#130 (3614124) charles 0 [2007-03-04 19:57:13]
Am I convinced GLOBAL WARMING is a hoax? Not 100%. Maybe 95%.
But after reading Crichton's book, with its voluminous research and documentation, and after speaking at length with a good friend who is a climatologist, I'm almost certain that at the very least, the danger is being greatly exaggerated for political reasons.
#34 (4103838) charles 0 [2007-08-10 10:51:28]
re: #22 justnobody
Is this really significant? So there's one mistake in one chart that was published by NASA. That surely can't undermine the whole GLOBAL WARMING thesis.
Read the article. It's not 'one mistake in one chart.'
#135 (5501201) charles 8 [2008-06-27 12:47:16]
re: #62 lawhawk
Folks, here's a copy of the law in question. Also posted to the spinoffs.
The bits about GLOBAL WARMING and cloning are just window dressing.
Although as zombie points out, they're not harmless either. Their inclusion makes the political motivations behind this education bill even more obvious.
#1035 (5533848) charles 13 [2008-07-05 09:36:54]
re: #1032 aidos
I'm certain it is a completely true statement. I don't doubt that at all. It is as true as Al Gore's statement that man-made GLOBAL WARMING is 'real' and that 'the debate is over'. I'm assured of the veracity of his statements daily by integrity-laced law makers the world round, infallible UN appointees, genius actors, and even our two awesome Presidential candidates. They all assure me that scientists, all sane, pure-bread scientists, anyway, say man-made GLOBAL WARMING is proven, unadulterated science. Why would they lie? Long live science, and long live truth.
See, there are things known as 'facts,' and I took the time to look into whether there actually were any peer-reviewed ID papers published by scientific journals. The fact is, there were not. None. Zilch. Zip. Zero.
You can have your own opinions, but you don't get to have your own facts.
#191 (5587641) charles 2 [2008-07-17 14:54:16]
re: #183 Tigger2005
In the links above, there's a story about a society of physicists numbering over 50,000 members that is strongly questioning the IPCC 'consensus' on man-made GLOBAL WARMING.
I have that study open in a browser window right now. Looks like Greek to me.
But the conclusion is very interesting.
#504 (6222311) charles 1 [2008-11-13 12:25:32]
The science of GLOBAL WARMING is far from settled, and many people are debating the meaning of the data.
However... it's a little foolish to argue that the whole thing is a hoax, and there's no evidence for human impact on the Earth's CLIMATE. There is evidence, and a lot of it, that the activities of human beings are having a very significant effect.
I'm no expert, and I haven't reached any conclusions on it. But the 'GLOBAL WARMING' hypothesis can't simply be dismissed as kookery.
#520 (6373886) charles 5 [2008-12-14 14:05:36]
re: #519 Spar Kling
GLOBAL WARMING is bad science?
Sorry, but I think Dr. Scott and the other staff on the National Center for Science Education would lump you in with the creationists, ID'ers, and other 'nut cases' on this one. The science is settled. If you don't think so, you can email Dr. Scott and see. Her email is posted on the NCSE website.
For a discussion about the lack of peer-reviewed papers by CLIMATE change deniers, and whether the deniers are actually scientists, see this:
Incidentally, I read the link you provided in your post. I found it interesting in that it analyzed the structure of the debate. There is a lot of bad science around.
To bring this discussion back again to Charles' historic contributions in exposing media fakery, the work he did in the political arena is parallel to that of scientists exposing fraud in areas such as cancer research and cloning (as with Dr. Hwang Woo-Suk), but is ground-breaking in that he is at the forefront of the new citizen-based journalism, hence the peer-reviewed paper. Again, my hat's off to him for his important contributions.
You, on the other hand, have proven yourself to be a very disingenuous and dishonest poster at LGF, promising to show us a list of peer-reviewed articles in favor of intelligent design, then coming up with ONE long-debunked article that was published in a scientific journal under false pretenses, and in specific contravention of the journal's policies. Your defense of the article came straight from the Discovery Institute's talking points, and it was obvious to anyone paying attention.
Then you claimed that your opinions should carry more weight because you have a 'scientific degree,' but refused to say what field of science, claiming it would be 'revealing personal information.' Your credibility is absolutely nil.
#325 (6395408) charles 1 [2008-12-18 15:44:25]
re: #318 Basho
On a slightly on-topic note... What's with HotAir and Ace of Spades suddenly turning into CLIMATE denialist blogs? There's about a post or two a day on that. The list of sane political blogs is shrinking =/
It's going to be the next ugly fight on the right, because Obama is going to push hard for legislation and international commitments that are going to rub a lot of people the wrong way. (If he keeps his promises, that is.)
It's absolutely true that some of the CLIMATE change people are dogmatic almost to the point of religiosity. But it's also true this isn't a really clear cut issue, there is evidence that cuts in both directions, and some of the people on the right haven't behaved all that well, either. There's been falsifying and distortion on both sides.
It's a mistake to dismiss all the evidence for human-induced CLIMATE change. And ultimately, it's a cause that conservatives ought to be able to get behind: responsible stewardship of the planet's resources.
#284 (6403565) charles 12 [2008-12-20 10:43:15]
I think we should be skeptical of the CLIMATE change wisdom handed down by people like Al Gore. But we also need to watch out for people like Inhofe. And yes, call me names if you like, but any connection with creationism immediately closes the credibility door for me.
#304 (6679904) charles 11 [2009-02-09 17:41:34]
I'm probably going to piss off our GOP hard cases even more soon, because I've been making an effort to research and understand the debate over CLIMATE change for the past few months, and I'm seeing a lot of the same Republican dishonesty as I see in the ID debate. I'm not ready to endorse CLIMATE change the way the left has, but there are serious problems with the way it's being portrayed by people like James Inhofe.
#1062 (6946826) charles 12 [2009-03-28 18:43:53]
re: #1000 Steffan
My take on this is that Al Gore and the other AGW pushers are just as much con men as the Bakkers and other televangelists. They use their faithful audiences' credulity to milk the marks of all they can get.
Remember the gold-plated bathroom fixtures that Jim and Tammy-Faye had? Al Gore's energy-hog mansion would appear to be exactly the same, though Gore hasn't built an AGW theme park. Yet.
I agree. That's part of what makes this whole AGW mess so difficult to sort out -- there's a lot of flak in the air.
But there's more than one group on the anti-AGW side that's dominated by spin-meisters and dishonest hucksters too. James Inhofe's site is a prime example. Inhofe is a Christian Reconstructionist whose views are exactly like the ones that started this thread, and his anti-AGW website is packed full of distortions and dishonesty.
Al Gore is the public face of the AGW side, but he is not a scientist, and AGW is NOT 'Al Gore's theory.' There's a lot of real scientific evidence that CLIMATE change is being caused by human beings; I know it's not popular on the right to say that, but the more I learn about the issue the more I'm leaning toward the idea that there really is a problem.
That doesn't mean I agree with the left's proposed SOLUTIONS to that problem, but I do think the right needs to stop being in simple denial mode, and start examining the data dispassionately and coming up with viable solutions that make sense from a conservative viewpoint.