freecounterpoint: Al Gore strikes again

Sunday, April 06, 2008

Al Gore strikes again

23 comments:

Pepe le Pew said...: It's always fun to watch mathematicians accustomed to noiseless data. London, April 6th 2008 - the outlayer that disproved the existence of global warming. Wonderful.; 4/06/2008 6:44 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: It always fun to watch erstwhile statisticians unaccustomed to having their pet hypotheses so thoroughly unsupported by the data that they feel they have no recourse but to dwell forever in the noise.; 4/06/2008 7:09 PM
Tecumseh said...: Maybe so, Pepe. But, how come every time Al Gore gives a windy speech about global warming, a blizzard blows in, covering the surrounding area with snow? You can bring in all the chi squares or Fisher tests, but still it's a riot.; 4/06/2008 7:35 PM
Pepe le Pew said...: AI - Are you denying the existence of global warming or only its human origin ?; 4/06/2008 7:51 PM
My Frontier Thesis said...: Someone tell the deer that they aren't supposed to be standing on their hind quarters. That's only for humans.; 4/06/2008 7:52 PM
Pepe le Pew said...: But the implication of your post is to question the existence of global warming, isn't it ?; 4/06/2008 8:01 PM
Tecumseh said...: Of course. That's why we have the "Goreball warming" label, after all. This board is full of skeptical thinkers, after all -- not zombie-like automatons like in pinko-land.; 4/06/2008 8:59 PM
Tecumseh said...: Hey, JJ, you woke up from your zombie-like trance? Que pasa, man?; 4/06/2008 9:51 PM
Pepe le Pew said...: I am just curious. I thought you people were under the notion that global warming was a natural phenomenon, not a fantasy.; 4/06/2008 10:08 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: Funnily enough, we were under the impression that Global Warming would be an empirical process in which the accumulation of data, would decide the issue of its existence, and hard science its causes.
How naive. It's about proper obeisance to the fantasists of Gorean ideology.; 4/06/2008 10:15 PM
Pepe le Pew said...: Are you implying there is no data or that it is inconclusive?; 4/06/2008 10:23 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: There's tons of data. Which is what one would hope scientists would stick to in their attempts to understand what's going on.
I am implying that it is inconclusive, and that the public debate is ruled by what I called "Gorean ideology" which seeks to impose a political program by fiat.
Think of how Canadian public policy has been shaped by David Suzuki, and how he has been able to get widespread parliamentary support for his calls to criminalize disagreement with either the notion of Global Warming or disagreement to, should it be a genuine event, its human causation.
And by "criminalize" I mean exactly that. Make it an offense punishable by terms in jail for voicing disagreement with the Gorean viewpoint.
In much of Europe, and among many Democrats here, there is the same political fervor in any discussion of the subject.
At the school I teach at, and one ostensibly focussed on science and mathematics, it is simply not possible to discuss this topic without its proponents bringing a political charge into the game. And it ain't said in any lighthearted way, either.; 4/06/2008 10:37 PM
Pepe le Pew said...: criminalize disagreement with the notion of Global Warming
Can you point me to a reference ?
Thanks; 4/06/2008 11:18 PM
Shyster said...: Jesus Christ people. "Global warming" is not at all refuted by a late snow, it is supported by such an event. Erratic weather patterns are caused by a rise in average global temperatures. In fact, a sudden change in jet streams is a significant possibility, which could theoretically lead to an ice age. At any rate, we will see both late snows and early springs, and so forth, as a result of the phenomena referred to as global warming. If you feel that Al Gore is an amateur armchair scientist peddling pedantic polemics, or that we need not worry about the ramifications of global warming (which is, indeed, at least exacerbated by human activity), then that is fine, but if you are seriously arguing that a late snow storm in any way refutes the existence of the phenomena then Jesus H Bloody Christ read a fucking book on the subject. /rant.; 4/06/2008 11:20 PM
Tecumseh said...: There's also that thing about the coldest winter in China in memory -- and all those blizzards when Algore blows hot air. But OK, I don't bring this as serious evidence one way or the other -- just that weather, um, changes, and that any peremptory conclusion based on short-term weather patterns is dubious at best.

Now, of course I'm concerned with, say, the melting of glaciers. That's something that can be empirically verified, and it's totally obvious and indisputable. Where things get on thinner ice is what's the cause -- is that the Sun going through some cycle, or one of those long-term variations in temperature that brings on things like Ice Ages -- or all that pollution and the subsequent chickens coming home to roost, in the grand Ward Churchill--Jeremiah Wright tradition?

What we need is a serious discussion and analysis of the data, and some action, when things are clear(er). Eg, Algore and all the limo liberals could start by junking their SUVs and their jet-setting ways, and simply walk to and fro -- instead of hectoring us all. And, criminalizing free speech, or hampering freedom of research and inquiry -- like the pinko Left loves to do (it's their raison d'etre, lately) -- is not the way to go, I submit.; 4/07/2008 12:20 AM
Tecumseh said...: More about hacking the data. Hey, AA, if you bring up something like this in the faculty lounge, what's the penalty? Rack, perhaps?; 4/07/2008 12:46 AM
Tecumseh said...: For those who didn't pay attention, we talked about freezing China recently. Seethe, Al Gore, seethe.; 4/07/2008 12:50 AM
Shyster said...: Well, I will first apologize for my emotional rant, and then thank you for the oft absent reasonable discourse on this subject. I do agree that the the subject has been politicized in such a way that reasonable people often have some difficulty just discussing the subject. I am presently intoxicated, so I won't pretend I am the spokesperson of any camp's view, but here's my quick and dirty drunken take on the situation. First, Julian Simon is a moron, and please do not ever subject me to his idiocy. That said, I do recognize that there is a great deal of uncertainty around global warming, but I would submit that those who are averse to acting on the worry of global warming are driven almost entirely my economic motivations. I do not argue that this is wrong or illogical, only that I personally have other motivations.

I absolutely agree that the whole "global warming" issue has been politicized to the point where a great deal of discussion is pointless, but I will not acquiesce in a fatalistic ecological genocide. The bottom line, despite Julian Simon's asinine ideology of mirrors in space, is that our present course as humanity is unsustainable, and we need to consider alternatives. Beyond that, we can argue and debate, and I am open to this debate.; 4/07/2008 1:20 AM
Tecumseh said...: Who is Julian Simon? No idea. As for those who are averse to acting on the worry of global warming are driven almost entirely my economic motivations, how's that? Why impugn the motives of those who disagree with this theory? Sounds to me like the usual tactics of the Left, who try to criminalize or marginalize any dissent from the reigning pinko orthodoxy. And, speaking of monetary incentives, the only ones making a buck out of this are Al Gore and his minions, who are laughing all the way to the bank (with a Nobel Prize to boot) with their chicken little act, without actually contributing an iota towards solving the problem.; 4/07/2008 1:33 AM
Shyster said...: And, speaking of monetary incentives, the only ones making a buck out of this are Al Gore

Nice. Touche.

I don't think the Left has any monopoly on criminalizing or marginalizing dissent, but you do make a good point about my argument. I think that it is presently indisputable that human activity is having a significant impact on average global temperatures and green house gas emissions. The glaciers are not the only empirically verifiable result of this. I think that we can argue about whether it is economically rational to reduce emissions, we can argue about how to reduce emissions, we can argue about whether the ramifications of continuing with the status quo are really that bad, and so forth, but what makes me bristle is that I still hear from many (not anyone here, necessarily) that there is "no such thing as global warming." To argue that it is just a natural phenomenon ignores the facts; and love him or hate him, Al Gore has actually done a decent job of getting some facts out to the public with far less propaganda than, say, your Michael Moore's of the world.

The primary concern, however, is that the potential ramifications of human activity and its impacts on the global climate will be so severe that entire societies will collapse. Island nations, for example, have largely shifted their negotiating strategies in the global debate from asking for reduced emissions to asking for amnesty and refuge status in developed nations. They are going under, whether we do anyting or not. It's not that our lovely Mother Earth is going to die; our societies are going to collapse. And whether you think it's a natural phenomena, human induced, or a combination, it is happening, and if we care at all about the state of the planet and the species, we should be addressing it in some manner.

Also, Julian Simon is a crack-pot amateur scientician who wrote some ridiculous and pompous books about the environment and also, unfortunately, advised the former Bush and Reagan administrations on environmental policy. I'm not attacking those presidents (though I will ;) ) or trying to make this political, but Julian Simon is a whackjob. He proposed we increase food production for the multiplying masses by putting mirrors in space to reflect the sun and thus doubling our production of grains and vegetables, for example. Whackjob.; 4/07/2008 11:01 AM
My Frontier Thesis said...: Shyster, if Julian Simon (never read him) is a crack-pot amateur scientician (I'm guessing, with no formal graduate training), then what does that make Al Gore? I don't think either have had formal graduate training in science, biology, ecology, correct?; 4/07/2008 2:07 PM
Shyster said...: ooo, touche again. I'm not really defending Gore though, I just feel strongly that the phenomena of global warming should be taken more seriously.; 4/07/2008 9:17 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: Googling him, it seems Julian Simon was an economist.
Now, I'm curious, Shyster, why you think the Global Warming movement is not being taken seriously. After all, David Suzuki up in Canada is leading, to applause, a national movement to imprison political/public figures who speak against GW. Sounds kinda serious to me.
Also, I'm curious of exactly how you dismiss those many scientists, and I mean scientists, who work on aspects of climate [Earth and other planets] who find the political movement of GW to be far beyond where the science would warrant it.
For example, what did you think of Bjorn Lomborg's "The Sceptical Environmentalist"?; 4/10/2008 11:56 PM

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)