vii: oracle jr. - soapbox moment on climate change
oracle jr. speaks types out ...
"Global Warmthink is resurrected druidism given a pseudoscientific face."
(the Vault-co)
(the Vault-co)
I love this! I couldn't resist this Orwellian reference in this media created middle-ages approach to a scientific debate. There was a climate change conference in Brussels where the top scientist in the world were discussing how uncomfortable they have become with the media-drive approach to the arguments...which inevitably leads to hyperbole and exaggeration (NY Times story). Their contention; "Statements are being made as fact that are unsupported and out of context." Really?! How 'bout we begin with "Climate change is a man-made event." No supposition there, huh? It may be strongly influenced by human activity, but there has been thermal and temporal cycles in atmospheric composition since the beginning of time -- not just since we started keeping records.
(Whisper: "Al Gore is not a climatologist." ) He isn't even a good tobacco farmer. He's playing the game created by Jimmy Carter; that is, if you couldn't accomplish anything of substance when you held elected authority that would engender historical reflection; just find an issue that has an emotive component with the American liberal constituency and play it until it won't play no more." Jimmy picked Habitat for Humanity; Al's got Global Warming. Both admirable causes. Both men uniquely unqualified to be the spokesman for their cause.
Just looking at the three figures below... derived from data available to everyone in the debate...do you see any periodicity or trending? Hum???
Have you even ever heard any reference to Sunspot activity or the Vostok ice cores in the media debates? Now, what data is the "Incontinent Truth"? I remember talking with Caper's staff about this and they simply didn't care...it's not all science it's mostly policy and a boatload of showmanship.I relinquish my position from atop of the soapbox....
posted by shirlnutkin @ 3:32 PM
3 Comments:
oh my gosh. people always use this argument as a trump card, without actually looking into the scientific explanations for today's climate change, and demonstrating that they do not know what they're talking about.
"there has been thermal and temporal cycles in atmospheric composition since the beginning of time -- not just since we started keeping records."
anyone who has studied climate change knows this. and knows about ice core data. the factors that could cause a natural forcing of climate (e.g. Milankovich cycles) do not explain today's warming trends. theory predicts that a 35% increase in carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, would increase temperature.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/22147/335
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
- m
An unfortunate industry has arisen to "explain" away science. Generally, the attack is bring in material unrelated information and pretend that it is important. For example, there was a strong correlation between the Dow Jones Industrial average and the number of times the Washington Senators baseball team struck out during a season.
Establishing causality is much more than correlation.
The sprious correlations in the original item is just that; "so what?"
It would be very nice to get these people into a forum where reasoned debate would occur and expose the industry of fraudulence.
i love it! - b
Post a Comment
<< Home