jump to navigation

The foolishness continues.. . . June 23, 2006

Posted by Administrator in Blogging, Family, Global Warming, Sports.
trackback

. . .while I was at camp (more on that later, I trust). In the wacky world of sports, both teams I rooted for in NBA and NHL Finals lost (the Mavericks and Oilers, respectively). Then I haven't even really gone home, as I drop my son at a surprise birthday party (and he fell for it lock, stock and barrel. We completely snookered him. Had NO IDEA it was coming. It was great. It's on film. I hope to have clips later). . . and I see an article on the front page again decrying the horrors of global warming. Kos has the usual idiot round up.

The NAS report is in.

The academy had been asked to report to Congress on how researchers drew conclusions about the Earth's climate going back thousands of years, before data was available from modern scientific instruments. The academy convened a panel of 12 climate experts, chaired by Gerald North, a geosciences professor at Texas A&M University, to look at the "proxy" evidence before then, such as tree rings, corals, marine and lake sediments, ice cores, boreholes and glaciers.

Combining that information gave the panel "a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years," the panel wrote. It said the "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia," though it was relatively warm around the year 1000 followed by a "Little Ice Age" from about 1500 to 1850.

… it considered the evidence reliable enough to conclude there were sharp spikes in carbon dioxide and methane, the two major "greenhouse" gases blamed for trapping heat in the atmosphere, beginning in the 20th century, after remaining fairly level for 12,000 years.

In response to the findings, Boehlert responded remarkably sanely, for a Republican.

"This report shows the value of Congress handling scientific disputes by asking scientists to give us guidance," Boehlert said Thursday. "There is nothing in this report that should raise any doubts about the broad scientific consensus on global climate change." (the italics are mine)

Consensus. Scientific consensus on global warming. WHO CARES????? It is meaningless, and what is worse is that the fools babbling this stuff know it's meaningless.  They are engaged in wild-ass guessing.

For example:

recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia. . .

It is of course, potentially possible that phrenology and trepanning are valid scientific pursuits.  Potentialities are meaningless in terms of valuable scientific "truths", particularly when said truths are being bandied about as a means of managing billions of dollars in human commerce.
Where will it end?

Plus ca change, plus c'e la meme chose.

Advertisements

Comments»

1. IndianCowboy - June 28, 2006

personally, I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s an anthropogenic origin of global warming.

But…I’m waiting for these guys to stop with the hyperbole and rhetoric. Every time you look at their results and their discussion you see something along the lines of “yes if we go back this far, then it’s the warmest period. But if we go back slightly further, it’s doubtful.” Or “our methods don’t let us analyze periods before Year X. But not only is this the hottest year since Year X, it’s the hottest eyar for thousands of years before Year X as well.”

me: “but you” “I mean” “wait, didn’t you say that you cna’t?” “AGHHH SCIENTIFIC IMPROPRIETY” *head explodes*

2. demolition65 - June 28, 2006

I’m with you in that the warming may well be anthropogenic. But as you say, the rhetoric is so inflammatory. THAT is the source of my beef.

If they wold simply say: “Look. We can’t know for sure. But it seems that there is a correlation here, between our Co2 output and increased temps. Sure, it could be part of the typical earth-warming/cooling cycle, but shouldn’t we at least err on the side of caution?”

THAT would be scientifically honest.

3. IndianCowboy - June 28, 2006

yes it would. not to mention that there’s a much better reason to stop pollution: air quality. who cares if we’re getting hotter or not. air sucks

Not to mention i’m more worried about the brazilian rainforest and ‘development’ efforts in Asia and Africa (usually bankrolled by the World Bank, a lefty transnationalist organization).

4. Sophist - July 3, 2006

I’m with you in that the warming may well be anthropogenic. But as you say, the rhetoric is so inflammatory. THAT is the source of my beef.

Well, I’m glad you have your priorities in order. Screw the substance, we have style issues to iron out!

5. demolition65 - July 3, 2006

There is a vast difference between “may” and “does”, Sophist. The use of “does” makes the assumption that the Masses are too ignorant to consider scientific possibilities, so we have to bend the truths so as to massage and manipulate the Masses into doing Our Bidding.

Oh, I forgot. For you, the issue is not one of truth, merely arguing the point. I expect that massaging the truth is of no concern for you.

And while we’re at it, Sophist, how much of YOUR driving is done outside of a normal IC engine? Biking? Running? Carpooling? Use you AC this summer? What are YOU doing to address this issue?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: