Look what I found via the Washington Times. Here’s the most important excerpt (emphasis mine):
"’Senator Inhofe believes that poorly conceived policy decisions will result from the media's nonstop hyping of 'extreme scenarios' and dire climate predictions,’ said committee Communications Director Marc Morano. ‘This hearing will serve to advance the interests of sound science and encourage rational policy decisions.’"
What “nonstop hyping”??? Well, let’s see what causes global warming:
1) The sun causes global warming.
2) Trees cause global warming.
3) Deforestation also causes global warming.
4) Humans (in particular, President Bush) cause global warming – ESPECIALLY when there are too many of them.
5) Power plants, cars, airplanes, and buildings cause global warming.
6) Agriculture causes global warming.
7) Watching TV or listening to a stereo cause global warming.
8) Cigarette smoking causes global warming.
9) Dandruff causes global warming.
10) Flatulent sheep (I can’t make this up) cause global warming.
This seems to be only a partial list! The world is doomed – just look at what global warming DOES:
1) worsens allergies
2) increases stress levels
3) destroys bananas (but, fortunately, also helps to grow them)
4) causes bubonic plague
5) causes blizzards
6) leads the Earth to spin out of control
7) destroys gene pools
8) reduces fertility in humans (which has to be a good thing, right? Too many of us already…)
9) no maple syrup???
10) changes the sex of an animal
Again – there’s WAY more that global warming does (see Spiked) according to…well, everyone.
I’m very much looking forward to this hearing – aren’t you?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Examining your lists
1) Sun may cause? Scientists don’t know effect but they’ve only estimated up to 30% of the warming effect to be due to this. The rest would be due to other influences.
2) Methane from plants… a little sooner than expected? This is a real interesting article and I’d be curious to hear more about this one. Of course if this were true, it would mean global warming and our contribution is even MORE of a problem than originally anticipated.
3) This is a no brainer… even if some trees release increasing amounts of methane at high temperature, destroying Oxygen creating and CO2 consuming natural machines on a broad scale does hurt… at least temporarily, the fight on global warming. New plants will grow of course, provided the land is developed.
4) All humans do contribute to the changing composition of our atmosphere, and almost certainly impacts on the climate…. All of us, including Bush. The point is to minimize the damage rather than to ignore it.
5) How do I address this one? Lets see yes, yes & yes.
6) Agriculture? Well, I have to admit, I don’t think I really agree with this…. If there weren’t fields of cows, there would be farting moose, deer, and whatever else. This may be a good spot to draw a line.
7) In fact using this computer to learn about what causes global warming… causes global warming. Sure, why not, I’ll go with that. What’s the point, should we just give up? Do you think it is a hopeless cause?
8) Gravity still exists and Al Gore is still a moron. (especially considering his family fortune came from tobacco farms)
9) Interesting… but I’m sure the effect of dandruff may be a little less than these folks may gather. Cool study anyway.
10) Farting livestock…. See your agriculture post… come on…. I’m sure there’s a few more original causes out there.
The second list
1) The greenhouse effect (or warming of the planet) will and is causing increased plant life and therefore, more allergens.
2) Increases stress…. Yeah but what doesn’t, and this isn’t a direct effect of the global warming, but more of the hype.
3) The cyclone bit is just theoretical hype. Really meteorologists don’t know what will happen, other than weather patterns will change. And yes… in some areas, bananas could benefit…. In theory.
4) Ring around the Rosy, pocket full of…….
5) Causes blizzards: This page is speculative in tone. However There is historical data suggesting this will happen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age If you wonder how they reconstruct temperature before meteorology, tree rings, soil layers, ice layers. It can be done.
6) Spin out of control, as cited by the article is a “phrase” meaning “get out of hand” The article does not suggest that the globe will literally spin out of control….. if you stop to read it.
7) Climate change can slash animal gene pools: This one has factual references and addresses “climate change” not specifically “Global warming”, and yes this is ongoing… just as it ALWAYS has been with or without our influence.
8) reduces fertility in humans (which has to be a good thing, right? Too many of us already…) : This article is a piece of CRAP. I can’t believe someone published it. It is an insult to anyone who has ever done scientific research because the very notion of it is preposterous. Their logic is as follows, industrialized nations all have decreased birth rates with increased temperatures. Now if they stuck to “toxins” and actual “fertility” rather than % increase in population, they might at least provide food for thought….. but according to this logic, the consumption of ice cream could be causing reduced fertility in humans. Over the past 100 years, ice cream consumption has universally increased in Industrialized nations, while birth rates have decreased over the same period. This issue is a “social” issue, and probably has more to do with Chris’s “destruction of the family” post than global warming. It is junk science. If they could provide a population who’s breeding habits did not change, and see a trend in decreased birth rate, then they would have a legitimate paper, however this is clearly NOT the case.
9) Global Warming Comes to the Breakfast Table: This is another example of propaganda providing a disservice to people who care about the environment. There is plenty of “real” science out there without resorting to “the sky is falling” commentary. This helps out people who want to throw out global warming evidence. Besides Wild plants, like maple trees, can and will migrate with the changing of climates. At the worst If warming were to continue it would help Canadian maple industry and hinder the syrup production stateside.
10) This article is yet another piece of “What if?” Nature developed little quirks like changing the sex of a creature by temperature for a reason. The article itself suggests this.
For whatever reason I am unable to view the original article you've linked to. Honestly, I think you correctly point out a fundamental flaw at the intersection of science and politics.
The scientific method revolves around gathering data to support or refute a given hypothesis, and that's all it can do. It uses data, not emotion to state its case. Politics is usually the exact opposite - people are elected and officials vote on policy using emotion. When science is needed to make a policy decision, someone has to intepret the data (in this case it's the stated politicians). All kinds of hilarity can ensue from this jumble of information and emotion with a dash of ignorance (for example, did you know the internet is composed of a series of tubes?). Science is not democratic, it has no constituents, and unfortuantely we do not live in a meritocracy. Until we do, politicians must interpret the data that science provides them through the lense of their personal bias and ignorance, the general consensus of an uninformed and even more ignorant public (whom apparently the majority of which don't believe there has ever been an ice age, nevermind the dinosaurs that allow them to drive their SUV's to WalMart ), and perhaps most importantly, the influence of lobbyists for companies that have a vested interest in continuing our downward spiral (see philip morris, exxon mobile). For those of us that don't get our science news from Anne Coulter this presents a problem.
This is a good link to check out.
Science is not based on feelings, and you can't argue data away. Because of this, science typically doesn't have vocal PR advocates, and you won't find scientists spending money to sway public opinion. True science doesn't wish for one outcome, it presents falsifiable hypothesis' and then tests data that either supports or refutes said hypothesis. Now when no one listens because of the reasons stated above, it can be time for someone to get in the trenches and slug it out using the same tools that are used to discredit reputable science. Someone feels they have to scream and shout, because like the tag line to Al Gore's movie paraphrased: "What would you do if you had to tell someone the most important thing in the world, but you didn't think they'd listen". I will agree that may be a gross overstatement, but this is important and in the past no one was listening.
So this shouting match gets to the heart of the issue - I agree with your principle statement. Science shouldn't have to have someone shout for it, and this shouting is harmful to the image of science. Unfortunately with anti-intelluctualism rampant, this is doubtful to change anytime soon. As long as smooth talkers with ulterior motives are louder than the soft spoken scienctists that produce the data, we will get inflated results on both sides.
I would add the following: If your doctor tells you that you have heart disease and need an operation, do you dig into his diagnosis trying to discredit him? Do you find personal flaws in his character and attack him with rhetoric to disprove him? No, you do what he tells you because he knows what he's talking about and you don't. Politicians have other things to worry about, and they have the luxury of simply not listening. Yeah, farm animal flatulence contributes to global warming, HAW HAW! They have data to back that up - where's yours?
If you wish to make posts that are informed by real and current science, I suggest you start with this. If there's an article you want to read that's a subsciber exclusive, let me know (I have a subscription). Heck, if you want news straight from the horse's mouth in a "no spin zone" fashion, check out www.realclimate.org . It's run by climate scientists, not politicians or the "(insert liberal or conservative) media". My challenge to you is to find something that genuinely disproves the danger, yet is not already throughly debunked. I'll help you by pointing you to the last gentleman who almost succeeded.
I would also point you to my response to your original global warming post, which isn't showing up for whatever reason.
Unfortunately, you used Sen. Inhofe as your basis for this post. Sen. Inhofe, a real estate developer and president of an insurance company, also mayor of Tulsa Oklahoma, is no expert in global warming, despite his decision that the media is hyping the threat of climate change.
Inhofe has the knowledge to decide that the UN intergovernmental panel on climate change is wrong and is lying or exaggerating about the threat posed by climate change?
Inhofe has proven himself to be against any measure that would even minimally protect the environment; he has successfully blocked the ratification of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which even the Bush administration and oil companies publicly support.
Instead of basing these posts on politicians, who are bought and sold by special interests (in Inhofe's 2002 election campaign, his largest contributors were part of the oil and energy sector), how about basing your views on scientists that actually know what they are talking about. I am not saying every scientist is always right, but they at least have the scientific foundation to be able to make these arguments, whatever they may be.
I just want to point out, Chris, "flatulent sheep", they release methane when they fart or have a bowel movement, like almost every mammal, including humans. And methane does contribute to global warming, but fortunately for us neither sheep nor humans release enough each time we "pas gas" to cause significant impact on the atmosphere. It is not ridiculous as your "i can't make this us" tries to show; they teach this in middle school and high school.
Given the track record of the Global Warming crowd and their predictions over the last 20 years one would be a fool to place any bets on any new predictions. We can't even get our Hurricane predictions right. The day science thinks it can predict which course Nature will take just one huge Volcano erupting will set them back for centuries.
Anythng Al Gore has his hands on you can bet your bippy it isn't worth a plug nickel.
Post a Comment