This post started as a response to Jeff's but started to get overly heavy and in keeping with the monthly topic so here it is in it's own thread
( Read more... )
There IS debate over whether Global Warming is anthropological,
Like there is debate we landed on the Moon, or the Earth is flat, or George W. Bush was responsible for the attacks on the WTC. There isn't a single scientific body that disagrees with the theory in large. Naomi Oreskes seminal study of 928 scientific research and papers found there was no disagreement within the scientific community on the root cause of climate change, but traditional media coverage would suggest otherwise. You then link to a Youtube video about Climategate, oh the lolz. Four independent studies of the controversy found nothing: e.g. a British investigation commissioned by the UEA and chaired by Sir Muir Russell, published its final report in July 2010. The commission cleared the scientists and dismissed allegations that they manipulated their data. And I suppose you don't know about Mueller's recent work confirms AGW: "A team of UC Berkeley physicists and statisticians that set out to challenge the scientific consensus on global warming is finding that its data-crunching effort is producing results nearly identical to those underlying the prevailing view. The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was launched by physics professor Richard Muller, a longtime critic of government-led climate studies, to address what he called "the legitimate concerns" of skeptics who believe that global warming is exaggerated."
We ought to teach the controversy though. I mean, I for one believe that diseases are caused by invisible spirits and witches. ZOMG there is debate over the germ theory of disease! Common knowledge is wrong, and all the germophobes can stop washing their hands obsessively, and start washing their hands obsessively in holy water!
The tobacco industry used the same tactics with the links to lung cancer and tobacco use. They had scientists on the payroll that would routinely testify in Congressional hearings that the links were doubtful, and the studies that DID show the link were flawed and bad science. There are several letters from executives at these companies showing their goal was go create doubt in the public's mind. And it's no accident that some of the lobbyists for these same tobacco companies are now linked with global warming denier think tanks and fossil fuel PACs. Penn and Teller, hosts of "Bullshit" on Showtime, are fellows at the CATO institute and their shows as recently as a few years ago were denying the link between 2nd hand cigarette smoke and lung cancer. And you know what their position on human based global warming will be (they don't buy it).
Penn was on Bill Maher once, he's such a colossal douche bag, But after seeing what Maher said about John Edward's wife on Friday's show, I'm starting to think Maher is a bigger one these days.
You may already know about Orestes' new book, Merchants of Doubt, but if you don't, it's a popular treatment of her scientific papers looking into the history of scientific debate about AGW. She's a fascinating person, and I think originally started in oceanography. The book is a historical examination of using a few scientists to create doubt about any public policy issue: the most obvious and recent example would be tobacco, but includes the lead industry (they fought for decades any attempts to reign the use of lead in paints), etc. There is an extended video interview with Naomi Oreskes on the Amazon page.
Like there is debate we landed on the Moon, or the Earth is flat, or George W. Bush was responsible for the attacks on the WTC. There isn't a single scientific body that disagrees with the theory in large. Naomi Oreskes seminal study of 928 scientific research and papers found there was no disagreement within the scientific community on the root cause of climate change, but traditional media coverage would suggest otherwise. You then link to a Youtube video about Climategate, oh the lolz. Four independent studies of the controversy found nothing: e.g. a British investigation commissioned by the UEA and chaired by Sir Muir Russell, published its final report in July 2010. The commission cleared the scientists and dismissed allegations that they manipulated their data. And I suppose you don't know about Mueller's recent work confirms AGW: "A team of UC Berkeley physicists and statisticians that set out to challenge the scientific consensus on global warming is finding that its data-crunching effort is producing results nearly identical to those underlying the prevailing view. The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was launched by physics professor Richard Muller, a longtime critic of government-led climate studies, to address what he called "the legitimate concerns" of skeptics who believe that global warming is exaggerated."
Reply
Reply
Reply
I remember when people actually thought Penn and Teller were worth listening to.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
You may already know about Orestes' new book, Merchants of Doubt, but if you don't, it's a popular treatment of her scientific papers looking into the history of scientific debate about AGW. She's a fascinating person, and I think originally started in oceanography. The book is a historical examination of using a few scientists to create doubt about any public policy issue: the most obvious and recent example would be tobacco, but includes the lead industry (they fought for decades any attempts to reign the use of lead in paints), etc. There is an extended video interview with Naomi Oreskes on the Amazon page.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Thanks again. :-)
Reply
Leave a comment