ADDED: More:
In what is a rare judicial ruling on what children can see in the class-room, Mr Justice Barton was at pains to point out that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change.This was no anti-Gore judge, as he agreed “[t]hat climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).” Moreover, as you can see above, he considers Gore a "charismatic presence."
“It is plainly, as witnessed by the fact that it received an Oscar this year for best documentary film, a powerful, dramatically presented and highly professionally produced film,” he said in his ruling. “It is built around the charismatic presence of the ex-Vice-President, Al Gore, whose crusade it now is to persuade the world of the dangers of climate change caused by global warming.
“It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film.”
The analysis by the judge will have a bearing on whether the Government can continue with its plan to have the film shown in every secondary school. He agreed it could be shown but on the condition that it was accompanied by new guidance notes for teachers to balance Mr Gore’s “one-sided” views.
पोस्ट्स
२२८ टिप्पण्या:
228 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»My film, it has nine errors,
Nine errors has my film
And had it not nine errors,
It wouldn't be my film.
German drinking song.
Bud: We have to show the girls that we care about the environment, too.
Doyle: Do we?
Bud: No.
(Biodome 1996)
Calling the premature declaration of the end of the world an error seems a bit understated, but that's the British way, I guess.
"Gore's movie has 9 errors, 6 strike-outs, 4 walks, and the last batter whiffed. It deserves a Bronx cheer."
"Global warming is ninety percent mental and the other half is physical." - Yogi Gore
The question becomes, is it partisan indoctrination when all three major British parties (or at least the leadership thereof) buy fully into the Gore Orthodoxy?
In any event, this is new bottles for old wine. I can tell you from personal experience, unless there's been a major change in the last ten or fifteen years, British schoolchildren are not taught to think critically, and are presented with global warming as being on par with the theory of gravity.
Pogo, I love another Yogo Berra quote that's very apropos: "it's always hard to make predictions, especially about the future."
Ann, closer to home, any thoughts about Medellin?
Original Sin, part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvYO4YLI2Y8
Original Sin, part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xj1_DEIyTs
"Children's Minister Kevin Brennan had earlier said: "It is important to be clear that the central arguments put forward in An Inconvenient Truth, that climate change is mainly caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases and will have serious adverse consequences, are supported by the vast weight of scientific opinion."
* * * * *
Hey, wingnuts...
Deal with it.
*Gore's movie is accurate.*
The only thing mental around here is Pogo.
You wingers are the ones who deserve a Bronx cheer.
Simon... It isn't "indoctrination" if it's supported by the weight of the vast majority of scientific opinion.
Did they teach you to be a good little Thatcherite in those British schools? Did you learn to buy any crap the Republicans in this country, especially if Ronald Regan was doing the selling? Bet they gave you the day off when the Iron Lady was bounced out on her ass.
Day off to celebrate.
Now about the truth of Global Warming...shove THIS up your asses before you continue your right wing suckfest:
*"Nothing in the judge's comments today detract from that."*
P.S.--
My brother Lucky isn't here yet, so I thought I'd warm you all up with a little something in his style.
How'd I do?
Oh, I'd say a 9.3 for effort and originality.
But you only get a 7.8 for style.
No one quite has that je ne sais quoi of the original.
Luckyeldson,
I've said it before and will say it again: imitation is the sincerist form of flattery, even if it's coming from yet another gutless regular, using a new moniker.
*Gore has done more for America than anyone you'll ever find loitering here.
I'd bet someone a lot of money that the global temperature wasn't going to be higher ten years from now than it is today if I could find a definition for global temperature.
Gore Wins Nobel Prize!!
by Anders Cullhed, 10 October 2007
blake,
You mean IF you had a lot of money.
Loser.
What's with the NEW & IMPROVED monikers
(Luckyeldson / Inspektor Friedrich)...with NO PROFILES??
Looks like some of the "regulars" have run out of bullshit...and want to reinvent themselves.
It's too late.
Simon said...
".... and are presented with global warming as being on par with the theory of gravity."
ahhh Simon ...gravity is a fact. the judge also didn't disturb global warming as a fact. i know you just "mis-spoke".
Children's Minister Kevin Brennan had earlier said: "It is important to be clear that the central arguments put forward in An Inconvenient Truth, that climate change is mainly caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases and will have serious adverse consequences, are supported by the vast weight of scientific opinion.
"Nothing in the judge's comments today detract from that."
Only nine errors? Seriously? That sounds like an endorsement to me.
How many documentaries have been made that have as few as nine errors?
How many text books are written that have as few as nine errors listed in the errata?
How many lectures have profs given that have as few as nine errors in them?
Nine errors is a bullseye.
By the way Ann, the New York Times said you made much more than nine errors in your analysis of Graeme Frost. How come you haven't updated your post with the new guidelines?
That's reminiscent of how many errors you made when you accused Nancy Pelosi of demanding a 757. You never updated that post with your correction either, arrogantly claiming you were right, even when the facts showed just the reverse.
Nine errors! The day I can write a paper, write a program, write a speech and make only nine errors, I will be very pleased.
Jacques Cuze,
Prepare for the onslaught.
Hey, Bro! You made it!
Well, if I've said it once, you can say it a thousand times:
Children's Minister Kevin Brennan had earlier said: "It is important to be clear that the central arguments put forward in An Inconvenient Truth, that climate change is mainly caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases and will have serious adverse consequences, are supported by the vast weight of scientific opinion.
Nothing in the judge's comments today detract from that.
and...
Gore wins Nobel Prize!
Gore is God!
Has anybody considered fixing TC up with Titus?
Bonne nuit tout le monde, et Luckyeldson, svp me soufflent.
Well, Lucky, I am something of a "regular," but only recently.
But I will tell you some things about you:
You are a simpleton whose goal is to drive all other commenters away.
You are a narcissistic solipsist who has no idea of how to carry on a conversation.
You are poison to this blog and anything you touch.
You are an embarrassing idiot.
You appear to have no other occupation than to spew your venom over everything.
I am surprised and disappointed that Professor Althouse allows you free reign here.
I will tell you something else, you foolish moron: I am a European, and my political views are considerably to the left of anything you would understand. You think Mrs. Clinton and the Democratic Party are "Left?" That is actually funny.
As far a Global Warming is concerned, I am sure it is happening and for the reasons everyone knows. It's just that Mr. Gore is also an embarrassing idiot. Not as much an embarrassing idiot as George Bush, but close. Gore lectures us as if we were children, while Mr. Bush IS a child.
You see, Lucky, I agree with you.
It's YOU I disagree with.
And I will tell "Jacques" something else:
If I made nine factual errors in one of the financial analyses I do for a living, I would be fired.
Maybe YOU can make nine errors in a program, and no one would notice.
Inspektor Friedrich,
Goodness, it appears Freddie is upset.
And I'm a bit embarrassed by all the attention you're showing me, especially considering all the time you must be spending with little ol' me in mind.
Well, that's nice of you, Freddie (hey, just like Thompson), and God knows I appreciate the less than kind words, but...hey...what's one more right wing asshole joining the fray gonna hurt?
I'd be careful throwing out comments like; "I am a European..."...because most of the wingnuts here hate European's guts and consider you to be lilly-livered chickenshits...especially the ones not dying in Iraq.
But enough of the touchy-feely bullshit.
Why not enlighten us as to what YOU'VE ever done that would even remotely compare to Mr. Gore?
GFL.
Luckyoldson, celebrating to excess, offers as proof of consensus on AGW, and therefore proof that the AGW hypotheses are scientifically true:
"Children's Minister Kevin Brennan had earlier said: "It is important to be clear that the central arguments put forward in An Inconvenient Truth, that climate change is mainly caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases and will have serious adverse consequences, are supported by the vast weight of scientific opinion."
Well, in fact there is no study which shows a consensus among scientists concerning the matter of Global Warming, except on some trivial matters. This includes even the ippc scientists themselves.
- leaving aside for now the fact that consensus itself has nothing to do with proving scientific theories - by means of the Scientific Method.
No, you are the one who is being indoctrinated, Luckyoldson - probably just as the Children's Minister, who is, after all, only the Children's Minister.
Repeating a meme does not make it true, regardless of how vast a propaganda weight is accumulated by repeating it, or how good it makes you feel.
I'll wager you've never taken a college level science course, Lucky.
I'll give you a further hint to boost you forward, Luckyoldson: the ipcc process itself is not scientific.
Go look at it yourself. If you lack the tools, at least stop just repeating memes, or quoting people who are only repeating memes themselves - irrelevant memes at that.
J Peden....
I have no idea what you are talking about. Would you care to write in complete sentence that make up paragraphs with one central thought? It would really help out.
tc: Don't comment on my blog anymore. Your comments are too long and they are full of irrelevant material. You're not even trying to contribute to the conversation in good faith. Stop wasting my time.
Instead of learning about Churchill and the horrors of WW2, British youth will learn the horrors of androgenic GW and that Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
Sadly there is no health warning about the near nauseating impact of Gore's voice on the British ear.
If I'm to be subjected to tendentious campaigning rhetoric from an alien, then I insist on someone whose throaty plangent tone does not have me reaching for the sick bucket by the third syllable.
Peter Palladas said...
"If I'm to be subjected to tendentious campaigning rhetoric from an alien...."
What is John Redwood up to these days?
The article is a great example of how journalists drop the ball when writing about science. If I'm reading the article correctly, the judge ruled that there are nine points that are not supported by scientific consensus. That's a much different statement than saying there are nine errors.
I'm also baffled that a school could be prohibited from showing a film. What an odd educational system.
While I think Gore's film is pretty flakey, I am even more concerned when the legal system gets involved in making rulings on science. I have enough faith in science as a process that it will eventually sort through global warming issues. The notion that the legal system is involved is downright scary to me.
This is probably the only time in recorded history when the words Al Gore and charismatic have been used in the same sentence.
The vast majority of scientific opinion in the 16th century said that the Earth was the center of the universe.
How did that turn out?
Even if the movie was rock solid scientifically, it still shouldn't be part of a school curriculum because half of it is shot like a campaign video.
If I'm reading the article correctly, the judge ruled that there are nine points that are not supported by scientific consensus.
More than. The ruling includes that there are statements given as known fact for which the evidence is partial or even lacking.
Polar bears drowning while swimming great distances in a desperate search for ice? The only drowned polar bears observed were four who got caught up in a storm.
That sort of thing.
And as for banning, well no. So long as dumbass pupils - the overwhelming majority - are told that this show has at least one foot in Al Gore's self-aggrandising mission.
Bit like a Michael Moore shockumentary - a useful lesson, if given properly, on sorting assertion from truth.
Anyways, they all prefer to watch re-runs of 'Will and Grace', which is about the sum content of a modern British class on citizenship.
And who's to say they're wrong? Really important to know who reads 'Vanity Fair' these days.
The magazine I mean.
Who reads novels now? Who needs them when you've got Uncle Al to tell you tall tales.
Felicity Shagwell: So Austin tell me about the future.
Austin: Well everyone has their own flying car, entire meals come in pill form, and the Earth is run by DAMN DIRTY APES.
Felicity Shagwell: Oh My God.
(Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me 1999)
Instead of learning about Churchill and the horrors of WW2, British youth will learn the horrors of androgenic GW and that Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
Typical Pogo nonsense. And of course, Pogo and the other science deniers here have missed the main point of the decision:
Mr Justice Barton said many of the claims made by the film were supported by the weight of scientific evidence and he identified four main hypotheses, each of which is very well supported "by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]."
cyrus pinkerton bellyfeels AGW ingsoc, and has even reached blackwhite about Gore's goodthink.
Doubleplusgood!
Looks to me like the the judicial ruling was rather a mixed bag. The way I read the write up of the opinion is that the Judge feels the film is broadly correct but a bit overwrought and contains some errors. But again, I do not think it is a proper role for the judiciary to take in the first place.
Pogo,
A suggestion:
If you don't want to be criticized for the incredibly stupid things you say, sharpen up a bit.
Shiloh: You guys think you're so fucking cool, it makes me sick! "Let's go make fun of the vegans and their crazy lifestyle!" We're not hurting anyone! Go eat a hamburger and choke on a cow dick!
(Grandma's Boy 2006)
What I want to know is where Roger and Cyrus found a copy of the ruling - I've been looking, so if y'all could post a link, that'd be great.
Cyrus,
I am glad you find comfort in the AGW religion; just don't expect us all to genuflect before it.
Worship as you will. Me, I have no time for such druidic tomfoolery, where consensus is mistaken for fact.
Simon: I havent found a copy of the ruling--I only have the two articles on it.
j. pedan says there is no global warming.
File that away.
How many of the scientific geniuses here also believe evolution is "not supported by scientific consensus??"
This ought to be good.
Roger said..."While I think Gore's film is pretty flakey..."
"...pretty flakey???" (like pie crust?)
Now that's what I call a substantial and thoroughly intellectual argument.
Well done, Master Roger. Well done.
to clarify for LOS: not flakey like pie crust--more like a dried up cow pie
LOS asks: "How many of the scientific geniuses here also believe evolution is "not supported by scientific consensus??"
I hate to break this to you Luckster, but the truth or falsity of a proposition does not rely on consensus.
Pogo,
Your position as the official Althouse science denier remains unchallenged. No need to continue your campaign of idiocy to prove you deserve the position.
I think we need to look at why this film is being shown to secondary school students.
I admit that I think AGW is a crock, but I don't care if they discuss the concept in schools, as long as they present both sides.
I think the film is being used as indoctrination, and that is the basis of my disapproval.
All of you who have drunk the AGW Kool-Aid; if this film is the Gospel truth on the issue, then what is the danger of a dissenting opinion being shown and discussed as well?
Is it because, as I suspect, it is not about the Truth, but the propaganda?
Roger: dried-up cowpie is very useful.
edjawhatever redneck: I would hope it's being shown as part of a scientific discussion, or as part of a class on the making of powerpoint documentaries. I suspect it's being shown by science teachers who don't want to talk the day it's shown. How those teachers handle the discussion is the key as to whether any learning is done.
MM- that was I think the judge's point as well.
Showing of this movie is not teaching or learning; a certian amount of rebuttal needs to be done as well, if for no other reason than to foster discussion and learning.
Why are judges deciding curicula?
Apparently, the British have a law about prohibiting indoctrination in schools, and someone sued.
" official Althouse science denier"
Cyrus, I'd agree with Official Althouse "science" denier.
Context matters.
By the way, I didn't mean to mangle your name, but I couldn't remember the first part, and was too lazy to scroll down to see :)
Cyrus, I'd agree with Official Althouse "science" denier.
It's not your call to make, Pogo. You haven't shown any significant scientific understanding of the science you deny. And as it turns out--completely by coincidence, I'm sure--your science denial matches perfectly with your partisan political "thought."
So, Pogo, accept the title of "official Althouse science denier" and move on. You do yourself no favor when you present one of your "defense by ignorance" arguments in order to reject scientific thought and methodology.
MM- No offense taken.
It ain't like it's the name my Momma gave me!
Cyrus: I am curious as to what you mean when you use the term "scientific thought and understanding." Do you mean what is often referred to as the scientific method? eg; question, research, hypothesize, test, evaluate and disseminate results?
"It's not your call to make, Pogo."
Of course it is, Cyrus. You have never argued in good faith with me, and these fora are not a place for a dispassionate scientific discussion.
Rather, you, LOS, and AlphaLiberal call everyone who disagrees with them an idiot or a denier. You have this passive-agressive way of doing it that can be mistaken for an open mind at first, but I have since caught on.
As a result, I don't really care what you think about AGW. And you don't care what I think. Big deal.
Anyway, if you want to compare science bona fides, bring it on. I've only done a little research, but I've been involved with science since I was 8. And Gore? Why should I trust a a guy who dropped out of Vanderbilt twice, who as a Harvard sophomore go a D in Natural Sciences 6 (in a course named "Man's Place in Nature), as a senior got a C+ in Natural Sciences 118, and five Fs at divinity school?
Cyrus: It would seem to me that as an MD Pogo is quite well versed in the scientific method and practices it on a daily basis whenever he makes a diagnosis. And unless you are a post Doc in some hard science field, my money is on Pogo.
my money is on Pogo.
Pogo would do well to stop confusing androgenic and anthropogenic.
Unless enhanced CO2 is making the Earth hairier.
Wow, LOS, so a person's merit is measured by how much money they have?
"Global warming" is group think, not science. It happens a lot: scientists are not immune from the same human desire for approval that cause populations to embrace communism and bell bottom pants.
I'll give you a tip: When you hear the phrase "...our computer model shows...", it's time to slip on the waders.
MM,
"Androgenic" short for "Caucusoandrogenic" meaning "caused by white males".....
and when i hear "its time to slip on the wadders" from those who pseudp-science everything they don't understand, then its time to empty the cesspool.
and when i hear "its time to slip on the wadders" from those who pseudp-science everything they don't understand, then its time to empty the cesspool.
This notion of dispassionate science peformed by objective researchers is, IMO, a crock. Some scientists can be remarkably small and petty, highlyl turf conscious, and protective of their theories. And there's good reason for this kind of behavior: (1) the process of getting a PhD does little for one's social development and is as much a hazing process as it is anything else--esp for a young researcher who hasnt been out of an academic setting and (2) the longer a researcher stays in the field (in general) the narrower their focus. If you want to see some hammer and tong debates sometimes, take in an anthropological seminar on the african versus asian origins of early man and the number and evolution of the various prehistorical lines. Makes a flame war seem tame by comparison--except the insults and snark are just of a better quality.
Re: "stop confusing androgenic and anthropogenic"
I am having a bit of fun.
Women can't possibly be blamed for this, can they? Plus, only a few people seem to know the difference: English majors and climatologists. Everyone else says "man-made".
I really like "Caucusoandrogenic". Heh.
When you hear the phrase "...our computer model shows...", it's time to slip on the waders.
What do you do with phrases like the data show?
For example, look at the data on ice highway shipping in Alaska, or lake ice seasons in North America, or moulin sizes in Greenland. What do those data tell you?
And anyway, don't listen to me.
Try reading Bjorn Lomborg's "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming;" it's a hoot.
Wow--learned a new word: moulin as a term of glaciation! The data MM cites suggest several things: Northern Hemisphere ice is shrinking; and that can be supported by looking at this website: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
Of course the data MM cites has to considered along with the apparent growth of ice in the Southern Hemisphere (see the web site above)
The fact that northern sea ice is shinking suggests that another possile benefit of global warming could be the opening of the northwest passage for year round shipping thereby shortening voyages, using less fuel, and cutting down on green house gas emissions from ocean shipping.
All that benefit at the cost of four drowned polar bears.
Blake said..."When you hear the phrase "...our computer model shows...", it's time to slip on the waders."
Yeah, and I hear there are scientists and researchers even using them damn "computer models" to test drugs and medical procedures and therapies...and hey...I bet the even use them when designing...aircraft.
Good Lord...what next?
Roger said..."I hate to break this to you Luckster, but the truth or falsity of a proposition does not rely on consensus."
Really? Like the world not being flat kind of thing?
So can I assume you don't believe in evolution?
Niiiice doggie.
Of course the data MM cites has to considered along with the apparent growth of ice in the Southern Hemisphere (see the web site above)
If you are going to argue about science you should learn to be precise. The website you point to notes the record coverage (not growth or quantity) of Southern Hemisphere sea ice, on which accurate records are only available back to 1979. Glaciers and ice coverage is also shrinking in the southern hemisphere.
You simply lack reading comprehension skills, or are simply being deceptive, lying, or deliberately misrepresenting the facts to try and prove something that is simply not true (a favorite tactic of global warming deniers).
Try reading Bjorn Lomborg's "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming;" it's a hoot
Well if you had read it Pogo, you would know Lomborg believes in anthropegenic GW, he just takes an Alfred E. Newman attitude towards it.
Luckster: of course I believe in evolution, but NOT because of "scientific consensus;" rather, because of the palentological, morphological, physiological, and now genetic evidence appears to me to be conclusive.
You clearly don't understand how foolish your statement is and continue to display your overwhelming ignorance for all to see.
Fred, you fool: this isnt a science seminar--its an opinion board. You havenet got the academic chops to be arguing anything scientifically. Go fuck yourself.
the process of getting a PhD does little for one's social development
I resemble that remark.
Fred: reaading comprehension seems to be your problem: note that I said apparent, and provided a scientific link for people to read it for themselves and make their own judgment. You may regard the evidence as overwhelming; I see it as a bit more contradictory which makes it more difficult to sort out. But I also have enough faith in science that it will eventually sort it out. For the record, I believe that global warming is occuring and that there is an AGW component. I also believe, like Lomborg, its time to start looking at what can be done and at what cost. That, I think, is the major point of most recent book.
Fred, you fool: this isnt a science seminar--its an opinion board. You havenet got the academic chops to be arguing anything scientifically. Go fuck yourself.
That's right Roger, get caught in a lie and tell me to go fuck myself. Seems like you don't have the chops to be arguing anything scientifically if your response to my catching you is attacking me.
Original Mike: I got my PhD at the age of 57, clearly the oldest guy in my cohort--I was constantly amazed of the lack of knowledge of the real world issues (eg, property taxes, mortgages, etc) that my colleagues who had never been out academe had.
Roger said..."Luckster: of course I believe in evolution, but NOT because of "scientific consensus;" rather, because of the palentological, morphological, physiological, and now genetic evidence appears to me to be conclusive."
I would hope so, you condescending asshole.
And you also know as well as I do, that many of the things we ALL believe...are based on a "consensus" of evidence to that effect.
If everybody had to research everything they believe, instead of accepting an authoritative "consensus," we wouldn't have much time for anything else.
*And by the way, I don't mind your inane attacks, but try to be a tad more honest.
Fred, you fool: this isnt a science seminar--its an opinion board. You havenet got the academic chops to be arguing anything scientifically. Go fuck yourself.
Roger, you said apparent growth of ice which is starkly different than extent of sea ice (which is what your link documents).
You got caught so just admit it and move on. Or don't. I really don't care. Ann never admits a mistake, why should you?
Fred: here's a suggestion: call me wrong, tell me my answer was incomplete--but dont call me liar. Most people, including me, don't like to be called a liar--
Luckster: condesending asshole is good--I like it! Thats what all my ex-wives call me. I am one and I know it. Thats just me. Cant help myself.
Roger said..."Fred, you fool: this isnt a science seminar--its an opinion board. You havenet got the academic chops to be arguing anything scientifically. Go fuck yourself."
For someone who represents himself as being rather brilliant (Phd and all)...you appear to have a difficult time with your spelling and punctuation.
Unless of course, this is a new language you're introducing to those less brilliant.
*Oh, and how do you know what "academic chops" anyone has?)
Roger,
I didn't call you a liar (although it was one of several options) until you told me to fuck myself and claimed I didn't have the chops to argue things scientifically (which I do). At the very least you were being deliberately deceptive (if you aren't stupid). If you have a PhD, you should know better. It's not like you're a lawyer where being deliberately deceptive is a positive trait.
Roger,
Somebody actually married you?
Based on your comments, I find that hard to believe.
Freder Frederson said..."Roger,
I didn't call you a liar (although it was one of several options) until you told me to fuck myself..."
Oh, come on.
And I never realized that being called a liar is bad...but telling someone to go fuck themselves is just a form of courteous discourse...especially among PhD's.
*And by the way, I don't have a doctorate so I can tell everybody to go fuck themselves if I want.
but dont call me liar. Most people, including me, don't like to be called a liar--
Boo hoo. I have been called a liar (even though I have never deliberately misrepresented anything as you did just now), a traitor, a scumbag, an anti-american, a communist. Cedarford (that crazy bigoted SOB) has even threatened to kill me. Ann calls me a troll because I am mean to her.
Do you see me crying? If you lie, I will call you a liar
According to the BBC, the jurist's name was Burton, so your account contains at least one error - you called him "Judge Barton".
Fred: I apologize for the gratuitous fuck you--It was uncalled for. If I may make this point: There is apparently some growth of sea ice and record low temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere. That is a datum of information that has to be considered with the situation that madison man described. And it is, on the surface, contradictory. Frankly, I don't know a thing about climate science--Epidemiology is my field--I was trying to make a that there is some degree of conflicting data that has to be resolved. And I have faith that it will.
Again, apologies for the "fuck you."
if you had read it
Prove he believes it is "anthropegenic". Show me the quote. He does believe there is climate change and that modest alterations and investments are wise from a conservationist standpoint, but that Gore's scare-tactics are idiotic.
He does say "There is no doubt that mankind has influenced and is still increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and that this will increase temperature.
Yet the high-end scenarios seem plainly unlikely. Reasonable analysis as we saw yesterday, suggest that renewables – and especially solar power – will be competitive or even outcompete fossil fuels by mid-century, and this means that carbon emissions are much more likely to follow the low emission scenarios, causing a warming of about 2-2.5°C.3
Moreover, global warming will not decrease food production, it will probably not increase storminess or the frequency of hurricanes, [“there is no general agreement yet among models concerning future changes in midlatitude storms (intensity and frequency) and variability,” and “there is some evidence that shows only small changes in the frequency of tropical cyclones.”] it will not
increase the impact of malaria or indeed cause more deaths"
Not so much Mad magazine to me.
Pogo wrote:
You have never argued in good faith with me, and these fora are not a place for a dispassionate scientific discussion.
Again, it's not your call to make, Pogo. Everytime you lose an argument on merit, you start quibbling about little things that are totally unrelated to the substance of the debate. Claiming that I argue in "bad faith" is just one of many handy dodges you use to cut off discussion. In this case, you're using it in advance as a preemptive strike to try to avoid further exchanges. It's an all too familiar pattern with you, Pogo.
Rather, you, LOS, and AlphaLiberal call everyone who disagrees with them an idiot or a denier.
I can't speak for LOS or Alpha, so there's no point in bringing them into the discussion. It's worth noting, though, that your inclusion of LOS and Alpha in this whine is a fine example of how you try to make an argument on style instead of substance. LOS and Alpha have nothing to do with my posts, and I have nothing to do with theirs. I'm surprised that you are confused about the reality of this. However, your claim as it applies to me is clearly false. I reserve the term "idiot" for idiots and "denier" for deniers. For example, I often disagree with Roger and have never referred to him as an idiot or denier. The same applies to John Stodder. In fact, I can only think of a couple of commenters I've referred to as "deniers," and in each instance the title has been deserved.
You have this passive-agressive way of doing it that can be mistaken for an open mind at first, but I have since caught on.
Again you revert to arguing about style, not substance, and you use personal attack in place of evidence and reason. If you're honest, Pogo, you can see why I find your accusation that I argue in "bad faith" so laughably hypocritical.
As a result, I don't really care what you think about AGW. And you don't care what I think. Big deal.
Pogo, you are in no position to know what I care about, but to the extent that you want to speculate, the evidence suggests that I do care what you think, otherwise I wouldn't read your comments and respond to them.
if you want to compare science bona fides, bring it on.
Frankly I'm not interested in online resumes, Pogo. As far as I'm concerned, you can claim whatever profession you want here. I have no doubt that I know far more about the science of global climate change than you do (based on comments in previous threads), and that's really all that's relevant.
And Gore?
You know, Pogo, Gore doesn't claim to be a scientist. Most people don't mistake Gore for a scientist. In "An Inconvienant Truth," Gore presents a collection of evidence in support of what I would generally call mainstream scientific opinion about global climate change. Within the scientific community, there are points of minor disagreement about various aspects of his presentation. There are a few small points of greater disagreement. There are disagreements (again, minor) about emphasis, style, etc... And yes, there are a few errors. The number of errors is very small relative to the amount of information included in the presentation, and none of the errors are significant in building the larger case for global climate change. In terms of accuracy, I'd say "An Inconvenient Truth" compares extremely favorably to almost anything that's come out of the White House in the last seven years.
I don't know what science background you have, Pogo, but the idea that global climate change science is derailed by disagreement within the scientific community about certain details is simply naive. As you should know, scientists disagree on the details of specific mechanisms in evolutionary science, but only the frivolous and ignorant would suggest that we shouldn't teach evolution in biology classes, or that because evolutionary theory isn't entirely "settled" that we should offer alternatives as part of science courses.
Let's be clear about this. The favorite global climate change skeptic of rightwingers is Richard Lindzen, and even he admits that anthropogenic warming is occurring:
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.
And yet, you insist that global climate change is a "religion," not science. Rather than attack me, or my style of argument, try addressing the issue. Which key elements of global climate change theory are not based on science? Be specific and precise. What has Lindzen missed that you and a few other amateur climate scientists understand?
Pogo, I don't blame you for wanting to avoid this debate. You simply cannot win it. If you want to take a pass, fine; you will remain the official Althouse science denier. If you want to raise substantive points that address specific "nonscientific" flaws with global climate change science, please do. But I have no more tolerance for the "attack the messenger" defense. If that's the best you can do, you need to be honest with yourself about the partisan political basis for your rejection of science that you find "inconvenient."
The point is that even if you believe in AGW, the advice that follows has been wrong.
I think we are in a period of warming, but that this is no different than previous cycles. I very much doubt the human impact here will matter much at all, and I am unwilling to bet or economy that Gore is correct.
Again, it's not your call to make, Pogo.
That's ludicrous; of course it is.
Cyrus, I have learned well from our prior encounters. Not worth my time, really. MadisonMan I could talk with; a reasonable man, he. We disagree about GW, too. There's some back-and-forth there. He sees some of my points, and I some of his.
You're an ideologue, whether you think so or not.
So declare victory and go.
But do go.
Luckster: this has been a good day for me knowing I was actually able to get under your skin--I've tried before, but I think I did it today. I LOVED the condescending asshole remark!
You have a nice day and a good weekend. Since I am on social security, medicare, VA compensation, and draw a government pension, I rely on your hard work to pay my monthly check--and don't think I don't appreciate it! Work hard! be happy! feel the love!
Not so much Mad magazine to me.
Remember Alfred E. Newman's tagline is (or was?) "What, me worry?". That was the only thing I meant by the reference. Lomberg has also been accused of taking a Bobby Mcpheron ("Don't Worry, Be Happy") attitude to Global Warming. But I never liked that song.
Pogo,
Fortunately my previous post anticipated your dodges (e.g., the usual personal attack, the typical focus on style over substance, etc..). It's a shame you've become predictable in this way.
Now, I offered you the chance to make substantive points to defend your position. You've declined. I suspect this has far less to do with your lack of interest and far more to do with your lack of knowledge.
As far as I'm concerned, you retain your title as official Althouse science denier. Again, I encourage you to examine why your rejection of certain scientific ideas and methodologies conveniently fits with your partisan political positions. Perhaps this is the reason you so readily confuse science and religion.
Roger wrote:
And unless you are a post Doc in some hard science field, my money is on Pogo.
You'd lose that bet, Roger. I have a PhD in physics.
Roger said..."...feel the love!"
You must listen to The Loose Cannons.
Why didn't you tell me?
Roger wrote:
I am curious as to what you mean when you use the term "scientific thought and understanding." Do you mean what is often referred to as the scientific method? eg; question, research, hypothesize, test, evaluate and disseminate results?
I was referring not just to the so-called "scientific method" but to scientific knowledge and, more specifically, understanding how to think about scientific issues, following the implications and judging the limitations of scientific argument.
Now, I offered you the chance
How magnaminous of you. Look, if you ever decide to have a real conversation, I'm game. But this stuff? Homey don't play dat.
I have a PhD in physics
Heh. That explains a lot. I always found it was the scientists within narrow fields who were the most susceptible to pseudo-science. Bright, but not wise. Often paranoid. Too credulous.
I never understood why, though.
Pogo wrote:
Try reading Bjorn Lomborg's "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming;" it's a hoot.
Lomborg is not a scientist. Any reference to him as an "environmentalist" is highly misleading.
Every Hollywood star is an environmentalist, just ask one.
He did say "unless you're a post doc in the hard sciences," so he doesn't lose his money.
I spent a good bit of my first year out of college rewriting the goobledygook of physics PhDs--of course, they were sucking on the DoD government teat, so they weren't exactly top notch.
Pogo wrote:
How magnaminous of you. Look, if you ever decide to have a real conversation, I'm game. But this stuff? Homey don't play dat.
Pogo, here's my prediction:
Under no circumstance will you play. You know you cannot win, and so you'll continue to huff and puff and hope to bluff your way into making someone, anyone, believe you have something of substance to say. But you don't. That's why you keep playing the "all blow and no show" strategy. If you had something intelligent to say to defend your position, you'd do it instead of talking about it.
Heh. That explains a lot. I always found it was the scientists within narrow fields who were the most susceptible to pseudo-science...I never understood why, though.
Oh Pogo, there is so much you don't understand. My PhD is in physics, but I've contributed to research projects in surface chemistry, evolutionary biology, economic theory and cognitive science. I don't work within a "narrow field."
I suggest you look at your academic background, not mine, if you want reasons for your inability to discuss global climate change.
Of course, the truth is that you aren't looking for reasons, you're looking for excuses. And I'm sure you won't stop with your (latest) very lame excuse.
BTW, anyone who describes physics as a "narrow field" clearly shows they know next to nothing about physics.
Ralph wrote:
...they were sucking on the DoD government teat
Not to pick on you, Ralph, but why do rightwingers love to say (or write) "government teat?"
Can we get an opinion from an expert on this observation?
"Under no circumstance will you play."
Here's a prediction: Any evidence proffered will be rejected. No points will be conceded. You will ask a smarmy question as if to suggest doubt, then reject the answer. Repeat. Call names. Make evasive definitions. Reject the authority of authors provided. Repeat. Revenant called your game several threads ago; it was brilliant.
Shit, Cyrus, it's quite possible you're the smartest man ever born. You seem to lack the capacity for give and take, though. Hard to explain, but I don't learn anything from you. Your aim is to win. Mine isn't. I like to learn. You think your intellect outshines all others, and you're dismissive of lesser beings. Cool. Enjoy the gift.
But you lack the ability to connect, that is clear. You are unable to persuade, which is a serious deficit for humans. You are good at pissing people off, but that is small beer, and precisely opposite to your intended effect (I hope). You know, Bummer of a birthmark,. Hal and all that.
And I knew the swipe about "narrow fields" would stick precisely where it did. You're way too easy, dude.
Seriously, declare victory. I concede. You're totally right about global warming. Now get a beer, get laid, and go home. Not in that order.
In this case, they were working well out of their field on a small (for the govt) boondoggle of a contract (as was I, for a lot less money). As a Navy junior my first 20 years, I tell people I survived socialized medicine, but my mother didn't. I also worked for the part of DoE that caused the gas crunch of 79. Some of us came to conservatism through prolonged exposure to government.
I have a PhD in physics
Heh. That explains a lot.
Careful, Pogo.
Traci Lords: Oh Baby, Oh Baby, suck on my government teats! Eat my government cheese, Oh Baby , OHHHHHHHHH Baby!
(Traci does HUD, 1982 Dark Brothers Video)
Some of us came to conservatism through prolonged exposure to government.
Ralph, I haven't seen enough of your comments to know if you are a conservative. But many of the people who post here who claim to be conservative are anything but conservative.
Maybe people don't know what conservative means. Maybe the meaning of conservative has become secondary to the spin. I find there's very little conservative about Bush and his supporters. There's certainly nothing conservative about Team Bush budgetary policy. There's nothing conservative about Team Bush energy or environmental policy. There's nothing particularly conservative about Team Bush foreign policy (and I'm being generous, I think, in referring to it as "policy.")
If your exposure to "government" has made you a small government conservative, you'll find very little to like about Team Bush in that regard.
Seriously, declare victory. I concede. You're totally right about global warming.
What are the chances that I can get Roger to pay up?
you'll find very little to like about Team Bush in that regard.
That's certainly true, but consider the alternatives.
The best thing about the Iraq war is that it gives our enemies a juicy target far from us--they'll be lucky to make a "former Yugoslavia" out of it, more likely a Lebanon or Somalia.
Sorry, Original Mike.
No harm intended.
Cyrus, I was thinking about it. One main reason I distrust you and Al Gore is that neither of you speak like scientists, but rather like true believers.
Not a shred of doubt. No "maybes" or "perhaps" or "is most likelys", but dead certain. When I read such stuff, my BS detector goes off.
It saves me alot of work, that. When I read claims containing "absolute irrefutable truth", and it's accompanied by dismissive bullying, I know I can safely ignore the finding without doing any research myself.
I've read enough about GW to leave it in the 'maybe' pile. And I've heard enough from you to know you belong in the 'true believer' pile.
Ralph,
Iraq is an awfully risky and expensive "experiment" that seems to have always had little chance of achieving anything like success (although we continue to redefine success!).
That's nothing like what traditional conservatives would call "conservatism," nor does it seem to be a wise long term policy.
None taken, Pogo.
I must say, I've never heard physics described as "narrow" before.
Pogo wrote:
Cyrus, I was thinking about it. One main reason I distrust you and Al Gore is that neither of you speak like scientists, but rather like true believers.
Not a shred of doubt. No "maybes" or "perhaps" or "is most likelys", but dead certain. When I read such stuff, my BS detector goes off.
Ok, Pogo, you and I have talked about science-related topics before. Give me an example of when I've written something that indicates I'm a "true believer."
I don't think you'll be able to produce anything. Especially since you don't seem to have a clue about my views on global climate change, views which aren't at all radical.
So, Pogo, prove your case. Let's see what evidence you have that I'm a "true believer." Put up or shut up. :)
LOS,
That retort was absolutely perfect. You lump together all things that call themselves "science" under the same umbrella, as if they had equal merit.
Computer models used for engineering purposes demonstrate, constantly, their accuracy. The airplane takes off; the drug doesn't poison someone.
What has one of these models predicted that came true better than random chance would dictate? Certainly not the global cooling trend that has been going on for the past 7-8 years. That 2006 was the coldest of the milennium? That hurricane season would be mild? None of this matters, they say, because it's a "global" trend, a "long-term" trend.
Give me a computer model that works, and I'll believe! In the meantime, I call cargo cult.
MM,
For example, look at the data on ice highway shipping in Alaska, or lake ice seasons in North America, or moulin sizes in Greenland. What do those data tell you?
That, perhaps, those areas are getting warmer. Even if that's true, that's not global, right?
That hurricane season would be mild?
Computer models are not used to predict the intensity of the hurricane season. Instead, various atmospheric parameters -- the state of El Nino, the state of the Quasi-Biennial oscillation, sea surface temperatures, rainfall in the Sahel, sea-level pressures over the Atlantic, and others -- are used to predict using statistical methods how active the hurricane season will be.
The 2006 year is famous for the onset of an (unpredicted) El Nino that helped stop Atlantic tropical storms.
Cyrus...
With you it's the same old story. Instead of debating something, you debate about debating. It's annoying, childish and petty. A waste of time.
The 2006 year is famous for the onset of an (unpredicted) El Nino that helped stop Atlantic tropical storms.
Global warming alarmists always have an excuse. What's the excuse this year? Once again the hurricane season was milder than predicted.
Also, why is it that during the latest hysterical reports of ice shrinking in the Arctic, there were no simultaneous reports of ice advancing in the Antarctic?
Lastly, at least for now, I find it hilarious that the GW alarmists, finding out that Mars is also warming, and probably Jupiter too, explain both away with a wave of the hand as "planet wobble" and "unusual atmospheric convection currents."
Such silly nonsense.
Original Mike,
It was an admittedly juvenile swipe, done because -as a former little brother- I knew exactly the reaction it would get.
Sometimes I'm still seven. My apologies.
Gedaliya wrote:
With you it's the same old story. Instead of debating something, you debate about debating. It's annoying, childish and petty. A waste of time.
In other words, Gedaliya, you have nothing substantive to offer. Instead you make a personal attack. What a surprise.
Gedaliya, you have an opportunity to say something intelligent on the subject of global climate change. As I suggested to Pogo, if you want to raise substantive points that address specific "nonscientific" flaws with global climate change science, please do. I'm anxious to see a well-reasoned opinion from a member of the Althouse science denial club. Are you brave enough to attempt a response or do you prefer to cut and run after making your personal attack?
I predict we'll see nothing substantive from you. At least that's the pattern you've established here in other threads. Why should we expect something better from you today?
Lastly, at least for now, I find it hilarious that the GW alarmists, finding out that Mars is also warming, and probably Jupiter too, explain both away with a wave of the hand as "planet wobble" and "unusual atmospheric convection currents."
Gedaliya,
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool that to speak and remove all doubt.
Gedaliya, I will point out to you what I think is obvious: more warmth means more moisture means more snowfall. In some places (most of Antarctica), it doesn't get warm enough so that melting exceeds snowfall. In other places, such as Greenland or the Drake Peninsula, apparently it does, at least at the moment.
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool that to speak and remove all doubt."
Instead of insulting Gadaylia by calling him/her a fool, why didnt you just explain the Mars "planet wobble" theory of warming? Maybe it is not substantive enough? Or, maybe it would have been the nice thing for you to do, and therefore automatically dismissed? Jeese, what a dickhead you are.
And by the way, IMHO you DO mostly debate about debating.
i don't mind global warming
i like it hot and wet
us cockroaches do fine
with lots of
radiation too
the apocolypse...
i'm alright jack
just think of the garbage
and rotting corpses
mmmm...antenna-lickin' good
it all depends
on your point of view
i suppose
In other words, Gedaliya, you have nothing...
More blather about debating. Yawn.
On the GW question, Lonborg has recently written a couple of interesing things. First, although IPCC models predict 500,000 addition deaths due to rising global temperatures, a warmer world is likely to reduce deaths due to hypothermia-related causes by 1,500,000.
In addition, rising global temperatures will increase the range of the world's forests, as well as the range of the world's arable land. This will reduce the cost of both housing and food for the world's poor.
GW alarmists never, ever discuss the benefit side of the GW equation, only the cost side. This is one (of many) reasons I stopped taking them seriously years ago.
Gedaliya:
Exactly.
Blake,
Me no believe.
Duh.
If I made nine factual errors in one of the financial analyses I do for a living, I would be fired.
As a musician, if I missed nine notes in the same tune, I might be booed off the stage, and I definitely wouldn't be asked back.
(One of my college band directors had an interesting presentation on the subject one time; he asked the students in an honor band he was directing to miss 6% of their notes in a piece they were playing. While getting 94% of the questions on a test usually yields a good grade, the piece of music done 94% correctly sounded awful.)
I'm also baffled that a school could be prohibited from showing a film. What an odd educational system.
If it was considered a political film? Yeah, that could happen; some school systems are uptight about politics. Just this week, in another Dallas suburb, a high school student was told that his John Edwards '08 T-shirt was in violation of his school's dress code, and he had to change before he was allowed back in class.
Gedaliya wrote:
Yawn
Yes, sadly this is one of the favorite responses of science deniers. They seem to be very proud of their ignorance.
May I suggest, Gedaliya, that if you are bored, you stop responding to my comments and instead engage in an activity that requires no brain activity (e.g., listening to O'Reilly or Hannity)?
Gedaliya wrote:
On the GW question, Lonborg has recently written a couple of interesing things. First, although IPCC models predict 500,000 addition deaths due to rising global temperatures, a warmer world is likely to reduce deaths due to hypothermia-related causes by 1,500,000.
Except, Gedaliya, this isn't at all what the IPCC report concludes. Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a report in April 2007 which states that although there will be fewer deaths from exposure to cold, these deaths "will be outweighed by the negative health effects of rising temperatures world-wide, especially in developing countries." Given that Lomborg (yes, it's Lomborg, not Lonborg) claims to accept the findings of the IPCC, he's made another one of his numerous and well-documented scientific errors/exaggerations/fabrications. In other words, you (and Lomborg) are wrong on this point. However, given your track record, that doesn't qualify as a surprise.
Incidentally, a few other related points to consider before moving on:
- If you are going to pretend to cite mortality rates, then provide a time frame for your numbers (e.g. per annum, per decade, etc...).
- The IPCC panel did specifically consider both health "costs and benefits" in their analysis, contrary to your claim. Apparently you didn't read the IPCC report.
- Lomborg says he accepts IPCC findings. If you are going to cite Lomborg, you ought to acknowledge this point. It is simply ignorant to cite Lomborg in the belief that you are striking a blow at global climate change science. His premise is that IPCC findings are correct.
- I suspect you haven't read Lomborg's analysis of global warming-related mortality estimates. I am certain that even if you had, you would not understand why his analysis is critically flawed. Please try to remember that Lomborg is not a scientist, and his understanding of scientific research frequently is poor.
Gedaliya continues:
GW alarmists never, ever discuss the benefit side of the GW equation, only the cost side.
Here Gedaliya engages in a debater's point--"alarmist" is undefined and will remain undefined in order to provide cover for Gedaliya to launch attacks against unnamed opponents.
Since we are discussing global climate change science, Gedaliya, I will again remind you that the IPCC consistently considers both costs and benefits in IPCC analyses. For example, from the 2007 IPCC report:
Both bottom-up and top-down studies indicate that there is substantial economic potential for the mitigation of global GHG emissions over the coming decades, that could offset the projected growth of global emissions or reduce emissions below current levels.
The IPCC report clearly states that it is not only feasible to make these changes but economically possible as well. The report estimates that in the process of making this energy transition, change to the rate of growth of the economy would be very slight--the economy would grow about 0.1 percent more slowly annually.
Finally, Gedaliya wrote:
This is one (of many) reasons I stopped taking them seriously years ago.
Not likely. Evidence from previous threads shows that you simply reject scientific findings that are at odds with your partisan political thought. If you showed any sign that you understood the science, that you questioned the science rather than simply rejecting it, you could claim to be a skeptic. As it is, you're simply a science denier.
Gedaliya, perhaps you and Pogo will feel more at home here
And that's where AGW becomes less science and more advocacy. The science has legitimate detractors, your label of 'denier' notwithstanding. But the economics is nowhere near settled. Arguing that it is convinces me that you're a true believer.
Pogo, no problem. Really. I thought it was amusing and meant my response in the same vein.
zzron wrote:
Instead of insulting Gadaylia by calling him/her a fool, why didnt you just explain the Mars "planet wobble" theory of warming? Maybe it is not substantive enough? Or, maybe it would have been the nice thing for you to do, and therefore automatically dismissed?
zzron, remove your partisan blinders for a second. My exchange with Gedaliya started with this insult from Gedaliya:
Cyrus...With you it's the same old story. Instead of debating something, you debate about debating. It's annoying, childish and petty. A waste of time.
Then, Gedaliya immediately followed with this post directed to another commenter:
Global warming alarmists always have an excuse... I find it hilarious that the GW alarmists, finding out that Mars is also warming, and probably Jupiter too, explain both away with a wave of the hand as "planet wobble" and "unusual atmospheric convection currents." Such silly nonsense.
zzron, please explain the following to me:
- Why do you believe Gedaliya deserves a polite response from me after addressing me only for the purpose of insulting and dismissing me?
- Why do you think Gedaliya deserves a substantive reply from anyone when he/she has already announced that explanations are "silly nonsense?"
- And why would you suggest that it's wrong to regard as foolish any person who takes pride in being close-minded?
zzron then wrote:
Jeese, what a dickhead you are.
Your hypocrisy is noted.
And by the way, IMHO you DO mostly debate about debating.
It's hard for me to see the value in the opinion of a person who just doesn't pay attention. This is Gedaliya's typical routine. The last time I tried to discuss a scientific topic with Gedaliya, the same "science denial driven by partisan politics" was evident in his/her responses.
More to the point, Gedaliya has no basic understanding of science and seems quite proud of that fact. In a previous thread I asked Gedaliya to name the scientific source for his/her rejection of a particular academic work. The "scientific" source Gedaliya named? Michelle Malkin. Enough said.
Gedaliya gets far more kindness and patience from me than Gedaliya has earns. And as far as you're concerned, zzron, I encourage you to discuss climate change or something else of substance. There are already plenty of other commenters who are busy looking after me. It would be a nice change to see anyone here talk about what they believe rather than talking about how we talk about such things. Why don't you set an example and give it a try?
Both bottom-up and top-down studies indicate that there is substantial economic potential for the mitigation of global GHG emissions over the coming decades, that could offset the projected growth of global emissions or reduce emissions below current levels.
The IPCC report clearly states that it is not only feasible to make these changes but economically possible as well. The report estimates that in the process of making this energy transition, change to the rate of growth of the economy would be very slight--the economy would grow about 0.1 percent more slowly annually.
Cyrus, could you give us the Cliff Notes version of how this happens? I believe that the earth is warming right now, I'm prepared to believe that a component of it is due to CO2, but I've never seen a mitigation plan that was more than wishful thinking. How does the IPCC say we can meet our energy needs?
Pogo wrote:
And that's where AGW becomes less science and more advocacy. The science has legitimate detractors, your label of 'denier' notwithstanding. But the economics is nowhere near settled. Arguing that it is convinces me that you're a true believer.
Pogo, nowhere do I suggest the economics is "settled." Nor does the IPCC claim the economics is settled. You've clearly misread.
The reason I refer to you and others as science deniers is because you refer to scientific theories, proposals and research as "religion" or "hoaxes" when these ideas don't fit with your partisan political goals. You and others don't attempt to refute these scientific ideas with scientific argument; instead, you resort to debating ploys to filibuster the discussion.
If you are serious in your belief that climate change science is based on nonscientific research, it should be relatively easy for you to make this point. But you consistently refuse to do so. Instead you refer to global warming science as "religion," and when challenged, you bluff and run away so that you and your tactics live to bluff another day.
Anyway, it's completely clear that you won't try to make your case here. That's fine. I'm sure Althouse will soon post on the Iraq war and you can express your disgust with "cut and run." Obsessive partisanship is such a joy to watch.
"Obsessive partisanship is such a joy to watch."
You made a claim about the IPCC's recommendations. You did not couch them in any sense other than the same certainty you gave the GW conclusion. I think you are wrong. I think the economic advice the IPCC gives is incorrect; at a minimum it is debatable. Can we agree on that?
Original Mike,
Here is a link to the IPCC Working Group III Fourth Assessment Report. The relevant section for your interest is the Technical Summary.
The Technical Summary is 70 pages or so, but you can scan it very quickly (less than 15 minutes).
Cyrus quoted the IPCC: Both bottom-up and top-down studies indicate that there is substantial economic potential for the mitigation of global GHG emissions over the coming decades, that could offset the projected growth of global emissions or reduce emissions below current levels.
Cyrus then added: The IPCC report clearly states that it is not only feasible to make these changes but economically possible as well. The report estimates that in the process of making this energy transition, change to the rate of growth of the economy would be very slight--the economy would grow about 0.1 percent more slowly annually.
But then Cyrus said: Pogo, nowhere do I suggest the economics is "settled." Nor does the IPCC claim the economics is settled. You've clearly misread.
I say Huh???
Thanks for the link, Cyrus. I will read it with interest. Before having done so, however, I have to say that a 0.1% decrease in economic growth doesn't pass the laugh test.
Pogo wrote:
You made a claim about the IPCC's recommendations. You did not couch them in any sense other than the same certainty you gave the GW conclusion.
What GW conclusion? I don't have a clue what this means. As far as I'm concerned, there is no GW "conclusion."
And as far as the IPCC report is concerned, it doesn't claim to be conclusive, or inflexible or based on "certainty." You ought to at least scan part of the IPCC report sometime so that you'll learn how careful the IPCC is to construct analyses and recommendations in a way that appropriately reflects uncertainty about the future. In the instance I cited, the IPCC clearly states a set of assumptions about future climate conditions and provides economic and technological analysis. That particular analysis, based on specific assumptions, reflects the work of hundreds of scientists, economists and other researchers. It suggests a course of action but recognizes that our options (and the cost-benefit profile of any such option) depend on many factors, including specificlly when these actions are put into place.
To describe the IPCC recommendations as reflecting "certainty" is just plain wrong.
I think you are wrong.
It's the work of the IPCC, not me. You are disagreeing with them, not me.
I think the economic advice the IPCC gives is incorrect;
Why?
at a minimum it is debatable. Can we agree on that?
Of course. Tell me what you think is wrong with the IPCC analysis.
Original Mike wrote:
I say Huh???
I don't understand what confuses you. The IPCC makes recommendations based on certain clearly stated assumptions and estimates. The specifics of these assumptions and estimates clearly change with time, so it's obvious that the IPCC economic analysis is intended to be adaptable and is certainly not "settled." How is this a point of confusion?
Before having done so, however, I have to say that a 0.1% decrease in economic growth doesn't pass the laugh test.
I'm anxious to learn what you know that the economists at the IPCC don't.
Cyrus, you're citation of the IPCC analysis of only a 0.1% decrease in economic growth indicates your support of that claim, yet you disavow it in your comments to Pogo.
I'm not confused. I'm calling bullshit.
"What GW conclusion? "
JC on roller skates, Cyrus.
Cyrus, I do have a day job, but I've been scanning the report and haven't encountered much substance to the economic claims. Perhaps you could kick start my search by telling me where (e.g. page number) the 0.1% claim is made?
To Dr. Pinkerton
Sir:
It is with the utmost pleasure that I learn that you are a Natural Philosopher. It is an honour in this Company to address you, Sir, in the style of a Doctor of that noble Branch of Learning.
I hope I do not presume too much to say that I fancy myself a Man of Science, too, although I may hasten to add that my poor Speculations will no doubt prove to be paltry Trifles compared with the Utterances of a Doctor such as Yourself. I have chiefly concerned myself these past two hundred years and more with Medical Matters, viz., the Observation, Study & Cure of Lunaticks.
As the Ghost of the Emanations of the Brain of a Lunatick in Bedlam, dead these two hundred years, you may imagine, Sir, that I have had many an Opportunity to observe Madmen close to Hand. My interest in Lunaticks naturally led me to this Theatre of Topicks, as I call it, and to its charming impressaria, Professor Althouse. There are more Madmen & Lunaticks among the Groundlings in this Theatre than are commonly assembled elsewhere, save a proper Lunatick Asylum. This presents the Student of Madness such a rich Field of Observation that no one may absent himself and pretend to be a true Philosopher. I propose to publish a compleat Treatise of the Effects of Imbalances of Humors upon the Users of Computers in such time as my Researches are advanc'd to their Conclusion.
But enough of my paltry efforts—We all, Sir, have the greatest Interest in your own Researches. Could you perhaps favour us with a Reference to the Library or University where the Dissertation which, as a Doctor, you no doubt prepar'd, may be found? I know that I am most anxious to learn what I can from such a distinguish'd Visitor as yourself, and would be most pleas'd to be able to read such a Document.
If complying with such a Request is inconvenient, I wonder if we might intrude upon your Time in a small Way, & ask that you give us some Sample of your Thought, put, as you may, in the best modern Language of Natural Philosophy. I am quite sure some further small Meteorick Speculations, fitted out with Mathematicks proving the Points, would be a refreshing and worthy Contribution from such a Natural Philosopher as Yourself.
Feeling all the impropriety of my requests, but hoping you may find a Moment to consider them,
I remain, Sir,
Your Humble & Obt. Servant,
Sir Archy
Original Mike wrote:
Cyrus, you're citation of the IPCC analysis of only a 0.1% decrease in economic growth indicates your support of that claim.
No it doesn't. Apparently you missed the context. I cited the IPCC analysis in response to Gedaliya's claim that climate change research considers only costs and not benefits. As you should be able to see, the IPCC analysis considers both costs and benefits, thereby proving Gedaliya wrong.
In any case, I haven't indicated support for the IPCC economic growth rate projection. I'd have to read that section of the report much more closely to be able to comfortably make a quantitative judgment about the IPCC projection.
I'm not confused. I'm calling bullshit.
Yeah, Mike, you are confused.
Cyrus, I do have a day job, but I've been scanning the report and haven't encountered much substance to the economic claims. Perhaps you could kick start my search by telling me where (e.g. page number) the 0.1% claim is made?
I have a day (and night too, it seems) job also, Mike, but I'll try to find a page number for you when I get a chance. I thought your interest was in the technology summary rather than the economic analysis.
In any case, I haven't indicated support for the IPCC economic growth rate projection. I'd have to read that section of the report much more closely to be able to comfortably make a quantitative judgment about the IPCC projection.
Then why the hell did you bring it up?
I may be confused, but I'm clear on this point. As other's have noted, you are a very disingenuous debater.
I thought your interest was in the technology summary rather than the economic analysis.
As I said above, I'm generally inclined to believe the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. However, I have never seen a realistic remedy put forth that wouldn't severly damage the global economy. You, however, claimed that the IPCC report said we could do it with virtually no economic damage. I find that exciting. I want to know how it's to be done. Please tell me where I can read about this.
Sir Archy strikes!
Original Mike wrote:
Then why the hell did you bring it up?
I already explained this to you. Please review my post at 2:06PM. In that post I wrote this:
I cited the IPCC analysis in response to Gedaliya's claim that climate change research considers only costs and not benefits. As you should be able to see, the IPCC analysis considers both costs and benefits, thereby proving Gedaliya wrong.
So that there's no further confusion...
1. Gedaliya made the following claim:
GW alarmists never, ever discuss the benefit side of the GW equation, only the cost side.
2. I cited the IPCC economic analysis as ONE EXAMPLE of GW analysis that specifically examines costs and benefits. The point of doing this was to educate Gedaliya about the kind of analysis done by the IPCC.
I may be confused, but I'm clear on this point.
No, you are strictly confused. Let me give you a hypothetical example that may be easier for you to understand. Let's say Pogo asserts that Bush never promised to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. In response, I refer Pogo to the following section of a Bush campaign speech from 2000 (September 29, 2000, Saginaw MI):
We will require all power plants to meet clean-air standards in order to reduce emissions and significantly improve air quality... [and meet] mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide.
Now, in citing Bush, must I agree with Bush to disprove Pogo's claim? Clearly the answer is no. Logic requires only that I prove the existence of the statement; I am not bound to agree with the content of the statement.
As other's have noted, you are a very disingenuous debater.
Consider the source, Mike. Frankly I thought Althouse commenters would be more sophisticated in their understanding of logic. The concept involved here isn't that complex.
Think about it Mike. If in response to an idiotic claim by another commenter, you quoted from Mein Kampf to disprove the claim, would you be annoyed if I subsequently insisted that you were endorsing statements from Mein Kampf?
I've been courteous with you, Mike, and in return, based on YOUR confusion, you've accused me of being a "very disingenuous debater." Either you're not as bright as I imagined or you've made an unfortunate mistake. Which do you think it is?
I'm bright enough to understand what you're doing, Cyrus. As others have noted before, you put stuff out there, then disavow it when challenged.
Regardless, I still want to read the IPCC analysis leading to 0.1%.
To Sir Archy
Sir,
The honour of our present Communication is mine. I am of course familiar with some of your Speculations as I have discovered them in my Researches at this Theatre of Topicks.
I have had a Moment to consider your Request and I find that presently it is inconvenient. However, I shall be attending The Royal Society programme Cosmology Meets Condensed Matter in January of Two Thousand and Eight, and if it is to your Convenience, I should be Honoured to enjoy your Company afterwards.
I beg to remain, fine Sir,
In obedient service,
Dr. C. Pinkerton
I'm bright enough to understand what you're doing, Cyrus. As others have noted before, you put stuff out there, then disavow it when challenged.
Well Mike, in that case you're simply not as bright as I had hoped. What you don't seem to understand is that I've neither avowed nor disavowed the IPCC claim about projected economic growth rate. In both cases, you've made an incorrect assumption based on a misreading. The real problem, however, is not the misreading, but your failure to correct your misunderstanding when it has been repeatedly explained to you.
A citation of what the IPCC believes is NOT equivalent to a statement of what I believe. That strikes me as a fairly simple concept, but apparently you are struggling with it. If I want to establish what the IPCC believes, I cite the IPCC analysis. If I want to state what I believe, I would NOT cite the IPCC--I would provide my own conclusions. What could be clearer than that?
In this instance, I was establishing what the IPCC believes. Therefore I cited the IPCC. I cannot understand why you insist that, if I cite the IPCC in an attempt to prove what the panel advises, I must also believe in the panel finding. You're making a basic logical error, Mike. (Unless, that is, you've somehow concluded that I AM the IPCC.)
This is now my third and last attempt to explain this to you. My patience and time are limited. In this case, after three explanations, if you still don't understand the distinction, the fault is surely yours, not mine.
Now, I'm not going to bother doing research for someone who falsely accuses me of being a "disingenuous debater." If you want to correct your mistake, I'll make an effort to post a link for you. If not, I'm sure you'll be able to find the relevant IPCC report section on your own, assuming you are as curious about it as you suggest.
It's not in there, is it?
Don't bother, Mike.
He will refuse to admit to any position at all, and call you an idiot for thinking he's espousing one. It's all a bunch of mush, really. Why post the IPCC stuff at all? Who knows, but assuredly it is your fault for not understanding.
Revenant had a brilliant takedown of this behavior a few weeks back, but I cannot find it.
Yeah, Pogo, I know. I've read his stuff for some time. It's just that he peaked my curiousity with a claim of lowered CO2 with no economic damage. Who wouldn't be for that, regardless of your belief re: GW. Better safe than sorry, if it's painless. But, of course it strains credulity to the breaking point that it could be so.
Original Mike wrote:
It's not in there, is it?
Of course it's in there, Mike. It should be relatively easy to find.
Pogo,
It's amazing that you so eagerly identify yourself as a hypocrite. You whine pathetically because you can't follow my substantive posts. At the same time, you consistently dodge producing any substantive posts of your own.
For example, from my 10:28 AM post, I asked
Tell me what you think is wrong with the IPCC analysis
in response to your claim that you disagree with the economic analysis therein. You have yet to answer. I have no doubt the reason you refuse to answer is that you have nothing at all intelligent to say on the subject.
Of course you may be very busy and therefore only have time to whine incessantly about my debate style. Pogo, at least take some time to go to today's Gore thread and post a "Algore is fat!" comment.
BTW, when Mike suggested that "a 0.1% decrease in economic growth doesn't pass the laugh test," I asked him to tell me what he knows that the economists at the IPCC don't. No answer from Mike yet. He too is very busy and only has time to ask for multiple explanations, whine, and ask me to do research for him.
Tell me what you think is wrong with the IPCC analysis
What's the point, cyrus, if you don't support it? Or do you? or don't you? Hard to tell. Hard to give a shit.
From my point of view, as you won't admit to having any particular beliefs or position on the subject here, it simply isn't worth the investment.
Pogo wrote:
What's the point, cyrus...
Let's see what I wrote in the previous post...
I have no doubt the reason you refuse to answer is that you have nothing at all intelligent to say on the subject.
It's still true, Pogo. You claim to have an opinion, but you can't manage to explain it. I have no doubt that this reflects the fact that your opinion is firmly rooted in ignorance.
I can't imagine why you need to know my opinion before you can explain yours. Can you explain this to me, Pogo? If you can give me a satisfactory answer as to why you need to read my opinion before you can write yours, I'll gladly state my opinion and explain my reasoning.
And for the record, I haven't been asked for MY opinion on the IPCC economic recommendations to this point. I posted a brief excerpt from the IPCC economic analysis in order to provide a summary of the IPCC position. Since then, I've been trying to explain that very simple fact to a couple of commenters with poor reading and/or logic skills. If asked for MY opinion, I will give it. (And that stands in stark contrast to you and Mike who consistently refuse to give and explain an opinion.)
Pogo, I anxiously await your next filibuster post.
Mike,
Because I'm generous, I'm providing a link for your research. Try Chapter 11, 12 and 13 for starters.
Good luck.
I cited the IPCC economic analysis as ONE EXAMPLE of GW analysis that specifically examines costs and benefits. The point of doing this was to educate Gedaliya about the kind of analysis done by the IPCC.
The "example" you cited referred to the benefit of mitigating CO2-based GW, not the benefits of a warmer climate itself. GW alarmists never discuss the benefits derived from a warmer world, two of which I cited above.
It is undoubtedly true that an earth with a higher concentration of CO2 in its lower atmosphere will produce more food and timber at a lower cost. I say this is good...what say you?
As you should be able to see, the IPCC analysis considers both costs and benefits, thereby proving Gedaliya wrong.
Please provide a cite from the IPCC report that considers the actual benefits from a warmer world, not the benefits from mitigating the effects of a warmer world.
The last time I tried to discuss a scientific topic with Gedaliya, the same "science denial driven by partisan politics" was evident in his/her responses.
What was this "scientific topic" we were discussing Cyrus?
Gedaliya wrote:
GW alarmists never discuss the benefits derived from a warmer world, two of which I cited above.
Wrong again, Gedaliya. If you read the IPCC report, you'll see that the panel repeatedly examines costs and benefits of various global climate change conditions, including a "warmer world."
Of course, I've already given you one clear example of this when I corrected your incorrect claim (cited from Lomborg) that
[a]lthough IPCC models predict 500,000 addition deaths due to rising global temperatures, a warmer world is likely to reduce deaths due to hypothermia-related causes by 1,500,000.
Here's my previous correction to your incorrect claim:
Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a report in April 2007 which states that although there will be fewer deaths from exposure to cold, these deaths "will be outweighed by the negative health effects of rising temperatures world-wide, especially in developing countries."
I don't understand how you can be confused on this point, Gedaliya. Clearly the IPCC considered the costs and benefits of a "warmer world" in this analysis. However, contrary to your claim, they find that a "warmer world" leads to MORE "temperature-related" mortality, not less.
In short, you're still wrong, Gedaliya.
(BTW, this isn't just an IPCC finding. Recent research by Medina-Ramón et al concludes that
the increase in extremely hot summers predicted by climate change models will lead to a higher death toll that will not be offset by fewer deaths during warmer winters...)
Gedaliya then wrote:
It is undoubtedly true that an earth with a higher concentration of CO2 in its lower atmosphere will produce more food and timber at a lower cost.
No, this is NOT undoubtedly true. For example, the size of future timber harvests will reflect the amount of land in forestry, which in turn reflects policy decisions about land use. From a recent IPCC analyis:
According to the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) scenarios, forest area in industrialized regions will increase between 2000 and 2050 by about 60 to 230 million ha. At the same time, the forest area in the developing regions will decrease by about 200 to 490 million ha.
This isn't as simple as you imagine, Gedaliya. Future food output will depend on things such as agricultural mitigation practices, water availability, land use decisions (i.e., trade-offs between bio-energy and food crops), etc...
Gedaliya, I see no obvious reason to believe that food and timber will be cheaper in a "warmer world" as you imagine. If you care to cite research that supports your assertion, please do and I promise to look at it.
Please provide a cite from the IPCC report that considers the actual benefits from a warmer world, not the benefits from mitigating the effects of a warmer world.
See my 7:09PM response, please.
What was this "scientific topic" we were discussing Cyrus?
We were discussing the science underlying the study of excess mortality in Iraq by Burnham and Roberts. As I recall, you dismissed the science although you admit that you don't understand it. You also asserted that the study has been "discredited" and cited Michelle Malkin as your source.
Please correct me if I've made any mistakes in summarizing your position re: Burnham/Roberts.
I don't understand how you can be confused on this point, Gedaliya. Clearly the IPCC considered the costs and benefits of a "warmer world" in this analysis. However, contrary to your claim, they find that a "warmer world" leads to MORE "temperature-related" mortality, not less.
It does not "clearly" consider the costs and benefits of a warmer world, it considers the costs and benefits of mitigating the effects of a warmer world, i.e., spending money on reducing carbon emmissions, etc, etc.
Please cite a reference in any GW alarmist publication in which the benefits of a warmer world are weighted against the costs of a warmer world.
Please correct me if I've made any mistakes in summarizing your position re: Burnham/Roberts.
I used her site in order to provide a URL to one of the many critiques of Burnham and Roberts' Lancet study. Your statement that I cited her as a scientific source is disingenuous and false.
It does not "clearly" consider the costs and benefits of a warmer world, it considers the costs and benefits of mitigating the effects of a warmer world, i.e., spending money on reducing carbon emmissions, etc, etc.
No. You are absolutely wrong on this point. The IPCC model, which Lomborg refers to in his book "Cool It," specifically looks at how health risks change in a "warmer world." You simply don't know what you're talking about here.
I notice you also don't address the other study I cited which has a similar finding to that recently reported by the IPCC.
In any case, you ought to read the relevant section from the IPCC report. Your understanding of what the panel's analysis shows is incorrect.
Your statement that I cited her as a scientific source is disingenuous and false.
I see. In that case, please cite one or more of the scientific sources that you are familiar with and understand so that I can learn the nature of the scientific basis for your dismissal of the work of Burnham and Roberts.
Thank you.
In that case, please cite one or more of the scientific sources that you are familiar with and understand so that I can learn the nature of the scientific basis for your dismissal of the work of Burnham and Roberts.
Oh please. We've already been through this. If you're confused go back to the other thread, follow my links to the sources I cited, and read them for yourself.
Oh please. We've already been through this. If you're confused go back to the other thread, follow my links to the sources I cited, and read them for yourself.
You never cited any scientific sources. Go figure.
Gedaliya,
Let's make this easy. Just summarize in 25 words or less what your scientific objection to the work of Burnham and Roberts is. That is, tell me what's wrong with their methodology. (Feel free to use more than 25 words if you like.)
Thank you.
By the way, I'm going to predict that Gedaliya will not produce an explanation for the scientific basis for her dismissal of the Burnham/Roberts study.
No. You are absolutely wrong on this point.
Did you read your own sources? The IPCC WG III paper you cite above discuss the costs and benefits of mitigating AGW, not the costs and benefits of either a warmer world or a world with higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2.
Some years ago Thomas Gale Moore wrote a fascinating little book called Climate of Fear in which he summarized the costs and benefits of "global warming." The book cited numerous scientific studies to support his contention that the effects of a warmer world will be either neutral or slightly beneficial to the human race. This comports with Lomborg's belief that the benefits to mankind of spending trillions to reduce CO2 emissions would be far better spent elsewhere, such as in infectious disease control, water purification, mosquito eradication, etc., etc.
Here is a link to the book, which is now available online. I suggest all those who are skeptical of the hysterical claims of the GW alarmists take a look and judge for themselves.
Cyrus, if you're going to start another interminable debate about debating, you'll have to do it with yourself. I'm not interested.
Oh, and I'm male, not female, so you can use the appropriate pronoun when you address me or refer to me.
Did you read your own sources? The IPCC WG III paper you cite above discuss the costs and benefits of mitigating AGW, not the costs and benefits of either a warmer world or a world with higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2.
Yes, I've read the IPCC report. The relevant section of the IPCC report discusses the health consequences of a warmer world. You simply haven't read the report. That much is clear.
Until you read the report, you have no credibility on this point. You are wrong.
(Note: I referenced Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in my response to you on this point. I suggest you refer to the correct report before making more foolish and incorrect statements.)
Cyrus wrote:
By the way, I'm going to predict that Gedaliya will not produce an explanation for the scientific basis for her dismissal of the Burnham/Roberts study.
Gedaliya responded:
Cyrus, if you're going to start another interminable debate about debating, you'll have to do it with yourself. I'm not interested.
Ha! Just as I predicted...
Now the Gedaliya filibuster begins...
It's a shame that science deniers are such terrible liars about what they claim to know.
Because I'm generous, I'm providing a link for your research. Try Chapter 11, 12 and 13 for starters.
YOU made the claim. If I was reviewing your paper I'd bounce your ass.
I'm at home, on dialup for the weekend. Give me the damn page number.
No one is "denying science." That is absurd. I and other AGW skeptics dismiss the hysteria of the AGW alarmists, i.e., that the earth is in a catastrophic crisis of apocolyptic dimensions (20 foot sea-leve rises, etc.), and also question whether the trillions of tax dollars the AGW alarmists demand we spend in highly dubious schemes to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels could best be spent elsewhere.
Someone upthread made the amusing observation that Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize was the "jump the shark" moment for the AGW movement. I think he's right. The AGW alarmists have finally reached their high water mark. In the next few years the entire edifice of their hysterical end-of-the-world mania will collapse.
Then we'll all have to wonder what is next for hand-wringing chicken-littles that always seem to be present in every era and in every culture (remember Paul Ehrlich?) from (undoubtedly) the beginning of human history.
Yes, I've read the IPCC report. The relevant section of the IPCC report discusses the health consequences of a warmer world.
Ok Cyrus, I'll call your bluff. What are some of the positive health effects that the report refers to that are outweighed by the negative health effects of a warmer world?
Cyrus is his own vortex, a fractal obfuscation engine. Each post seems like it might make sense if you only looked at it more closely, but like the Mandelbrot set, when you look at it more closely, it's just more obfuscation, that looks like it might make sense if you looked …. By the way, that IPCC report is from 2001, so it's obsolete. It's not like no science on the subject has been done since then. And having looked at it, I can say there's more "potentially, might, could possibly, may, on the other hand," in that report than in anything I would want to take seriously.
Just for laughs, I'll repost the link to a high school student's point-by-point takedown of An Inconvenient Truth: Ponder the Maunder. By the way, Cyrus, what happened to your other blog, the one that wasn't Mandagon? I saw it, briefly, and now regret not bookmarking it.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा