michaels.
http://www.skepticism.net/faq/environment/global_warming/index.html
With particular emphasis on the question of scientific consensus on Global Warming.
June 21st, 2006 at 1:13 pm
Reducing pollution in and of itself cannot be considered a bad thing, even if you eliminate the Global Warming debate from the equation. “Greenhouse gases” are pollutants, regardless of their effect on the average global temperature, we should be working towards reducing/eliminating their emission.
Bearing that in mind, if Al Gore is wrong, that doesn’t mean humanity should ignore efforts to “clean up our act” so to speak.
June 21st, 2006 at 5:53 pm
I fully agree with you Jamie.
I believe that humans will naturally clean up there act. There are good reasons to abandon fossil fuels in favor of more environmentally conscientious energy sources, like nuclear. I have complete faith that if Al Gore is right, humans will stop global warming without help from him, or the government. I’m also quite confident that if the government does try to tackle the problem, they will ultimately make it worse. . .
June 21st, 2006 at 10:45 pm
And that’s really the rub there, Max. What problems have been fixed by any government getting involved? Problems get fixed when people as a whole decide to do the right thing. All of these hybrid cars are a move in the right direction, and true electric cars are just a generation away.
What I take umbrage with is this idea that we need to act RIGHT NOW. We’re not that dire, but something needs to be done. For the moment, prudent steps are being taken, but more drastic steps should be put aside until more data is compiled and the consequences better understood.
June 22nd, 2006 at 3:12 am
For those of you who are still sceptical about anthropogenic climate change, consider these points:
1) The mean surface temperature of the Earth has been increasing over the past 30 – 50 years. True, the data are very noisy, but the trend is there.
2) Almost all the world’s glaciers are smaller than they were 100 years ago. Where glaciers have grown (e.g. atop Mt. St. Helens), there are special circumstances. Both the Antarctic and the Greenland ice sheets are melting / thinnning / shrinking (choice of verb depending on type of measurement made). Glaciers all over the world are travelling faster than they used to (meltwater acting as a lubricant).
3) It is known that human activity has increased the global atmospheric concentration of gases such as CO2 and methane.
4) It is known that CO2 and methane make large contributions to the greenhouse effect.
5) By the time it is possible to prove a link between human activity and global warming, it may well be too late to do anything about it.
6) If I’m wrong, what have we got to lose? We develop more efficient ways of using energy. We develop means of generating electricity that do not use fossil fules (or at least, reduce the use of fossil fuels). We find / develop more efficient means of transport. Oil companies must diversify or go under. The Middle East becomes less important to the West. (Hey, maybe we’ll even leave them alone for a few decades?). Dubyah loses most of his support base (some might say this is a good thing).
7) If I’m right, we need to do something now or a large portion of the habitable surface of the Earth will be under water by the end of the century.
Join the dots, people!
June 22nd, 2006 at 5:59 am
“5) By the time it is possible to prove a link between human activity and global warming, it may well be too late to do anything about it.”
From this should one gather that you don’t actually consider it proven? If so, then what makes you think there’s anything for us to do something about?
June 22nd, 2006 at 8:23 am
read about “global warming” hoax at:
http://www.whatwouldronaldreagando.com/webpages/globalwarming.htm
June 22nd, 2006 at 10:40 am
I have two observations regarding the Global Warming debate. The first concerns the statement by Max Fagin (post # 28387)….
“The global decrease in temperature between 1940 and 1970…”
Don’t know who actually says this but I can understand if one applies the same reasons that determine the lag in the effect of seasonal temperature, which peaks some weeks after the theoretical midpoint of that season. Only in this much larger example concerning world temperatures, it is a lag of years. I’m sure in that macro-environment, it takes years for the effect to manifest itself. Has this been observed and noted?
The reason. Well, there was a Depression after the First World War, which generally lasted till the early Forties, when wartime industry really cranked up. There must have been a manyfold increase in the usual badguy gases being poured into the atmosphere. Then some tweaked to the relationship of the gases affecting the air we breathe and the destruction of the ozone layer. So now we are trying to cut these practices out, clean up our act and provide a better, clean and responsible outcome for all our manufacturing endeavours.
Well, that’s the plan anyway. That it is not happening overnight, is the reason why some folk feel it is not worthwhile and a waste of money and time. But, slowly it will have an effect. Just as the initial lag for any large effect, may take years or even decades, the repair or at least the acknowledgment of doing the wrong thing and ceasing and desisting will take time for meaningful results.
My second issue concerns a statement where somebody referred to West Antarctica. I cannot find the quote now, but the concept is curious. Just where IS West Antarctica? How does one actually indicate directions on a large scale? I guess it would not be much different from normal unless within sight of the South Pole. And probably Regions are more important to differentiate the concept of another place anyway. Or time zones?
Ivan.
June 22nd, 2006 at 10:46 am
Nigel,
I have posted about this before, but here it is again.
We have NO IDEA if the glaciers of our planet are melting. Got it? No idea.
There are over 160,000 glaciers on this planet. Do you know how many we have studied in any detail, say for longer than 5 years?
About 80.
So scientists have only studied .05% of this planets glaciers with any level of scientific precision. And a great deal of these glaciers are not melting. Some are, some aren’t.
I understand what your trying to say, you would rather humanity be on the safe side in case there actually is a “point of no return,†but you have abandoned the scientific method to arrive at that conclusion.
Your logic basically goes like this. The average global temperature is rising —> CO2 can cause global temperatures to rise —> Humans are emitting CO2 —> Humans are causing global warming.
I agree this logic makes sense, but logic is not scientific. That’s why we do science, Nigel. To see if our logical ideas are indeed factual. And when humans do the science to try to test this claim, we get a very pronounced “We don’t know.†Please try to understand that, everyone who reads this. We just don’t know. . .
June 25th, 2006 at 6:48 am
There has been studies correlating volcanic emmisions of CO2 with temperature increases that have helped refine the global warming models considerably. In fact they have shown a strong relationship between CO2 levels and temperature increase. With this thought in mind look at the CO2 output caused by humans since 1860:
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures/energyco2.cfm
1860
June 25th, 2006 at 6:48 am
There has been studies correlating volcanic emmisions of CO2 with temperature increases that have helped refine the global warming models considerably. In fact they have shown a strong relationship between CO2 levels and temperature increase. With this thought in mind look at the CO2 output caused by humans since 1860:
1860
June 25th, 2006 at 6:49 am
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures/energyco2.cfm
June 25th, 2006 at 6:52 pm
Mark Martin said:
“From this should one gather that you don’t actually consider it proven? If so, then what makes you think there’s anything for us to do something about?”
Obviously, I meant “proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, to the extent that even the CEO of Exxon will publicly endorse it”. Please credit me with some intelligence!
June 25th, 2006 at 7:02 pm
Max Fagin said:
“So scientists have only studied .05% of this planets glaciers with any level of scientific precision. And a great deal of these glaciers are not melting.”
If a glacier has retreated 500 metres uphill, you don’t need any huge precision to measure that. Satellite observations of glaciers over the last 30 years show most are shrinking. Old drawings have been compared with modern photographs to show that glaciers in places such as Alaska, Africa, Europe and the Himalayas are significantly smaller than they were 80-120 years ago. It doesn’t take scientific measurements to notice such enormous differences – all you need is a historic record of the position of the glacier and a modern photograph. These very large differences have been observed and reported.
And, if you look at the most extensive surveys, you will not find that “Some are, some aren’t”, you will find that most glaciers are shrinking, while a few are not.
Just read a few copies of New Scientist – they seem to mention studies of glaciers at least once every three months or so.
June 25th, 2006 at 7:13 pm
Max Fagin also said:
“We just don’t know.”
Perhaps you are correct in an absolute sense (i.e. we do not know for certain), but you must surely agree that science never deals in absolutes. You are using the “only a theory” argument that many anti-evolutionists use. Just because it has not been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt does not mean that it is an invalid conclusion. The preponderance of evidence (which, you may have noticed, I summarised too concisely to give any sense of its true extent) indicates that human activity is causing global climate change.
Currently, there is no evidence to the contrary, just uncertainty over several details (such as, for example, the relative contribution of vulcanism versus human activity).
I have noticed a trend in what I have read about climatology in the last 4-6 years. Every time we get new, more accurate measurements, we seem to end up with a firmer conclusion that global warming is (a) real, and/or (b) anthropogenic.
June 26th, 2006 at 6:58 am
Nigel Depledge says:
“Obviously, I meant “proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, to the extent that even the CEO of Exxon will publicly endorse itâ€. Please credit me with some intelligence!”
My apologies. But it wasn’t obvious to me at all. You chose the wording of your proposition. If you wish to prove something to others, you must use an argument which convinces them, not yourself. The words you put to that task can make all the difference in the world.
July 3rd, 2006 at 1:05 pm
Being that Mother Nature is female , do you really think she’s gonna let mankind dictate when she feels like being warm or cool? C’MON!!! Mother Nature is moody and she is getting a little hot for some reason or the other, and we just can’t seem to figure out why or put all the pieces together.
For you married guys, does this sound familiar? You’ll never understand the mood swings, you never seem to win any arguments, and you get scolded all the time because whatever it us, is not up to her standards. To stay married to her, you must simply adapt and accept the fact that she is an “unclimable mountain” of irrational reason and emotion.
We can’t fight mother nature folks, we must focus on how to adapt to her changes. Reducing man-made greenhouse emissions is futile. You’ll just end up “sleeping on the couch”.
Right now, I think that theory has more weight than what are scientists are currently coming up with.
Phil Plait….GREAT WEBSITE!!!!!
July 6th, 2006 at 12:01 am
Hello all. I am new, ignorant, but not stupid. I enjoy thinking scientifically and love rocks most. I’m a primary (1-3) teacher. I am intrigued by your dialogue and grateful that you have spent the life energy to contribute to the rest of us. I am writing because I want to know more about how we all are thinking about global energy/change/environmental issues.
My deepest question: I wonder what it would be like if all of us were on the same side… like,… what if Dubya and Al and you and I and our dear friends at JunkScience(with whom I am pissed right now because I am reviewing my understading of Rachel Carson and DDT and Integrity)… What if we just all wanted a wonderful, sweet, alive world, where everybody, including the penguins, had enough?
That would mean enough healthy air, water, space, food, and arrangement for everything alive.
Do we share that goal and value?
I don’t really worry about climate change, since I understand that it’s a very complex science, and we may not know what the human impact truly is on the global system. This does not seem to matter to me in the short run (read: my lifetime). What does matter is the fact that I am using more than I need, and my impact on resources is more than it needs to be. I checked my Carbon Footprint, and whether you care about the assumptions and calculations or not, I (as an American) am So Way Using More Than Everybody Else!!!!This is not an arguable fact. I’m an American, and I use much more than others like me on the planet use.
So, I am looking into ways to change these effects. And, I am writing in hopes of inspiring others to focus locally, and care in a way that is inclusive and loving and identifies common needs, because we will not prevail if we do not connect and love each other. I am sure about that.
I actually hope there is someone who believes that Rachel Carson was an accurate and objective researcher, and who can help me learn about the stuff on JunkScience that seems to refute her work… ack.!
Blessed Be, Missy
July 9th, 2006 at 8:21 pm
Nigel,
You accused me of using the “Only a theory†argument that is used by the opponents of evolution. I want to show you why that’s not true.
For something to be deemed a theory, it must satisfy two criteria.
1. It must provide a working model that explains and fits observable facts.
2. It must be able to make testable predictions about future events.
Some things which fall into this category are helio-centrism, continental drift, and, yes, evolution. Does that make these ideas any less true? Not at all.
But does global warming (the idea that humans are causing an increase in the average surface temperature of the Earth) fit the above criteria? No. As of the time of this writing, there are no climate models which can make reliable predictions about the future state of the climate. Thus, by strict scientific definitions, global warming isn’t a theory, it’s a hypothesis. It’s a proposed way of looking at and describing climate change. For global warming to be deemed a theory, it must move into the realm of predictions. That’s what defines a scientific theory; the ability to make future predictions.
It doesn’t matter how much evidence is present, if global warming doesn’t make predictions, it’s not a theory. There are strong theories like helio-centrism and evolution. But these theories are accepted by the scientific community because of their predictive power, not because of their preponderance of evidence.
Now I believe that global warming will someday make the step from hypothesis to theory, but not in its current form. Just like evolution, new global warming theories will have to be tried, modified, and discarded until the truth emerges. But until that time comes, the “just a theory†argument is specious because global warming is not a theory.
At least not yet. . .
August 1st, 2006 at 11:02 am
We’ve all read the facts (hopefully) for both sides of the argument on anthropogenic global warming, so I’m not going to change anybody’s mind by citing “such-and-such” study. Only further data can prove that one side is correct. Or if you’re Al Gore, we already have that data. Probably in a ‘lockbox’ somewhere
However, I have a problem with one of Nigel’s points:
“If I’m wrong, what have we got to lose? We develop more efficient ways of using energy. We develop means of generating electricity that do not use fossil fules (or at least, reduce the use of fossil fuels….”, and so on.
I feel like a lot of environmentalists jump on the global warming bandwagon because it seeks the same end result they do: less pollution, cleaner forms of energy, worldwide conservation, recycling. Getting behind global warming and then saying that “at least we did the world some other kind of good” if it turns out to be false is a cop-out. Stick with your beliefs for the right reason, and don’t endorse something you aren’t fully educated in. I’m not necessarily accusing Nigel of that, but that argument is word for word what I hear from environmentalists with no scientific background.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:22 am
[...] people will tell me having a named storm this early in the year is a result of global warming tho. And of course, if I question that assertion, SOME people will claim I believe in UFO’s and a …. So, I’m gonna nip it in the bud and make the claim now that since this cloudburst does not [...]
May 24th, 2007 at 6:39 am
Global warming has nothing to do with hurricanes?…
CNN is reporting this:
Hurricanes over the past 5,000 years appear to have been controlled more by El Nino and an African monsoon than warm sea surface temperatures, such as those caused by global warming, researchers said Wednesday.
The study, publish…
July 6th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Roswell just won’t go away……….
Not too long ago, I was referred to in an unflattering way by Al Gore ( et al ):
…the people who still say that global warming isn’t real are actually in the same boat with the flat earth society. They get together and party on Saturday nights …