You have to read the story. The short version is that he, with great adulation from the government, said earth will become like Venus if we don't quit putting CO2 in the atmosphere. His presentation was yesterday.
While the Venusian argument isn't particularly apt, I gotta say that the op-ed columnist you posted is even more idiotic.
"Such melodrama, of course, is necessary to conceal and distract from the fact that there is no scientific evidence indicating that manmade emissions of CO2 are having any detectable impact, much less any harm, on the Earth’s climate or its population."
I mean, come on! The only climate scientists on the planet who do NOT believe that human-related CO2 emissions are responsible for the average rise in global temperature (and projected dramatic climate change) are on the payroll (directly or indirectly) of fossil fuel energy companies.
There's a lot of science that still depends on this quaint little concept called "inductive reasoning." One can argue that inductive reasoning does not have the same certainty as deductive reaonsing, but as David Hume famously observed: We believe that bread will nourish us because it has done so in the past, but this is not a guarantee that it will always do so. But someone who insisted on sound deductive justifications for everything would starve to death.
There's probably just as much evidence that humans are responsible for climate change as there is that cigarettes are related to lung cancer. There is no direct proof, but there's a shitload of evidence. But as long as there's no proof, let's keep on poisoning the planet! No one lives forever, anyway....
Excellent. So, in my new KISS Party, we are going to have to quit driving. Everything we do, in this era, is supposedly hurting someone (although they may not be alive yet).
I started a debate on a local site about the new smoking ban. Someone accused me of being from California.
And I strongly disagree that the columnist is even more idiotic. Can you prove that?
The columnist does go on to mention how much more CO2 is getting added to the atmosphere every year so he's admitting that it's contributing.
Perhaps in the statement you quoted, he was just trying to be dramatic to garner more readers. Soon he'll set his sites on something bigger, like the Nobel Prize.
Just 'cause I think you should know about such things, here's a little more on climate change from a peer-reviewed source. Check out Number 4--"the hockey stick still holds up".
I being more dense than usual today. I'm not getting this Al Gore thing. What did I miss?
ReplyDeleteYou have to read the story. The short version is that he, with great adulation from the government, said earth will become like Venus if we don't quit putting CO2 in the atmosphere. His presentation was yesterday.
ReplyDeleteDude, whatev.
ReplyDeleteWhile the Venusian argument isn't particularly apt, I gotta say that the op-ed columnist you posted is even more idiotic.
"Such melodrama, of course, is necessary to conceal and distract from the fact that there is no scientific evidence indicating that manmade emissions of CO2 are having any detectable impact, much less any harm, on the Earth’s climate or its population."
I mean, come on!
The only climate scientists on the planet who do NOT believe that human-related CO2 emissions are responsible for the average rise in global temperature (and projected dramatic climate change) are on the payroll (directly or indirectly) of fossil fuel energy companies.
There's a lot of science that still depends on this quaint little concept called "inductive reasoning." One can argue that inductive reasoning does not have the same certainty as deductive reaonsing, but as David Hume famously observed: We believe that bread will nourish us because it has done so in the past, but this is not a guarantee that it will always do so. But someone who insisted on sound deductive justifications for everything would starve to death.
There's probably just as much evidence that humans are responsible for climate change as there is that cigarettes are related to lung cancer. There is no direct proof, but there's a shitload of evidence. But as long as there's no proof, let's keep on poisoning the planet! No one lives forever, anyway....
Cough, cough, wheeze
Excellent. So, in my new KISS Party, we are going to have to quit driving. Everything we do, in this era, is supposedly hurting someone (although they may not be alive yet).
ReplyDeleteI started a debate on a local site about the new smoking ban. Someone accused me of being from California.
And I strongly disagree that the columnist is even more idiotic. Can you prove that?
The columnist does go on to mention how much more CO2 is getting added to the atmosphere every year so he's admitting that it's contributing.
Perhaps in the statement you quoted, he was just trying to be dramatic to garner more readers. Soon he'll set his sites on something bigger, like the Nobel Prize.
Just 'cause I think you should know about such things, here's a little more on climate change from a peer-reviewed source. Check out Number 4--"the hockey stick still holds up".
ReplyDelete