the last assumption we made about the earth was wrong... it wasn't flat... yet at the time the facts were considered undisputable.

3/24/2007 9:59:47 PM

^ Exactly. It's a point I've made before. Here are just a few examples of similar positions:

Quote :

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."

Lord Kelvin of the British Royal Society, one of the nineteenth century's top experts on thermodynamics, 1890s

Quote :

"There is no likelihood that man can ever tap the power of the atom."

Nobel Prize-winning physicist Robert Milliken, 1923

Quote :

"There is no need for any individual to have a computer in their home."

Ken Olson, president of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977

It doesn't matter, though. The alarmists and their sympathizers will take issue with the validity of these type of quotations, spew some blather about modern computing power, or claim that today's experts are just plain smarter than their predecessors--or the naysayers will simply dismiss the scientific mistakes of the past without any explanation for doing so. Unfortunately, these alarmists worship in the new church of academia and science while ignoring the fallibility of academia and science.

3/25/2007 2:27:11 AM

actually, no one ever actually claimed the earth was flat. BUT, Washington Irving claimed that people claimed the earth was flat once... It made for a great story. kinda like this global warming shit.

3/26/2007 11:40:11 PM

so the argument against global warming is that scientists are sometimes wrong and therefore their opinions dont matter?

3/27/2007 12:11:46 AM

My argument is that the problem is overhyped and that a little bit of warming won't cause too many problems.

3/27/2007 12:14:37 AM

Quote :

"My argument is that the problem is overhyped and that a little bit of warming won't cause too many problems."

how on earth would you know that?

3/27/2007 9:13:14 AM

Because threatening issues like these are usually exaggerated and overhyped by scientists and the media in order to get the public's attention.

3/27/2007 9:18:04 AM

^ You mean like this?

Quote :

"Politically, [NASA scientist James] Hansen calls himself an independent and he’s had trouble with both parties. He says, from time to time, the Clinton administration wanted to hear warming was worse that it was [emphasis added]. But Hansen refused to spin the science that way."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml

Or this?

Quote :

"Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis."

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/






[Edited on March 27, 2007 at 9:34 AM. Reason : Except that Gore is playing scientist in the media. ]

3/27/2007 9:28:51 AM

Quote :

"so the argument against global warming is that scientists are sometimes wrong and therefore their opinions dont matter?"

scientists are rarely wrong when they perform a scientific experiment according to the scientific method, by taking their time, performing enough trials, focusing on a narrow and specific hypothesis, etc...they are often wrong when they take a specific hypothesis and start making large conclusions about what may be happening

3/27/2007 9:54:52 AM

hehe, there's an inconvenient truth for you

3/27/2007 1:30:56 PM

Quote :

"There are hundreds of thousands of people who adore you and would follow your example by reducing their energy usage if you did. Don’t give us the run-around on carbon offsets or the gimmicks the wealthy do. Are you willing to make a commitment here today by taking this pledge to consume no more energy for use in your residence than the average American household by one year from today?"

4/2/2007 12:06:32 PM

Going Green -- or Gifting a Right to Pollute?

Quote :

"Former Vice President Al Gore, now campaigning against global warming, recently got in a jam because he lives in a 20-room house with a $30,000 utility bill. Gore said his life is 'carbon neutral' because he buys offsets. But Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, believes this is all well-intentioned — but possibly off the mark. 'In many cases, it reminds me of the Middle Ages, where a sinner would buy indulgences from the church to make up for their misdeeds, and then they'd go right back to sinning,' O'Donnell said. 'I mean, it really doesn't change things.'"

http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/GlobalWarming/story?id=3064063&page=1

4/22/2007 10:25:05 PM

strange to think that his house, which also funtions as an office would pollute more than your house which does not function as your office.

4/22/2007 10:30:33 PM

^ My townhouse actually does "funtion" as my office--I telecommute, which is something Gore and others should try. You really shouldn't make assumptions.

4/22/2007 10:47:18 PM

public speakers should telecommute?

4/23/2007 3:17:16 PM

^ Um. . .have you ever heard of video conferencing communications?

Quote :

"A discussion between two or more groups of people who are in different places but can see and hear each other using electronic communications. Pictures and sound are carried by the telecommunication network and such conferences can take place across the world [emphasis added]."

I mean, if saving the planet from C02--oh, the horror--is really that important, it should be an easy sacrifice, right?

Owned yet again.

[Edited on April 24, 2007 at 12:57 AM. Reason : .]

4/24/2007 12:47:43 AM

From an engineering standpoint, the practice which yields the least benefit per ton of CO2 and therefore should be abandoned first is the air-freight of durable goods such as electronics and clothing.

If we really want to cut CO2 production then instituting a carbon tax would quickly price such behavior out of the global economy while remaining barely noticed price-wise to more valued practices such as driving to work, flying to a distant vacation, airborne package delivery, airborne distribution of perishable foods, etc. At the same time, many companies will give up the corporate jet and go back to first class.

Of course, at the same time, it will raise revenue that the Government could use to cut income taxes. Last I heard, the carbon tax suggested would be used to eliminate the Social Security Payroll Tax. Prices for many things will go up and lots of economists will have fun tracking the price fluctuations across industries and regions. In North Carolina, it would mean another 5 cents or so per gallon of gasoline, higher gas bills, higher shipping costs, etc. North Carolina gets 60% of its electricity from coal, so utility bills will increase a bit. But people should remember that fuel costs are only a small fraction of any given price, so overall prices should rise very little.

Any objectors?

4/24/2007 1:36:16 AM

Here's an Inconvenient Truth for you:

Quote :

"Industry caught in carbon ‘smokescreen’ By Fiona Harvey and Stephen Fidler in London Published: April 25 2007 22:07 | Last updated: April 25 2007 22:07 Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on “carbon credit” projects that yield few if any environmental benefits. A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place. Others are meanwhile making big profits from carbon trading for very small expenditure and in some cases for clean-ups that they would have made anyway. The growing political salience of environmental politics has sparked a 'green gold rush', which has seen a dramatic expansion in the number of businesses offering both companies and individuals the chance to go 'carbon neutral', offsetting their own energy use by buying carbon credits that cancel out their contribution to global warming. The burgeoning regulated market for carbon credits is expected to more than double in size to about $68.2bn by 2010, with the unregulated voluntary sector rising to $4bn in the same period."

Quote :

"The FT investigation found: * Widespread instances of people and organisations buying worthless credits that do not yield any reductions in carbon emissions. * Industrial companies profiting from doing very little – or from gaining carbon credits on the basis of efficiency gains from which they have already benefited substantially. * Brokers providing services of questionable or no value. * A shortage of verification, making it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits. * Companies and individuals being charged over the odds for the private purchase of European Union carbon permits that have plummeted in value because they do not result in emissions cuts. Francis Sullivan, environment adviser at HSBC, the UK’s biggest bank that went carbon-neutral in 2005, said he found 'serious credibility concerns' in the offsetting market after evaluating it for several months."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48e334ce-f355-11db-9845-000b5df10621.html

[Edited on April 26, 2007 at 12:25 PM. Reason : .]

4/26/2007 12:23:02 PM

Hey guys, lets list all of the things science got wrong without taking into account any of the things that they got right. That's good logic.

4/26/2007 12:56:18 PM

^ So, are you admitting that carbon offsets are "wrong"? And do you apply this approach to the Bush administration's efforts?

Careful--you're in the deep end now, son.

[Edited on April 26, 2007 at 1:07 PM. Reason : .]

4/26/2007 1:05:01 PM

hey guys, lets learn everything we can about the science of climate change from a politician

4/26/2007 1:05:38 PM

^^^ "Hey guys"? Sexist.

[Edited on April 26, 2007 at 1:10 PM. Reason : .]

4/26/2007 1:09:11 PM

These imaginary carbon credits are awesome! I think I'll sell some and become rich. Who's interested.

4/26/2007 1:27:40 PM

^ Hey, could I get some fast-food and beer offsets? Thx!

4/26/2007 1:33:07 PM

"Carbon credits" sound like the junk bonds of 2007

oh, and TreeTwista, remind me again what company Gore owns or is highly invested in or whatnot that is a carbon credit company... thx. i'm too lazy to google, so Imma pass a few Google-credits your way later this week

[Edited on April 30, 2007 at 12:51 AM. Reason : ]

4/30/2007 12:50:17 AM

Quote :

"Is there any point in pretending that CO2 increases will be catastrophic? Or could they be modest and on balance beneficial? India has warmed during the second half of the 20th century, and agricultural output has increased greatly. Infectious diseases like malaria are a matter not so much of temperature as poverty and public-health policies (like eliminating DDT). Exposure to cold is generally found to be both more dangerous and less comfortable. Moreover, actions taken thus far to reduce emissions have already had negative consequences without improving our ability to adapt to climate change. An emphasis on ethanol, for instance, has led to angry protests against corn-price increases in Mexico, and forest clearing and habitat destruction in Southeast Asia. Carbon caps are likely to lead to increased prices, as well as corruption associated with permit trading. (Enron was a leading lobbyist for Kyoto because it had hoped to capitalize on emissions trading.) The alleged solutions have more potential for catastrophe than the putative problem. The conclusion of the late climate scientist Roger Revelle—Al Gore's supposed mentor—is worth pondering: the evidence for global warming thus far doesn't warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/

Quote :

"[Richard] Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies."

5/1/2007 4:28:16 PM

WHAT THE FUCK DO METEORS HAVE TO DO WITH CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE WEATHER? jeeez...

5/1/2007 4:30:45 PM

^ Yeah, the attacks to come will probably be something like that--or the typical "OH NOES" or "hooksaw's a retard" trinkets.

5/1/2007 4:37:24 PM

Showing that he's been funded by the US govt (especially the current administration) doesn't really make him a credible source. Interesting stuff though.

5/1/2007 4:43:35 PM

^ nice rebuttal.

5/1/2007 4:50:27 PM

So you agree with Lindzen that humans are causing Global Warming?

5/1/2007 6:16:31 PM

i don't really see that anyone could logically conclude that Lindzen is saying that humans are causing GW... sorry, mang

5/1/2007 9:05:31 PM

^^^^ Lindzen has been funded by administrations other than the current one. In addition, I simply copied and pasted the disclaimer at the bottom of the article, which was probably put there because even PMSNBC is tired of the old evil-Exxon-person argument.

Here are some of Lindzen's achievements and honors:

Quote :

"He has published papers on Hadley circulation, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, hydrodynamic instability, mid-latitude weather, global heat transport, the water cycle, and their roles in climate change, ice ages, seasonal atmospheric effects. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the Science and Economic Advisory Council of the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy. He previously held positions at the University of Chicago and Harvard University, and was a contributer to Chapter 4 of the 'IPCC Second Assessment', 'Climate Change 1995'. He is known for pioneering the study of ozone photochemistry, and advised several student theses on the subject. Prof. Lindzen is a recipient of the AMS's Meisinger, and Charney Awards, and AGU's Macelwane Medal. He is a corresponding member of the NAS Committee on Human Rights, a member of the NRC Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, and a Fellow of the AAAS1. He is a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. (Ph.D., '64, S.M., '61, A.B., '60, Harvard University)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

5/1/2007 10:26:18 PM

Quote :

"i don't really see that anyone could logically conclude that Lindzen is saying that humans are causing GW... sorry, mang"

read the article

Quote :

"There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true."

5/2/2007 12:01:24 AM

^you need to dig a little deeper and read more of what he's said. Your interpretaton is ridiculously out of context

5/2/2007 12:04:47 AM

and, his assertion is totally wrong. Nowhere does Lindzen say "humans are causing GW." At best, he says we may be "contributing to it," though he downplays even that

5/2/2007 12:55:20 AM

^^^ Here's the rest of that paragraph.

Quote :

"[Concerning net warming of the earth and greenhouse gas emissions] What of it? Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentators—and many scientists—seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainty about climate is that it changes. The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare. Looking back on the earth's climate history, it's apparent that there's no such thing as an optimal temperature—a climate at which everything is just right. The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week [emphasis added]."

[Edited on May 2, 2007 at 1:20 AM. Reason : .]

5/2/2007 1:19:00 AM

we don't live in a perfect world, but a large majority of our civilization has been built to the current environment. any deviation and we'd have to adapt

5/2/2007 1:36:30 AM

^ You mean like turning the AC temp down? I'd be willing to do that.

5/2/2007 1:43:13 AM

Quote :

"but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week"

it's not really that hard to figure out why long-term predictions would be easier to make than the exact weather of a given day.

for instance, predicting the overall trend for say the stock market growth over a 20 year period would be easier than guessing the exact close to the dow a week from now. (not to say that either is necessarily doable, but the long term trend is easier.)

people with this seemingly deliberately simplistic notion that the chaotic nature of weather extends into climate is pretty aggravating.

5/2/2007 10:30:10 AM

Quote :

"for instance, predicting the overall trend for say the stock market growth over a 20 year period would be easier than guessing the exact close to the dow a week from now. (not to say that either is necessarily doable, but the long term trend is easier.) "

how can you say the long term trend is easier to predict? at least you admit that neither is necessarily doable, just like predicting the weather and climate are not necessarily doable

5/2/2007 11:02:30 AM

Quote :

"we don't live in a perfect world, but a large majority of our civilization has been built to the current environment. any deviation and we'd have to adapt"

The climate was constantly changing long before we came along, and will continue to change long after we're gone. If you think we have the power to offset this you're gravely mistaken.

5/2/2007 1:13:50 PM

Quote :

"how can you say the long term trend is easier to predict? at least you admit that neither is necessarily doable, just like predicting the weather and climate are not necessarily doable"

because when the day to day fluctuations are ignored, the weather becomes a more simple thing to predict. there are more predictable trends than a random freak thunderstorm for instance.

Quote :

"The climate was constantly changing long before we came along, and will continue to change long after we're gone. If you think we have the power to offset this you're gravely mistaken."

what gives you the authority to make this bold statement?

[Edited on May 2, 2007 at 1:21 PM. Reason : .]

5/2/2007 1:20:25 PM

Quote :

"because when the day to day fluctuations are ignored, the weather becomes a more simple thing to predict. there are more predictable trends than a random freak thunderstorm for instance"

predictable trends...such as it gets hotter from february/march until august/september, then it gets colder from august/september to february/march? is that one of the predictable trends? well how about applying that same logic to predictable climate trends, like an ice age every 100,000 years? kinda makes a 2 degree temperature increase over the last 100 years seem like a "random freak thunderstorm" doesnt it

5/2/2007 1:26:24 PM

yes.

thus making the ACTUAL freak thunderstorm still harder to predict than centuries-long trends

5/2/2007 1:28:23 PM

^^facts, thats what. Sendiment records, ice core samples, etc, etc.

5/2/2007 1:29:15 PM

^doesn't do anything to prove

Quote :

" If you think we have the power to offset this you're gravely mistaken."

5/2/2007 1:29:58 PM

Quote :

"yes. thus making the ACTUAL freak thunderstorm still harder to predict than centuries-long trends "

thus making the actual 100 year 2 degree increase a relative freak occurrance and not some definite anthrodisaster

5/2/2007 1:31:07 PM

perhaps. that's yet to be decisively determined, but using the logic "well we can't predict the weather next week how can we predict the weather in 50 years!?!?!" argument is dumb. that's all i was saying.

5/2/2007 1:32:34 PM

^^^then by all means why don't you state what we could impliment to "stop" the earth's climate from constant change, lol.

5/2/2007 1:35:10 PM