The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info -----------------------
Last updated on March 6th, 2018 at 12:31 am
Environmentaloid David Roberts rips into Kyle Smith’s review of An Inconvenient Truth, declaring that “nearly every sentence is wrong.” Hmm. Here’s the opening sentence from Roberts:
In the right-wing broadsheet New York Post, movie critic Kyle Smith has a review of An Inconvenient Truth that virtually defies mockery.
The Post converted to a tabloid format in 1933. Oops.
UPDATE. Corrected. Glad to be of assistance.
- Hey Tim – are you up for The Bulletin’s editor’s job? News here
— Nora
Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2006 06 06 at 01:10 AM • permalink
- You just can’t make up shit like this- from comments attached to the above blather:- Culture: This is a pet peeve of mine. To be called “culturally educated,” you must be aware of global politics, have read a recent book, and/or have seen a film-festival film. Maybe be familiar with a Shakespeare play. At a cocktail party, these are all fair game for stimulating, adult conversation. But bring up any current scientific topic? “I don’t know anything about that” is an acceptable response. When I was a grad student, English majors would expound upon (and expect me to follow) their theses; when I brought up my research, the response was, “Oh, that could be interesting.” Science literacy is not seen as a necessity in this culture, and, even worse, science illiteracy is seen as acceptable.
So seeing a Viennese lesbian smear herself with vegemite while being watched by some pillock wearing a vase on his head and a tea-cosy on his plonker makes you culturally educated, or having read “ a recent book” does likewise? Does that include the operators manual for a 2006 Chrysler 300C, after all it’s a hardcover. What about if you watched the DVD of the fucking awful Baz Luhrmann take on the Capulets and the Montague’s turf war?
All this coming from someone not only illiterate but obviously pig-ignorant in the sciences; if there was only one or two of ‘em it’d be funny, but they’re in plague proportions.
- I am available as a referee for Tim-may/Margo “fair and reasonable” Blaa-eurgh, should he require one.Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 06 06 at 01:17 AM • permalink
- Who the hell goes to cocktail parties?, and these people claim the right wing is out of touch.Posted by Daniel San on 2006 06 06 at 01:23 AM • permalink
- #5 Who the hell goes to cocktail parties?
We do old chap. We Charles’ are famous for them (the occasional murder solving aside).
— Nora
Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2006 06 06 at 01:24 AM • permalink
- #6 Nora,
I stand corrected. Flats or heels?.Posted by Daniel San on 2006 06 06 at 01:47 AM • permalink
- I love the way Roberts high-mindedly castigates Kyle Smith for descending to sheer “reptile-brain, partisan warfare”, then in the very next sentence labels Kyle a “media brownshirt”.
And I’m confused: Roberts assures me that there is no longer ‘widespread disagreement’ about climate change, but then asserts (correctly) that there are ‘thousands and thousands of Kyles out there’. Gee, I dunno, but that sounds like ‘widespread disagreement to me’.
- #7 Daniel,
I prefer heels (typically from the recommendations of Manolo The Shoe Blogger). Nick always looks dashing in a pair of wing tips.— Nora
Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 2006 06 06 at 02:09 AM • permalink
- #9 Nora,
Thanks for the link, highly amusing. Do you think Manolo might be…um…”good with colours”?.Posted by Daniel San on 2006 06 06 at 02:25 AM • permalink
- Sounds like Tim uttered an Inconvenient Truth with respect to David Robert’s assertion.Posted by wronwright on 2006 06 06 at 05:34 AM • permalink
- Daniel San — That’s The Manolo.Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 06 06 at 06:29 AM • permalink
And I’m confused: Roberts assures me that there is no longer ‘widespread disagreement’ about climate change, but then asserts (correctly) that there are ‘thousands and thousands of Kyles out there’. Gee, I dunno, but that sounds like ‘widespread disagreement to me’.
Posted by cuckoo on 2006 06 06 at 01:55 AMThe point was that there isn’t widespread disagreement among climate scientists. This was hinted at by the link provided in that sentence. You can click it with your mouse and it will load another web page.
Whether there is one or thousands of non-climate-scientists who disagree on the issue of climate change they still don’t count for nought. You still just have a number of uninformed people talking crap about what scientists’ opinions are. How large that number of people is is irrelevant.
No doubt you’ll be exploring that issue to death over the next few months/years with random uninformed people (apart from what they read about Russia a couple of decades ago) who disagree about how safe 21st century nuclear energy is.
This article relates to the review of 1000 peer reviewed articles appearing in scientific journals over a 10 year period which include the term “climate change”. 75% of them confirm it as part of their research, 25% do not concern a subject which requires an opinion and 0% disagree that climate change is occurring.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686There are absolutely NO articles available examining the concensus position in the scientific community on whether increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increase global warming trends. That’s because if you don’t get to call yourself a scientist if you don’t pass science.
That pretty much just leaves one point of contention. Whether current climate change patterns are part of normal global cycles or whether they are being caused by human activity.
While the article linked does note a that all peak scientific bodies in the US have formed an opinion that this climate change is likely to be caused by the human activity, examing what those studies attributed the cause to was not it’s focus.
There could certainly be something other than humans that caused these global increases in greenhouse gases which just happened to coincide with the industrial era over the past 200 years…
http://www.research.noaa.gov/climate/observing3.html…and which becomes a practically vertical trend when compared to those natural earth cycles that usually enter the discussion at some point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.pngBut we’re just left to guess what that might be. It would certainly help if someone appearing to disagree with these conclusions would just post a peer reviewed study to contend them or even just a plausible suggestion as to what other than human activity and industry has caused these trends, but so far all we seem to get is sarcasm and jokes about environmentalists and liberals.
Then again I guess if they stuck their neck out further than just making the same joke about polar bears every time the issue was raised they’d have to go from appearing to disagree to actually having to disagree. And that would take something approaching the existance of balls, or even just a stated position, so don’t hold your breath.
Speaking of long term trends, here’s a graph indicating how many times you’ll have to pretend the same quips about polar bears etc are funny over the next few years in absence of a more substantial reason to not accept what scientists tell you is reality:
http://www.cgrer.uiowa.edu/newsletters/fall1994/co2.gifIt works just as well for believers in creationist science for plotting the number of explanations of how all those dinosaurs fit on the ark those agenda-driven scientists are trying to trick you into believing are false.
- Get your own blog, Tank. Nobody wants to read your 3000-word essays here.Posted by Some0Seppo on 2006 06 06 at 10:11 AM • permalink
Whether there is one or thousands of non-climate-scientists who disagree on the issue of climate change they still don’t count for nought. You still just have a number of uninformed people talking crap about what scientists’ opinions are. How large that number of people is is irrelevant.
So, Tank, which category do you fit under: a disagreeing non-climate-scientist, a climate scientist, or an uninformed person talking crap about what scientists’ opinions are?
I mean, unless you yourself are a climate scientist, you are just “talking crap”…..by your own logic.
See? The “appeal to authority” argument is a two-edged blade. You are the second person to shoot themselves in the foot in the past week. Did that Gorezilla movie get you all cranked up about us eeeeeeevvvuuuulllll neo-cons or something?
Once again: science is not about consensus. It’s about the scientific method. Which is lacking in many ways within the “climate change” hysteria discussions. And one doesn’t need to be a scientist to understand and appreciate the scientific method.
And since I (and others like me) eventually pay the bill, I feel fully entitled to offer an opinion on the subject. Whether you like it or not.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 06 06 at 10:23 AM • permalink
So, Tank, which category do you fit under: a disagreeing non-climate-scientist, a climate scientist, or an uninformed person talking crap about what scientists’ opinions are?
An uninformed person pointing you to the consensus position of climate scientists and the very obvious trends in greenhouse gases which nobody disagrees influence global temperatures and weather patterns.
I have my own opinions about nuclear energy too but they count for shit just like yours next to the opinions of scientists in that field. Pretty simple concept.
See? The “appeal to authority” argument is a two-edged blade. You are the second person to shoot themselves in the foot in the past week. Did that Gorezilla movie get you all cranked up about us eeeeeeevvvuuuulllll neo-cons or something?
I have no idea what any of that is supposed to mean. “Shooting yourself in the foot” suggests an obvious, large mistake than undercuts an position so probably start there.
Once again: science is not about consensus. It’s about the scientific method. Which is lacking in many ways within the “climate change” hysteria discussions. And one doesn’t need to be a scientist to understand and appreciate the scientific method.
Feel free to explain how it is lacking if you don’t need any specialist knowledge to.
And since I (and others like me) eventually pay the bill, I feel fully entitled to offer an opinion on the subject. Whether you like it or not.
Then go for it.
I did hint in what I wrote that this is precisely what was lacking and what everyone is waiting for.
- Tank, in the late 1800s (when Lord Rutherford was the pre-eminent physicist of the time) there was a scientific consensus that the sun would necessarily ‘burn out’ in something like 50,000 years time.
This was because the knew pretty much nothing about nuclear physics and assumed the sun was made of some normally flammable material.
So much for science by consensus.
If you look at global climate trends over millenia rather than decades you find even greater change than today, and industrialization has only been around for 200 or so years. When did we invent the time machine (forgive me, wronwright) so we could go back and change the climate?
NONE of the current models correctly predict the last decade’s KNOWN amount of warming? Could it be that they’re leaving out, say, solar energy output? Just how many years record of that do we have? Millions? Thousands? Hundreds? Oh. A few decades at best?
And indusrialization is pretty powerful indeed if it’s warming both Mars and Jupiter as well.
Posted by JorgXMcKie on 2006 06 06 at 11:03 AM • permalink
An uninformed person pointing you to the consensus position of climate scientists and the very obvious trends in greenhouse gases which nobody disagrees influence global temperatures and weather patterns.
That WHOOSH!!!! you heard whilst typing was my point going by your head.
I have my own opinions about nuclear energy too but they count for shit just like yours next to the opinions of scientists in that field. Pretty simple concept.
All our opinions on topics outside our professional areas count for shit, eh? Thus, I shouldn’t listen to you. (Pssst: that’s another example of shooting yourself in the foot.)
I have no idea what any of that is supposed to mean. “Shooting yourself in the foot” suggests an obvious, large mistake than undercuts an position so probably start there.
WHOOSH!!!!
Feel free to explain how it is lacking if you don’t need any specialist knowledge to.
Hmmmmm….an intelligent comment! Two points.
First, much of the data collection and evaluation techniques are suspect; since results must be reproducible under the scientific method, this is a valid concern. There’s the infamous “hockey stick” graph, which was used to push “global warming”, but is being questioned.
And have we actually measured global temperatures? There’s also an argument that the measurements are skewed because urban areas (where many of the measurements are made) tend to be warmer than rural areas. The BBC article that I linked to above discusses a similar point.
Second, many of the climatic projections to date have been questionable. For example, 20 years ago, the concern was global cooling; the Ice Age was returning.
Or take the polar bear drowning comments that piss you off so; only two polar bear populations are actually declining. Yet the envirnomentalists insist that doom is upon us, and use that as an example.
And it’s not that I reject these arguments. It’s that I don’t find them sufficiently compelling to support draconian economic measures that may not work.
I also am not convinced that any temperature increases are due solely to anthropogenic causes. There is evidence that the warming trend is at least due to natural causes….which we may not be able to affect. Perhaps the better option is to adapt…..just like the rest of the natural world.
Then go for it.
I did hint in what I wrote that this is precisely what was lacking and what everyone is waiting for.You ranted that we should say nothing against global warming global cooling climate change. Because we are “uninformed people talking crap”. You hinted at nothing.
Now, having said all of this, I’m taking the same position I have with Hal, drputz, and similar trolls: I’m going to ignore you hereafter. You offer no new data, merely a rehash of old talking points, on the climate, Iraq, and so on. You are either unimaginative, or just trolling to waste bandwidth. Either way, you aren’t worth the time.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 06 06 at 11:19 AM • permalink
- Well, Tank, according to your link, CO2 rose from 315 PPM to 360 PPM from 1958 to 1992.
Just one problem – what’s the problem? It sorta makes the assumption that CO2 has always been less than 315 PPM before 1958. And it assumes that 360 is dangerous. And it (assumably) assumes the change is man-made. Yawn.
Look, we’ve been over all of this ad-nauseum with the enviroreligionists. You assume global warming is bad in the face of historical evidence to the contrary. You ignore the fact that the globe has warmed and cooled naturally and extremely for its entire existence, and when you do acknowledge it, you say “This time it’s different, because we’re doing it”, without admitting that such human-caused warming could be staving off a truly disastrous Ice Age. You rely on data that is inherently untrustworthy (exact global temperature readings from times with no temperature measurements) and cherry-picked (why are so many baselines set at 1972?). You ignore the 100% error rate of all previous doomscreamer scenarios (you lot told us back in the ‘70s that we’d have an Ice Age, 10 billion people on the planet, no oil, and mass starvation by now.)
Sorry. Heard it all before. Logic and experience keep me from taking this even a teensy bit seriously. But hey, keep posting long-winded non-sequiturs punctuated by the occasional link to a crudely-scribbled graph. It gives me validation for my position.
- And just in time for #3, from Ann Coulter’s newly-released book (all of Chapter 1 posted at townhall.com):
Although they are Druids, liberals masquerade as rationalists, adopting a sneering tone of scientific sophistication, which is a little like being condescended to by a tarot card reader. Liberals hate science and react badly to it. They will literally run from the room, lightheaded and nauseated, when told of data that might suggest that the sexes have different abilities in math and science. They repudiate science when it contradicts their pagan beliefs—that the AIDS virus doesn’t discriminate, that there is no such thing as IQ , that nuclear power is dangerous and scary, or that breast implants cause disease. Liberals use the word science exactly as they use the word constitutional.
Posted by andycanuck on 2006 06 06 at 11:21 AM • permalink
- Can someone explain to me (Tank might help) why all the “climate models” that predict impending disaster from human activity (actually, American activity if Kyoto is any guide) claim that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age never happened? Was it just a myth? I guess believing that those documented climate events actually occured means disagreeing with the consensus, therefore, one must also believe in creationism.
Please explain that little leap of logic, Tank?
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2006 06 06 at 11:29 AM • permalink
- Spiny, about the MWP and Little Ice Age – the creators of the famous “hockey stick graph” simply ignored them.
- Here’s another link about the hokey [sic]-stick graph. Unfortunately, despite being logical, researched, and footnoted, it was written by a very smart man who was not a climatologist, so Tank will no doubt find it worthless.
- I’m still waiting for a solid, economically sound plan from these environmentally concerned people for what we can do to adapt to climate change. Something more helpful than “stop making cars”. So far, all I hear is a lot of wailing and finger-pointing. It’s not helping your cause, dudes (Tank). All it does is make you look ridiculous, like crazy old Aunt Harriet screeching about the bats in her belfry.
- I’d also like to note the developments in Tank’s style in the past couple of weeks…from plain snarkiness, to attempts at over-the-top parody, to droning lectures. Methinks the poor guy can’t quite figure out how best to deal with the onslaught of differing opinions. What next, indignant foot-stomping?
Spiny, about the MWP and Little Ice Age – the creators of the famous “hockey stick graph” simply ignored them.
I haven’t seen Gorezilla’s movie as yet, but I’ve read that he rationalizes ignoring those events. What a surprise.
And I Googled up the box office returns for “An Inconvenient Truth”….since 24 May, Gorezilla’s boredom flick has grossed $1,937,361.
It ranks #42 against all other documentaries (Fahrenheit 9/11 is #1, BTW), and #21 against environmentally themed movies.
Not a really showing, I think. Call anyone else with a better feel for box office returns comment on this?
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 06 06 at 02:34 PM • permalink
Not a really GOOD showing, I think.
PIMF, PIMF, PIMF, PIMF …..
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 06 06 at 02:36 PM • permalink
- I went to that link in the article, where he says “Um, no it isn’t” (he links to realclimate.org) and I read the thread there. I wasn’t expecting such vigorous debate at a site that was supposed to convince me of the consensus. Is that really the best link there is to demonstrate the scientific consensus?
After visiting that site, and accepting everything I read there completely uncritically, it appears that scientists agree on the following:
1) the earth has been getting warmer lately.
2) this is caused at least in part by human activity.
It also appears (correct me if I’m wrong oh Tankful one), that some scientists think that, even if it’s the end of the world as we know it, there’s absolutely nothing that can be done about it.Posted by daddy dave on 2006 06 06 at 02:55 PM • permalink
- and since Tank wants real literature references, apparently recent articles in Nature question the certainties.
e.g., Atmospheric science: Tropospheric temperature series from satellites, Nature 432, (02 Dec 2004) Brief Communications says “We believe that their approach overfits the data, produces trends that overestimate warming and gives overly optimistic uncertainty estimates.”
I found this out from entry #23 at the thread at realclimate.org
Ironic, because I was directed there to be educated out of my ignorance. It didn’t quite work.Posted by daddy dave on 2006 06 06 at 03:05 PM • permalink
- “Maybe be familiar with a Shakespeare play.”
Certainly not more than one play, and certainly none of the sonnets. Oh, no, can’t be talking at one of our soignee little cocktail parties about the best writing ever.
Hey, PACO, I want to suggest a change in itinerary for the cruise. I want to add skiffs, or low-riding boats, so’s I can grab a damn polar bear and hold it down in the water like Harrison Ford drowning Michelle Pfeiffer in the bathtub, mmmkay. If those big furry white bastards ain’t drowning fast enough on their own, I damn well want to help them along. Fucking polar bears.
- Coming here kinda late (bugger) so I won’t waste bandwidth on the obvious problems with Tank’s ‘offerings’.
But isn’t it wonderful when we get such a self righteous pillock who is oblivious to both the mistakes in his own offerings and has so little command of English that he/she can’t comprehend the replies, except to keep digging him/her self deeper into the pit. You’d pay money to participate in this kind of comedy.
WHOOSH! indeed, The_Real_Jeffs
Anyone know any more polar bear drowning jokes?
Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 06 06 at 03:24 PM • permalink
- #35 daddy dave,
It also appears (correct me if I’m wrong oh Tankful one), that some scientists think that, even if it’s the end of the world as we know it, there’s absolutely nothing that can be done about it.
That is the meat of the issue: wasting time and resources on blame-assigning and expensive, yet miniscule reductions in CO2 output by western industrialized nations (more than made up for by huge increases in “emerging” nations, i.e. China), when research efforts and funding should instead be directed towards adapting to what may still be entirely natural climate fluctuations.
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2006 06 06 at 04:00 PM • permalink
- #9 Nora, I see you in a pair of these.
For myself, I think either these boots or almost anything from New Rock.
Umm, hi, my name’s nilk, and I have a footwear fetish. It’s been difficult not giving in to the power of advertising, but I have successfully restrained myself from buying more than 7 pairs of shoes or boots so far this year.
I’m hoping I can continue on with my restraint, and would appreciate any assistance in this challenging time.
Thank you.
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2006 06 06 at 09:18 PM • permalink
- #13- I believe they’re called “fascinators”; I’m certainly fascinated to find some daft bint coughs up a couple of hundred beer vouchers for one of these flimsy gimcracks, which will invariably wind up floating up and down the urinal trough after she chunders all over the mens dunny or gets bonked by some pissed-up hooray henry in one of the stalls.
- Hi Nilk, and welcome to the Footwear Fetish Support Group. Stay strong Nilk. When you feel yourself succumbing to your addiction, remind yourself what a comic figure Imelda Marcos was when people discovered how many pairs of shoes she had.Posted by Michael Lonie on 2006 06 06 at 09:58 PM • permalink
Anyone know any more polar bear drowning jokes?
What do you call a drowning polar bear? Anything but Floe.
What do you call a polar bear whose floe has melted? Bob.
Posted by andycanuck on 2006 06 07 at 02:09 AM • permalink
- #47Michael, thank you so much for your support.
I’d comment on the topic, but Tank’s Tome’s froze my brain. Sorry – shoes are easier.
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2006 06 07 at 07:24 AM • permalink
- Nilknarf, do they make polar bear shoes?Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 06 07 at 10:41 AM • permalink
- #30 — Or a declaration he’s too smart for the room…Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 06 07 at 10:47 AM • permalink
- #46: I’m certainly fascinated to find some daft bint coughs up a couple of hundred beer vouchers for one of these flimsy gimcracks, which will invariably wind up floating up and down the urinal trough after she chunders all over the mens dunny or gets bonked by some pissed-up hooray henry in one of the stalls.
Habib, English is a rich language, and you are a goldsmith.
- #51 TRJ, I reckon you could probably get some if you want. I know of one bloke who handcrafts boots for the drag and fetish crowds, so I don’t see why not.
It would all have to be hushhush and under the table, though.
Good to know what to do with all those drowned polar bears, though. Not just coats, but boots now, too. That’s very environmentally friendly.
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2006 06 08 at 12:07 AM • permalink
If you look at “global climate trends over millenia” rather than decades you find even greater change than today, and industrialization has only been around for 200 or so years.
Posted by JorgXMcKie on 2006 06 06 at 11:03 AMActually no. If you stick the “quoted” text you just typed into google the first result you get is from the NOAA which shows just the opposite.
NONE of the current models correctly predict the last decade’s KNOWN amount of warming?
If that’s a question I’ll say no. No current models wouldn’t be predicting what they have data for. That would make them non-current models. Kind of like predicting Superbowl champions for the 1991-2000 period. Not something you do in 2006, nor something other people should cite when trying to make a point. Especially without actually citing what you are talking about.
And really not something to do while simultaneously stating that there are only decades worth of usable data for modelling. Then again you stated that at the same time you suggested data over thousands of years was more reliable so in summary I think the idea is data can’t be trusted no matter when it’s from, unless it’s from other planets. Great. Probably not the discussion for you then.
And it’s not that I reject these arguments. It’s that I don’t find them sufficiently compelling to support draconian economic measures that may not work.
Lucky nobody’s even referred to them then. But yeah, you best not even go as far as ackowledging the reason ice melts just so you can avoid supporting something not being contemplated which may lead to something else a few decades from now.
Seriously you’re worried a social agenda might take over ? There’s another anecdote article here somewhere that mentions the effect on deserts, drought periods and crop failures. Results akin to the ethiopian drought a couple of decades ago. What’s the bet you could find an article in the same publication referring to rampant obesity in developed nations at the same time the issue of subsistance farmers starving is explored.
I think you’re vastly underestimating the support for the apathy agenda. Have a cigarette while you reconsider it.
I also am not convinced that any temperature increases are due solely to anthropogenic causes. There is evidence that the warming trend is at least due to natural causes….which we may not be able to affect. Perhaps the better option is to adapt…..just like the rest of the natural world.
That issue about adapting will probably involve a large number of immigrants. Pacific Islanders… they’re not just for nightclub jobs anymore.
Now, having said all of this, I’m taking the same position I have with Hal, drputz, and similar trolls: I’m going to ignore you hereafter.
Ah they’d be the “earth around the sun” and the “asbestos is bad” guys right.
You really do set a benchmark when your pool of discussion is so diverse in opinion, intellect and free thought that someone suggesting a graph worthy of being referred to as “the hockeystick” graph shows a clear trend is a troll. Denial is the key people… do not offend the Jeffs with the obvious.You offer no new data, merely a rehash of old talking points, on the climate, Iraq, and so on. You are either unimaginative, or just trolling to waste bandwidth. Either way, you aren’t worth the time.
The_Real_JeffS on 2006 06 06 at 11:19 AMYeah I did consider posting no data at all to back up my statements contradicting a consensus position, because I thought it’d I’d only be kidding myself, but then I thought I’d just go with well known, peer reviewed data instead. Clearly you had the better idea.
I went to that link in the article, where he says “Um, no it isn’t” (he links to realclimate.org) and I read the thread there. I wasn’t expecting such vigorous debate at a site that was supposed to convince me of the consensus. Is that really the best link there is to demonstrate the scientific consensus?
I thought mine was better but what are you going to do.
After visiting that site, and accepting everything I read there completely uncritically, it appears that scientists agree on the following:
1) the earth has been getting warmer lately.
2) this is caused at least in part by human activity.Yeah that summary of the opinions was posted at the top of the page for the few, the brave, who dared read it.
It also appears (correct me if I’m wrong oh Tankful one), that some scientists think that, even if it’s the end of the world as we know it, there’s absolutely nothing that can be done about it.
Posted by daddy dave on 2006 06 06 at 02:55 PMYeah that’s about it.
And to answer your implicit, unasked question, yes, it is rather bizarre that when those opinions are available that you would opt for what you see here.That when there are informed and legitimate if not overwhelming reasons to take the exact same economic-driven positions you do now in regard to climate change that you would instead opt for feining denial of the entire premise of climate change instead.
You’re literally left with nothing more than a handfull of petro-scientists who will swear on a bible that 45 degree trend in the graph is going in the opposite direction a couple of times a year and get eviscerated every time they do. Has there even been one yet where his resume didn’t undercut him inside 48 hours ? I mean damn… how long does it take to realise you’re on a losing team.
Meanwhile if you can summon the balls to acknowledge those polar bears are drowing becuase – troll warning – the ice melted you get to take the exact same position you do now except it’s backed by thousands of scientists that aren’t transparent shills.
The most recent widespread documentary on the subject reaching large sections of the community didn’t feature al gore and his award winning voice. It screened on public access via BBC, ABC, PBS, etc on the subject of the phenomenon of “Global Dimming” and had as it’s major finding that pollution from industry is actually keeping the climate cool by shielding more of the suns rays.
Literally, by avoiding the Kyoto protocol you are cancelling out global warming. Read that again.
Even if Al Gore’s thing breaks Fahrenheit 911s ticket sales it still won’t reach that audience and WTF stamp of approval in the opposite sphere of opinion do you want if those stations don’t do it. But as attractive as such a plausible scenario is, being evidenced again by hundreds of years of worldwide data samples, it would still involve acknowledging that climate change happening to start with.
So it’s not an option. Hell you’d be an outright troll if you went there. Best forget you even clicked that link.
Here’s another link about the hokey [sic]-stick graph. Unfortunately, despite being logical, researched, and footnoted, it was written by a very smart man who was not a climatologist, so Tank will no doubt find it worthless.
Posted by Dave S. on 2006 06 06 at 11:57 AMWouldn’t it be far more convincing/damaging if you just pointed out how that particular set of temperature data (it’s not a guy drawing a line) conflicts with all the other temperature data recorded from the myriad of sources by the myriad of agencies and scientific bodies dedicated to the task ?
Why would you bother pointing out to me something else if you could do that instead ?
Coming here kinda late (bugger) so I won’t waste bandwidth on the obvious problems with Tank’s ‘offerings’.
But isn’t it wonderful when we get such a self righteous pillock who is oblivious to both the mistakes in his own offerings and has so little command of English that he/she can’t comprehend the replies, except to keep digging him/her self deeper into the pit. You’d pay money to participate in this kind of comedy.
Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 06 06 at 03:24 PM • permalinkYou’d also pay money to read the guy who does nothing but parrot other people’s opinions and in lack of any intelligent counter to offer himself makes some vague references to spelling and grammar as though this actually counts as a contribution.
RRP a dime a dozen.
- 19 Jorg
When did we invent the time machine (forgive me, wronwright) so we could go back and change the climate?
Pretty sure that’s scheduled for next week, in Tijuana. But it’s a secret, so, like, don’t tell, eh?
33/34 The Real
It ranks #42 against all other documentaries (Fahrenheit 9/11 is #1, BTW), and #21 against environmentally themed movies.
Not a really [good] showing, I think. Call anyone else with a better feel for box office returns comment on this?I don’t have a better feel, but it might make a difference that Bore’s movie just now came out and hasn’t had a lot of time in the theaters to sell tickets, the way those other docos have. Incomplete data innuddawoids.
35 Daddy
I went to that link in the article, where he says “Um, no it isn’t” (he links to realclimate.org) and I read the thread there.
Oh no fair! You were SUPPOSED to simply be cowed into submission by the fact that a link was posted. What kind of troublemaker would actually go and look into the referenced material?
Posted by Huck Foley on 2006 06 10 at 10:24 AM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Why be an eeeeeeevile conservative if you can’t stand for tradition?