With Sarah Palin all over the news this week, we encounter yet again the power of the media, even in the twilight of their influence to shape popular opinion. Despite her record of accomplishment as Governor of Alaska, including her regular bucking of the Republican establishment and cooperation with Democratic leaders and legislators, most Americans remain unaware of her executive abilities and bipartisan policy-making. All too many see her as an ideologue unfit to lead.
Yet, Palin is not the only politician who receives coverage that leaves out considerable aspects of her biography and professional record. When they find a liberal they want to lionize, they ignore facts about his life which conflict with the image they wish to create of him. In a recent cover story, Newsweek billed one such liberal as “The Thinking Man’s Thinking Man,” yet neglected the emotional manner in which Al Gore attempts to discredit those who have not reached a conclusion different from his own.
He doesn’t argue with those critics, doesn’t consider the facts they introduce and arguments they have made to challenge his conclusions (as would a thinking man). Instead, he tells us “the debate in the scientific community is over.” Hardly. The debate is far from over. There is no consensus backing his theories.
Not just that, he “refuses to debate those who say global warming is not a crisis.” Wouldn’t a thinking man welcome the chance to debate his ideas?
Newsweek may want to portray Al Gore as a “thinking man,” but the very way he has conducted his crusade for climate control legislation suggests not a thinker, but a zealot, one for whom promoting the cause is more important than addressing its critics. And I mean, isn’t that what thinking men do, address their critics.
Wasn’t the quintessential thinking man famous for dialogues, not his diatribes monologues?
Indeed. Science does not operate by consensus.
Anytime you hear someone talk about “scientific consensus”, think twice. Check their agenda. In the case of Global Warming scienticians, their agenda is, of course, (1) power and (2) funding.
That brilliant, “Thinking Man’s Thinking Man” thinks that the Earth’s core is “several million degrees” (best estimates put it between 5,000 to 9,000 degrees Celsius), so he’s only off by — several million degrees.
“And I mean, isn’t that what thinking men do, address their critics.”
Actually yes, and no. Thinking people address their critics if a) the critics raise interesting, and potentially valid points, and/or b) the critics have the raw political power to undermine what the thinking man is advocating.
When either of those two conditions are met, then the critics are addressed. Otherwise its a waste of time. Thinking men try to avoid wasting time.
“Science does not operate by consensus.”
Thats right. And you therefore are missing the whole point of this argument.
Scientists – I mean the real deal – people who have spent decades studying their field, and who work in that field, not politicians or analysts, or bloggers, but scientists – they are trained not to follow any consensus. In fact, a graduate education in science is all about finding some area of your field where you can make an original contribution, where you stand apart from whatever the consensus view of the field, at the time, may be.
Scientists are, by nature, independent thinkers. That is why, when the overwhelming majority of them, in a particular field, come to the same conclusion, it is enormously different than when you find a bunch of politicos coming to the same decision. For the scientists, it represents a convergence of thousands of independent minds on similar conclusion. Its not like in politics where if you wear a red shirt, then you probably tend to accept the red team’s position as your default position.
I am not saying that politicos are unable to sometimes break free of the team, but it is not usual. For scientists, they are trained to be independent thinkers all the time. So when a consensus forms, its a lot more meaningful.
Tano,
As a “thinking man” do you think that the Earths core is several million degrees?
Do you think that huge increases in polar bear populations are evidence that they are endangered?
Do you agree with the British courts which ruled Al Gore’s movie was basically political propaganda?
Also, could you provide your credentials as a thinking man. I question them.
You see the problem with liberal “thinking” is that they dont base their “thinking” on any actual facts, they start from the conclusion they wish to reach, assume its true, then work backwards looking for anything that supports their argument while ignoring, burying and lying about things that contradict their conclusions.
In other words, it isn’t thoughtful at all, it’s propagandizing.
More on Al Gore’s “thinking” from Planet Gore:
AE,
1) No. Its not. Mr Gore mispoke.
2) Huge increases in polar bear populations would obviously argue against them being endangered. But that is not reality. There was a crash of polar bear populations a generation ago because of over-hunting, and their numbers have rebounded since then because of conservation efforts. THe latest issues are about the new threat of global warming. The latest data indicates that of the 19 recognized sub-populations of bears distributed around the Arctic regions, 8 are in decline, three are stable, one is increasing, and the rest have insufficient data. The best studied populations are in decline. If you want an entry into what real scientists who study these critters are finding (rather than political propaganda) then follow this link LINK
3) No opinion. I didn’t see the movie.
4) What can i say? I have been following politics for over 40 years. I have advanced degrees in biology and work for a contracter with the National Institutes of Health. I have taught university level classes in several subfields of biology. I do my best.
Um, Tano, but the issue is not wasting his time, it’s that Gore won’t debate any of his critics on global warming. Are you saying that none of his critics raise interesting or potentially valid points?
AE,
You gotta learn how to recognize propaganda when you see it. THe big quote you give us in comment 6 distorts what Gore said, then gives a willfully deceptive account of heat distribution under the earth.
Gore did not say we were drilling deeper than ever – that was Conan. Gore didnt correct him, but he was obviously focusing on making a further point.
And heat is not evenly distributed in the earth’s interior. The quote refers to the deepest drill-hole and how it was only 356 degrees down there. Did this not ring any bells for you???
Volcanoes are places where heated magma breaks through to the surface – and when it does, it can be up to 7000 degrees. Now, if your goal is to drill to tap into heat sources, then doncha think you might focus on places where there is heat like that? And yeah, that might need some premium level drill bits.
And anyway, what is the point of this attack on Gore? Are you against the notion of exploring the possibility of using geothermal energy? Is that some lefty liberal plot that you are forced to oppose because you are on the other team or something?
Yes Dan, thats what I am saying. No one has raised valid points that haven’t been addressed by the scientists. Thats why the scientists still think that global warming is real.
[Er, why some scientists believe it’s real. Many scientists have contested the supposed consensus Gore finds. Your comment above merely betrays you incredible ignorance about the debate. To this, all I can say is, “Wow, just wow.” You’re dismissing the research and conclusions of numerous scientists, many leaders in their field –Dan]
Gore is not a scientist. I wouldn’t trust him to argue the science. except to popular sudiences, not because he isn’t a smart man, but simply because he isn’t a scientist and cannot be expected to be fluent in all the details.
Leave it to the scientists to argue the science. My instinct is to always look favorably at the underdogs in a scientific debate (maybe because I was one for a long time in my field), but I don’t therfore give them a pass. They can and should argue their case, but at the end of the day, if they fail to convince their peers, then it is highly likely that their peers are the ones with the better arguments.
It really is true that a very large majority of scientists with the expertise necessary to have an informed opinion believe that the earth is warming at an unprecedented rate and that is largely caused by human factors.
[Not true. –Dan]
Gore is working off this consensus. He is not responible for it forming, nor are his arguments maintaining that consensus (nor can his bad arguments undermine it). He is a popularizer of the trend in scinece – and taking a lead in urging us to do what we can to mitigate the consequences of these facts.
An actual scientist would never claim that a consensus was the same as irrefutable truth, but a scientician certainly would. Most of the global warming true believers are scienticians.
Dan,
I find it terribly obnoxious of you to paste your comments in the midst of my comment. Its seems to me to be an abuse of your power, so as to breakup the flow of my argument. Why not just play on the same field as the rest of us and write your own damn comment.
“You’re dismissing the research and conclusions of numerous scientists, many leaders in their field”
No, I have said, rather unambiguously, that the work of those scientists have all been addressed by their peers and found wanting. And so their peers continue to accept the global warming hypothesis.
Actually, Tano, as per the point in your concluding ¶ in comment #12, no they haven’t. There is no global warming consensus as per Gore’s claims.
Tano, we find it terribly obnoxious of you to put on repeated, disgraceful displays of your ignorance and foolishness in the midst of “our” (sorry Dan/Bruce) blog.
I study history, so let me remind people of what consenses is:
I) The Copernican theory was “consensus” not the galilian, so Galilieo was put to death because he did not follow “Consensus”;
II) In Communist Russia, whomever didn’t follow the “Consensus” of Stalin was put to death.
III) In 92, Democrats were re-aligned to stay in power FOREVER. Then came the elections of 94.
I trust doubters over followers (that’s why I left the D’s back in 92).
Which is why so many scienticians with completely different disciplines glom onto Global Warmism?
So why does he leave a massive carbon footprint jetting around the world, sending his luggage by car and leaving his motorcades running to pretend that he is?
So in other words, he doesn’t debate anybody because he can’t.
BTW, is sudience some big word I’m supposed to know?
“I study history”
Not very well, apparently….
“The Copernican theory was “consensus” not the galilian, so Galilieo was put to death because he did not follow “Consensus”
Geez, where to begin? Galileo was an advocate of the Copernican system. Thats what got him in trouble. The establishment view was the Ptolomean. It was not the scientific consensus though, it was the theory enforced by the Church.
And Galileo was not put to death.
“In Communist Russia, whomever didn’t follow the “Consensus” of Stalin was put to death.”
“Consensus” means voluntary agreement by a group. The dictates of a dictator are not a consensus.
‘In 92, Democrats were re-aligned to stay in power FOREVER. Then came the elections of 94.”
Huh? Sex who? Because they elected a president with 43% of the vote?
Tano, one more thing, the silence is hardly settled.
At the same time, you show an amazing aversion to science, dismissing and the research and work of a broad swath of professional scientists studying the climate.
fixed it for you.
Actually it is. The “polar bear counts” that show reduced populations arent even counts of actual polar bears, they are propagandistic conjecture based on the size of ice flows.
Dr. Mitchell Taylor, one of the world’s leading experts on polar bears, who has been studying them for 30 years has just completed a study, counting actual bears, that shows that bear populations have increased dramatically
I have previously seen a map illustrating these facts, which I am still trying to find.
Liberal global warmists, who very begrudgingly accept his science, nevertheless banned this world renowned expert on polar bears from testifying at their event because he contradicted their so-called “consensus” on global warming.
The only “consensus” that exists is one of bullying, intimidation, and propaganda by those who stand to make a great deal of money if global warmism is accepted as truth. There are petitions of hundreds of leading scientists, including PhD’s, world renowned scientists and experts in climate science who specifically disagree with this non-existent “consensus”.
Oh, as a successfully deprogrammed, former brainwashed liberal lemming, I have become very good at it. One of the biggest warning signs is any time a Democrat/liberals lips are moving or fingers are writing.
No it doesnt, and I provided both the video and a transcript as proof.
No, Gore AGREED with him. That is the meaning of the word “Yeah” which was Gore’s reply when Conan said
And then there’s this:
You must be a student of Al Gore’s! Cus, while I dont claim to be a geologist, they seem to disagree with you:
Not at all! Conservatives have been all for it, and have included it in all their energy proposals for a long time. Including some of your favorites like Bush, Cheney, and Sarah Palin! As conservatives have ALWAYS been in favor of increasing the supply of ALL domestic energy sources (with the exception of many who are opposed to biofuel because it has increased food prices, is causing food shortages and starvation around the world, not to mention deforestation and extinction where countries are razing forests in order to grow biofuel crops to cash in on US subsidies of biofuel producers.)
Indeed, it has ALWAYS been conservatives who favored increasing production of ALL domestic energy supply, and it has ALWAYS been liberals who opposed and posed the biggest barrier not only oil and natural gas production, but also to geothermal, hydroelectric, nuclear, and even wind and solar!
I simply want to point out that Al Gore and his followers are retards.
And that was fun! Thanks for helping!
#10: “[Gore] is a popularizer of the trend in scinece – and taking a lead in urging us to do what we can to mitigate the consequences of these facts.”
And then doing precisely the opposite in his own life. So, what you’re saying Tano, is that Gore is a liberal, hypocritical elitist.
Good point! Now who were the liberals who were suggesting those who disagreed with anthropogenic global warming should be prosecuted? I remember them doing so, but forget their names.
I could be wrong, but I think Al Gore suggested they should be ostracized as “deniers”.
Crap. Dan, you didn’t tell me you were going to do an Al Gore post. You know AGW is my favorite subject. Buuuut…. It’s late. the Sonicmate is calling me to bed, and I just can’t look this over now. See you in the morning.
I noticed something that I wanted to point out just to put all of this in perspective for everyone. Please note that the leftist, ignorant dolt who (at comment # 9) posted this:
“You gotta learn how to recognize propaganda when you see it.”
Is the same leftist, ignorant dolt who (on another nearby thread) posted this:
“The point of the stimulus was to spur the recovery, and also to provide jobs until the recovery kicks in. It is based on the obvious point that almost all the jobs that eventually are formed will be formed by the economy in recovery. The stimulus is a bridge to that recovery. Assuming that unemployment will increase when the stimulus is over is to assume that there will be no recovery. I dont see the sense of this argument.”
Yeah. That’s right. Once again, just so everybody is clear, the grossly misinformed fool who posted this:
“You gotta learn how to recognize propaganda when you see it.”
Also, posted this:
“The point of the stimulus was to spur the recovery, and also to provide jobs until the recovery kicks in. It is based on the obvious point that almost all the jobs that eventually are formed will be formed by the economy in recovery. The stimulus is a bridge to that recovery. Assuming that unemployment will increase when the stimulus is over is to assume that there will be no recovery. I dont see the sense of this argument.”
Just something to keep in mind.
Actually, Tano, as per the point in your concluding ¶ in comment #12, no they haven’t. There is no global warming consensus as per Gore’s claims.
Dan, you are simply wrong on this point.
Gore’s movie aside, the majority, the vast majority, of climatologists, of physical scientists who study the Earth, weather, temperature, temperature trends, climate, all of those things that impact our physical environs, all agree that the Earth has gotten warmer over the past century (to the tune of .6 degrees or so), that this is directly attributable to human activity, and that this temperature increase will continue and that if these greenhouse gasses continue, this warming trend will continue and will most likely accelerate.
“Consensus” here means what are the reported results of the majority of climate related papers published in scientific journals. You are talking damn well near100% of such research shows that the increase in global temperatures are directly attributable to human activities.
There are still questions of science about how AGW works, about how to create better models for its effects, about natural forcing issues, variabilities in systems, detection, impacts… on and on. That’s what’s going on at science journals, at seminars and conferences. A big, unsettled question that’s being discussed is that even if we were to end our output of greenhouse gasses would it arrest or reverse the warming trend or is the Earth’s climate permanently altered.
While issues such as those above are being debated, there is simply overwhelming consensus in the scientific community on GW and its anthropogenic cause. It’s reality.
Jody, that’s simply not true. You cite a 2004 article. There’s ben much science since then reaching far different conclusions, including the article I cite above.
That 100% figure is hogwash, pure hogwash.
LOL. Good catch Sean.
Jody,
Two sincere questions. Are you aware that
1) The Earth has cooled over the past decade?
2) All the computer models which predict continued warming have been categorically incapable of predicting current climate conditions when fed known historical data? And
3) Despite the fact that water vapor accounts for something around 98% of all “greenhouse gasses”, global warmists cannot explain, because they do not know how water vapor and cloud cover effect global temperature, or whether or not any variation in CO2 levels is mediated by resulting changes in cloud cover?
The science is in its infancy, is chock FULL of holes and errors, and yet liberals want us to re-order our entire society based upon science that riddled with error.
The truth is that liberals just want excuses to re-order our society, and are misusing science, as they misuse everything else, to that end.
sorry, three questions
Dan, the 100% figure isn’t “hogwash”; Oreskes study, published in Science reviewed research published between 1993 and 2003. None of the papers published in that time presented evidence rejecting the consensus opinion. The vast majority of it supported the consensus, evaluated the impacts on the Earth of the consensus or evaluated the effectiveness of mitigation proposals in light of the consensus view.
Lindzen’s op-ed is not a study, it’s an opinion piece, and it contains no information that runs counter to Oreskes study. Lindzen tries to site Peiser’s unpublished letter as a counter, but Peiser’s critique was was found wanting by several scientists and science journalists. Lindzen further tries to cite satellite data in support of his statements but his history and conclusions about that data are wrong.
There’s ben much science since then reaching far different conclusions…,
No, there hasn’t been. The 2007IPCC Synthesis Report provides an overview of even more data and study — based on better estimates, better models, and better observational data than the previous years’ reports — again support the consensus of AGW.
Dan, you haven’t provided any information in support of your opinion. The fact remains that the consensus of evidence provided through the studies of the vast majority climatologists and Earth scientists supports AGW.
1) The Earth has cooled over the past decade?
It’s warmed over the past 100 years.
1998 was a hot year, one of the hottest individual years on record and, relative to those following, it was much hotter. But 1998 thru 2008 were hotter than 1988 through 1998. And 1988 through 1998 were hotter than 1978 through 1988 and so on back down. You are cherry picking your starting point. The Boston Red Sox looks like the most successful World Series team in baseball history — but only if you count from 2004. If you count from 1903, they haven’t done that well.
2) All the computer models which predict continued warming have been categorically incapable of predicting current climate conditions when fed known historical data?
That’s simply not true. While there are limitations with various modeling programs, they’ve predicted many things correctly. Some of those predictions: James Hansen has had a good run with his predictive models. Cane’s (1997) has verified sea surface temperature modeling. Even Svante Arrhenius’ 1896 pen and paper models of C02 harm to the environment have borne out. There is no one complete computer system that models every last aspect of the environment. There are, though, multiple smaller models of sections and aspects of the environment work well and continue to be improved.
3) Despite the fact that water vapor accounts for something around 98% of all “greenhouse gasses”, global warmists cannot explain, because they do not know how water vapor and cloud cover effect global temperature, or whether or not any variation in CO2 levels is mediated by resulting changes in cloud cover?’
It’s a bit more complicated than you make it out. While C02 is the strongest Greenhouse gas, it isn’t considered a climate forcing because the resulting amount of water in the air winds up varying as a function of temperature. If you jack up the amount of water vapor in the air it’ll rain out. If you were able to pull the C02 out of the air, the temperature drop would force the H20 out of the air, creating a feedback system that wouldn’t end until no liquid water was left. It’s all a bit over my head, but RealClimate.Org has a pretty good — and rather technical — discussion of this issue, which includes why your point is accurate.
The science is in its infancy, is chock FULL of holes and errors, and yet liberals want us to re-order our entire society based upon science that riddled with error.
Science always has a measure of error, commonly regarded as confidence levels. But the confidence levels on our knowledge and understanding of our climate has been increasing over the past decades. As I’ve noted before, the upward trend in temperatures is well established and its relation to human causes is without a doubt.
The question being debated now in scientific circles is what we can do to change the warming trend, indeed if we can even change it. There’s a lot of debate on that topic… there are even many scientists who would support your view that we just don’t have the evidence yet to show that a radical restructuring of our society will help. Others argue we have enough data and enough of an imperative that we have to try.
AGW is not a vast conspiracy to rob you of your freedoms, AE. It is a serious problem that will have profound consequences for our nation and our world in the decades and centuries ahead.
One more thing Jody.
You really ought to look the word “consensus” up.
“vast majority” (even if that were true) and “consensus” are two very different things.
Not that liberals have ever cared about science to begin with. They abuse it when they think its on their side, and utterly ignore it when it is not.
Progressives are the least progressive, most reactionary people around. They oppose nuclear energy, natural gas, hydroelectric, geothermal, many of them oppose wind, they oppose genetically modified crops, pesticides, vaccination, hell, they oppose energy use in general for that matter! And theres so much other science they oppose.
Hell, they oppose progress in just about any sense, unless by progress you mean Statism. Thats the only thing they are for.
And statism isnt progress, it is the oldest, least progressive, most reactionary, most failed ideology of all.
Funny, what happened to 2008? Why no mention that 1934 was hotter than 1988? Why no mention that the earth has been hotter in the past than 1988-2008? Is there no money in that?
There is a huge difference between “science” as Jody uses the term and “the scientific method” which discovers scientific fact.
Notice that Jody says that the upward trend in temperatures is “well established” and its relation to human causes is “without a doubt.”
Jody, just curious, but do you mean to say: The upward trend in temperatures is scientific fact that has been subjected to the scientific method and its relation to human causes is a scientific fact that been subjected to the scientific method.”?
Yes Dan, thats what I am saying. No one has raised valid points that haven’t been addressed by the scientists. Thats why the scientists still think that global warming is real.
This is laughable. Long ago I learned to read books by people who disagree with me. It’s the very reason why I am not a thiest anymore, and why I don’t believe in global warming caused by humans.
If you carefully insulate yourself from any rational objection, but only read summaries and overviews of “the other side” you will NEVER grow or change or improve yourself.
“you show an amazing aversion to science, dismissing and the research and work of a broad swath of professional scientists studying the climate.”
Thats a stunning statement coming from you – someone who is dismissing the research and work of an even broader swath of professional scientists who study the climate.
But thats not what I am doing in any case. There work has been read respectfully by their peers and found wanting. Thats the way it works. You can’t complain about being ‘dismissed” if your peers simply don’t find your work convincing.
plutosdad,
Your comment is a complete non-sequitor. My point was that the work of dissenting scientists has been read by their peers, and has not convinced them that the global warming hypothesis is wrong.
What does that have to do with someone supposedly not reading things they disagree with? Your last sentence, if taken in isolation, is perfectly true. But no scientist, (nor I for that matter) is guilty of what you describe, so what are you talking about?
No, Tano, no. Where do I dismiss the work of such a swatch of professionals? Once again, you misrepresent me.
I’m just saying there’s no scientific consensus which means different scientists have reached different conclusions from the data available.
And perhaps some scientists have found the work of global warming critics wanting, but then those critics have found the science of the scientists offering a view similar to Gore’s also wanting.
And back to the point of this post, if the science of his critics is so wanting, why is Gore reluctant to debate it as a thinking man would. I mean, Tano, I relish your comments and have opposed efforts to have you banned from the blog for many reasons. One of those reasons is how easy it is to dismiss your arguments.
You repeatedly misrepresent my points (and those of other conservatives). And in this thread, you make the silliness of your argument abundantly clear. If you had just acknowledged the debate over the causes of global warming, you’d make it more difficult to contest you.
But, the fact remains that there is no consensus. And I’ve never dismissed the work of the scientists allied with Gore on this issue, just wondered why Gore won’t debate an issue which so animates him. And to wonder why lefty journalists call him a thinking man when he’s more of a zealous crusader.
There’s nothing wrong with being a zealous crusader per se, but it’s striking how so many hold up Gore as an exemplar of rational thought when he’s anything but.
“Not that liberals have ever cared about science to begin with.’
AE,
Why you have to try to ruin a good conversation by returning us to the standard fare around here -long strings of mindless insults.
And for the record, scientists ARE liberals, at least to a large extent – LINK to Pew Poll showing Scientists are liberals – 52%, Moderates – 35%, Conservative – 9%. Science is an inherintly liberal occupation.
And this poll also shows that 84% of all scientists accept Antropogenic Global Warming. I will assert here, though I dont have numbers handy to back it up, that the percentage gets higher the closer you get to climate scientists, as opposed to just all scientists.
“Where do I dismiss the work of such a swatch of professionals? ”
Where do I dismiss the work of any scientist? You are the one who made the charge. Simply because I pointed out that the anti-AGW scientists have not made any points that the consensus view finds valid. On that basis, you claimed that I dismiss the work of these scientists. No, I accept the judgement of the vast majority in the field that the anti-arguments are invalid. I’ve done my best to read and follow the arguments and my own judgement (though I am not a climate scientist) is also with the consensus.
This is not “dismissing” anyone’s work. This is not an “aversion’ to science.
But you on the other hand. You have apparently found reason to side with the small minority view on this matter. Do you have any scientific reason for doing so? Do you have any training or understanding of climate science? Or are you just mouthing the rhetoric of the red team? Do you know what you are talking about?
Yes, when the overwhelming majority of scientists in a field tell you that something is so, and you choose not to believe it but dont have any scientific basis of your own to do so, then I do think it is fair to say that you are dismissing the work of these professionals.
“One of those reasons is how easy it is to dismiss your arguments.”
This is one of your big problems Dan. It seems to be very easy for you to dismiss people’s arguments. Dont give in to the conceit that your own views are persuasive, or that you have any good arguments that have “defeated” by arguments. No, you merely have the ability to dismiss an argument from your mind, and I guess you think you have accomplished something.
[At the risk of earning your ire for writing my comments to your comment on your very comment, let me say simply, Grow up, Tano. If you don’t like my arguments, then why do you spend so much time on my blog? Here you go saying I am dismissing an argument from my mind when you regularly and repeatedly misrepresent my arguments. I’m certainly not dismissing the arguments of those who claim greenhouse gases cause global warming, am merely saying there is no scientific consensus on the issue. How is that dismissing arguments? This very comment suggests you’re not on this blog to argue with us, but to insult us.
Maybe my arguments are not persuasive, but you do find something about them (or me) compelling given that you spend so much time addressing them. I didn’t invite you to this blog. And, let me repeat myself because it’s a point which bears repetition, you do spent a lot of time here. Wonder why that is. –Dan]
First, Tano, it’s not a small minority, but a significant minority, if not possibly a slight plurality, but then I haven’t polled the scientists. But, Al Gore (and his MSM echo chamber) notwithstanding, the overwhelming majority of scientists in the field do not support his views. I grant that many do, even as you have claimed I believe otherwise.
Let me repeat, I acknowledge something that you do not–the conflicting views of scientists.
So, please apologize for misrepresenting what I said. Amazing how you spend so much time on this site, yet don’t let my actual words impact your prejudiced view of conservatives.
My point all along has been that there is a debate among scientists as to the causes of global warming. And that Al Gore refuses to debate the issue, thus, I find it laughable that some call this environmental crusader a thinking man.
I’m waiting for an apology, but doubt I’ll receive it, given how you refuse to address the points I raise and keep on bringing up other unrelated ones.
“if not possibly a slight plurality, but then I haven’t polled the scientists.’
See the Pew poll I reference in comment #39.
“Let me repeat, I acknowledge something that you do not–the conflicting views of scientists.”
What do you mean “acknowledge”? Using the normal definition of that word, how can you say that? I have read their work. The consensus climate scientists have read their work. We dont find their arguments persuasive. How is that not acknowledging thier views?
When you say acknowledge, do you simply mean “agree”? IF so, then you are right, we don’t agree – but that is a wierd definition.
“My point all along has been that there is a debate among scientists as to the causes of global warming.”
There is a debate about everything, all the time. Nobody denies that there are debates going on. There is also a consensus amongst the overwhelming majority of climate scientists. And the issue is one of great consequence.
“And that Al Gore refuses to debate the issue”
Why should he? He is not a scientist. As I said before, if some of the consensus scientists want to spend time patiently explaining to the dissenters why they are so unpersuasive, that is a good thing. There are such people out there. Gore sees the overwhelming consensus amongst scientists, and he sees the potential impact on society, and, as a politician and businessman, he sees his work as helping explain the consensus to the public and advance the issues related to what needs to be done.
“, thus, I find it laughable that some call this environmental crusader a thinking man.’
He is a very thoughful man. And he is very busy doing many things. Why must you deny the obvious about him simply because he doesn’t do the things you think he should?
“’m waiting for an apology,”
For what? Why dont you apologize to me for your ridiculous statement about me having an aversion to science, when I have immersed myself in it for the past 20 years? And I have actually read the scientific papers of people on both sides of the issue – have you?
And I have actually read the scientific papers of people on both sides of the issue – have you?
Like you “read” Sarah Palin’s book — days before it came out — and made assertions that you refuse to back up on it?
This is typical of liberals, though; they consider “science” to be repeating leftist talking points. They determine whether or not something is “scientific” based on whether it lines up with Obama Party objectives.
Tano hasn’t read anything. He has a proven pattern of claiming to read something and lying about it. That is why he is a troll.
What’s more disgusting is that Tano is being paid by the National Institutes of Health — doubtless like Barack Obama was paying propagandists through the NEA — to do this. Tano’s Barack Obama is diverting Federal taxpayer dollars to carry out political propaganda, which is a direct violation of law.
I’m still wondering why we’re listening to folks who don’t have Climatology as a discipline. But then I’m wondering why we’re listening to a community agitator. Or the doctors, none of whom are oncologists, declaring mammograms and breast exams aren’t as necessary as was beaten into our heads.
TGC,
Moe Lane called it Obama’s war on boobs, which I liked a lot.
Tardo,
Your misleading poll doesn’t refute any of the points I made about the vast number of scientific advancements that liberals vehemently oppose.