Three Dim Bulbs: Penn, Teller and Alkon
On Sunday, on my entry about "Private Jet Aficionado Laurie David On "Greening Our Airports," I wrote:
Ever wonder why I never blog about climate change or global warming or whatever we're supposed to call it? It's because I study evolutionary psychology pretty seriously but I really don't know a rat's ass about physics or climatology. (Doesn't seem to stop Laurie!) Meanwhile, I've been meaning to put up a piece by reason's Ron Bailey on the subject, as he's someone I trust to be impartial judge of the science.
In yesterday's LA Times, there was something similar from Penn Jillette, and his partner, Teller, like me, "professional skeptics," and two guys I respect. They were speaking at the gathering of professional skeptics thrown by another guy I respect, and whose work I've written about, James Randi. Jillette writes:
Teller and I are always honored to be invited. We don't wear our usual matching gray suits, and Teller doesn't stay in his silent character. Teller chats up a storm. It's not a gig; it's hanging out with friends. During our loose Q&A period this year, someone asked us about global warming, or climate change, or however they're branding it now. Teller and I were both silent on stage for a bit too long, and then I said I didn't know.I elaborated on "I don't know" quite a bit. I said that Al Gore was so annoying (that's scientifically provable, right?) that I really wanted to doubt anything he was hyping, but I just didn't know. I also emphasized that really smart friends, who knew a lot more than me, were convinced of global warming. I ended my long-winded rambling (I most often have a silent partner) very clearly with "I don't know." I did that because ... I don't know. Teller chimed in with something about Gore's selling of "indulgences" being BS, and then said he didn't know either. Penn & Teller don't know jack about global warming ... next question.
The next day, I heard that one of the non-famous, non-groovy, non-scientist speakers had used me as an example of someone who let his emotions make him believe things that are wrong. OK. People who aren't used to public speaking get excited and go off half-cocked. I'm used to public speaking and I go off half-cocked. I live half-cocked. Cut her some slack.
Later, I was asked about a Newsweek blog she wrote. Reading it bugged me more than hearing about it. She ends with: "But here was Penn, a great friend to the skeptic community, basically saying, 'Don't bother me with scientific evidence, I'm going to make up my mind about global warming based on my disdain for Al Gore.' ... Which just goes to show, not even the most hard-nosed empiricists and skeptics are immune from the power of emotion to make us believe stupid things."
Is there no ignorance allowed on this one subject? I took my children to see the film "Wall-E." This wonderful family entertainment opens with the given that mankind destroyed Earth. You can't turn on the TV without seeing someone hating ourselves for what we've done to the planet and preaching the end of the world. Maybe they're right, but is there no room for "maybe"? There's a lot of evidence, but global warming encompasses a lot of complicated points: Is it happening? Did we cause it? Is it bad? Can we fix it? Is government-forced conservation the only way to fix it?
To be fair (and it's always important to be fair when one is being mean-spirited, sanctimonious and self-righteous), "I don't know" can be a very bad answer when it is disingenuous. You can't answer "I don't know if that happened" about the Holocaust.
But the climate of the whole world is more complicated. I'm not a scientist, and I haven't spent my life studying weather. I'm trying to learn what I can, and while I'm working on it, isn't it OK to say "I don't know"?
I mean, at least in front of a bunch of friendly skeptics?
Let's have more of this, thanks.
It takes a big man to honestly state "I don't know."
Deirdre B. at July 4, 2008 5:34 AM
First off, I want to congratulate Amy on the best blog section ever. I love this stuff. This is one of three web sites I visit, thats right I visit 3 web sites everyday. Freenet for my e-mail, Creators dot com for the Lifestyle section and Opinion section and this one. No more, no less.
I once read that "How arrogant some of these people are saying that we are destroying the planet, mankind doesn't have the ability to destroy planet. We are only destroying our ability to live on this planet". I found that to be a very profound statement, I still recycle and use public transportation. Here in Berlin Germany it is very easy to do these things. Recycling is the LAW and there is an extensive Public Transportations system.
That being said, the polar ice caps are still melting. Haven't we been reducing the Gas House emissions that are allowed to be produced and it doesn't seem to change much of anything. I have to agree with Penn and Teller, I don't have a clue about Global Warming.
Is it getting warmer? Yes.
Are the winters in Europe becoming milder? Yes.
Does that mean something bad? Couldn't tell ya if I wanted to. I just don't know how serious the problem is and I think alot of people feel the same way.
Matthew at July 4, 2008 6:06 AM
Hey, thanks, Matthew...really appreciate that.
I've always been quick to tell people when I don't understand something, especially if they're smarter than I am and can explain a subject to me. A friend did this the other day about the mortgage debacle. I kept asking "What's this, what's that," down to "What is escrow?" I mean, I read, I had a general idea that it's holding somebody's money for legal safekeeping, but now I really understand how it works when you buy a house.
Amy Alkon at July 4, 2008 6:30 AM
Amy, I only tell it like it is.
My mother has worked in banking for the last 25 years (Not BofA) and she talks about the stuff all the time. But I couldn't tell you a thing about any of it, and I took accountíng in school. I hated it, but I took it.
Sometimes it is just best to say "I don't know" and leave it at that. Everytime you ask a question of a group you get ten different answers and then are left more confused than before. Global Warming is the same thing, everyone has an opinion.
Should we try to do better for OUR enviornment? Yes, we are only punishing ourselves and our children.
Matthew at July 4, 2008 7:30 AM
I live by this rule - Unless I know for a fact that something is true I will say "I don't know." Or if it's a text, "idk" hah.
I did a little research a while back and it seems there HAVE been intense spikes in the temperature of the planet both now and in the distant past. This one scientist was saying that Gore's presentation, which demonstrates a huge, never-before-seen spike in global average temps is not only inaccurate but a seeming manipulation.
The melting of the ice caps might not indicate something being caused by us. It might be part of a natural process having to do with the level of energy being omitted from the sun (that's where 99.9999% of the heat on this planet comes from, yes? Not humans...). It just seems silly to discuss the warming of the planet and not look at the sun and the sun's historical patterns. The sun is kinda a big deal.
Anyhow, I hate black and white b/c VERY few things are black and white. I always keep an open mind on things and allow my opinions and thoughts to evolve as new evidence is presented.
Happy 4th everyone. Hope no one else is working like me!
Gretchen at July 4, 2008 7:40 AM
Everytime you ask a question of a group you get ten different answers and then are left more confused than before. Global Warming is the same thing, everyone has an opinion
It's like with writing. I'm amazed when total strangers who read my column write me and tell me how I should change my writing. I accept writing advice from people whose minds and literary judgement I respect. It's a short list.
A guy in a bar told me "My opinion is worth as much as yours." We were talking about evolutionary psychology. "No, it's not, I said. My opinion is based on years and years of reading research. You just pulled yours out of your ass."
I don't ask just anybody for their opinion on anything. See my Ron Bailey remark above. I've been reading him for years, and respect him as a fair-minded science journalist. So, I'll listen to Ron Bailey, which doesn't mean I'll lap up everything he says. But, his opinion (based on research and an understanding of science) has some value for me. Laurie David's does not.
Amy Alkon at July 4, 2008 7:47 AM
I am a chemist that has followed this subject for a couple of decades as a semi-professional. Colleagues deal directly with climate change issues, but I only follow their work as an interested professional.
I appreciate your skepticism on this subject and I hate that Al Gore has politicized it so much. The ignorant bleatings of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh on this subject do the public a serious dis-service. Ignoring the science and attacking the scientists is not how the scientific method works.
I find the anecdotal evidence alone, pointing to global warming, quite overwhelming. And wish as I might that it were not so, I want to slit my wrists with Occam's Razor trying to come up with a better explanation. Models and observations consistently point to a dire future climate-wise. Yes there are a few very vocal scientific skeptics and outright nay-sayers, but the vast majority of scientists agree that warming is here now.
Do keep a skeptical, but OPEN, mind on this subject. I cannot say "I do not know" about this subject, but I am willing to listen to anyone's doubts.
Ken at July 4, 2008 7:55 AM
Amy, When that fellow said his opinion was worth just as much as yours, you should have told him to try to get paid for his. That's why yours is worth more- because the market has said so.
Ken,
Ignoring the science and attacking the scientists isn't a one way street Bjorn Lomborg was viciously attacked by his fellow scientists for raising just the possibility that some of the statistics were off. Several scientists complain that their careers were threatened for not jumping on the AGW bandwagon. Remember the lady at The Weather Channel who called for banishing skeptics?
XBradTC at July 4, 2008 8:07 AM
I've watched both "An Inconvenient Truth" and the rebuttal film and come away leaning to the side of the current global warming being a part of the natural cycle of warming and cooling. "An Inconvenient Truth" seemed like an infomercial compared to the other film seeming like a documentary.
It makes sense to me to reduce energy usage and recycle as much as possible, but I really don't think it will make much difference.
I do think that if I was going to choose a pitchman for a cause, I wouldn't have chosen a politician. Weren't there any used car salesmen available?
Steamer at July 4, 2008 8:12 AM
Matthew - it isn't getting warmer. And while you may see locally milder weather, China had the coldest winter in recent history. Global warming is the single greatest hoax ever perpetrated upon the human race.
Ken - It's awfully hard to trust the models when they aren't open to public scrutiny. The "spike" in Algore's movie was a work of fiction, created by James Hansen of NASA (you know, the one giving all those speeches and all those public appearances complaining that the Bush administration is shutting him up). When NASA was finally forced to release the source temperature data that Hansen used for his calculations, and nobody could reproduce the "hockey stick", the NASA graphs were quietly updated. There was no public announcement from NASA or Hansen or any of the other global warmists that 1934 was now the warmest year on record instead of 1998.
The problem with Global Warming isn't just that it isn't happening, but that those who seek to profit from it have a distinctly anti-human agenda.
And the behaviour of the warmists is distinctly religious - the calls for the excommunication of heretics, the burning of apostates, the imposition of holy writ. Which makes it nigh impossible to accept it as "science".
The basis of the scientific method is falsifiability. Global Warming cannot be falsified, because every new piece of evidence that refutes it is used to modify the theory to show support. Global warming will cause more hurricanes, until it doesn't - then global warming is the reason for fewer hurricanes.
Certainly, there are times when "I don't know" is the proper answer. This is not one of them. There are people with agendas that are making it up as they go along, and they are expecting the rest of us to simply submit to their will.
brian at July 4, 2008 8:26 AM
What makes me suspicious about "we're gonna burn ourselves up!" hysteria is:
I keep seeing references in the astronomy press to evidence that other planets in the Solar System are showing signs of warming (DAMN that evil Georgito Busholini, the Chimpanzee-Hitler! He and those evil SUVs are warming Jupiter! Is NOTHING safe?)
The people who are pushing this the most aggressively are the same ones who've been doing a "Chicken Little" act about the environment for decades now...and their solution is always the same: go back to the Goodoledays before the Evol Industrial Revolution spoiled everything.
Technomad at July 4, 2008 9:14 AM
I respectfully disagree with Steamer, brian and Technomad (is that Tech-nomad or Techno-mad?). Given a choice that (a) a select group would profit from, or merely desire, public policy driven by the false assumption that human-caused (or not) Global Warming is real and are manipulating scientists and the public to that end, or (b) the scientific community is correct and Global Warming is real, I pick (b). Millions of people alive today and throughout history are / were gullible and have been manipulated by those in power, but the scientific community has always striven to discover the truth. Scientists have been suppressed and coerced, but mostly they’ve been funded and left alone, and their efforts have produced the health and technology we enjoy today. If this is a conspiracy, it’s a poor one because of the huge amount of apathy it has inspired – you don’t see governments and corporations knocking themselves out in support of a paradigm shift. In fact, the lengths to which the oil cartels and Detroit go to obfuscate the issues tells me it must be true. If scientists today are alarmist, it may be a natural reaction to the Bush regime’s active suppression. Occam’s razor says choose (b).
DaveG at July 4, 2008 10:01 AM
Happy Birthday to all my American friends!
I want to second Matthew's comments about this blog of Amy. Great, great stuff! I was referred to Amy Alkon last year by a female buddy of mine in nearby Victoria. What a great find!
I have 3 blog folders in Firefox 3.0. There's a special feature in there called "Open All in Tabs". It allows one to open up all of their favourite sites with one mouse click. Amy used to be in "Weekly" but now she is in "Daily"!
As to the topic at hand...
The older I get, the more disappointed I am by how so many people drift towards the extremes on many issues. And once they're locked in to an extreme, discussion is pointless because it's simply beyond their mental capacity to walk away from their cherished flock of sheep.
Such topics include: abortion, the environment, and politics in general.
I did go see Al Gore's film and I did so with an open mind. It raised some interesting issues. Then I saw The Great Global Warming Swindle and it showed how a lot of the "statistics" in Gore's film were made up. The most galling one was how Gore reversed the temperature and CO2 relationship. That could not have been a simple mistake.
But what's worst of all is how Environmentalism has become the New Age Religion of the masses. Once that happened, talking points about "the debate is over" and "global warming deniers" became common place. Perhaps the debate on what 2 + 2 equals is over, but not on global warming.
Here in Canada there's a scientist named Ken Ball who I've listened to many times. He points out that NONE of the computer climate models, which all of these predictions are based on take into account the activity of the Sun. That is beyond ridiculousness and more in the territory of deliberate negligence.
Robert W. (Vancouver, BC) at July 4, 2008 11:05 AM
Happy 4th everyone! Gretchen, time to go home!
I am happy to admit I DON'T KNOW about this whole Global Warming thing. I will point out, though, that the ones who are crying the loudest about it are mostly the ones leaving the biggest carbon footprints, like Laurie David and Al Gore with their private jets, et al. So why don't they live their convictions, or is that what the rest of us are supposed to do, so that they can still fly and live the way to which they've become accustomed? This do as I say, not as I do, is total contradiction. I'll believe their horseshit when I see them flying coach to save bucks and fuel. Until then, all bets are off. YMMV
Flynne at July 4, 2008 11:08 AM
The example illustrated nicely what happens when someone says, "I don't know", but didn't say why what happens next occurs:
"I don't know" does nothing to dispel the phobic fear of the unknown. Ego then goads the observer into filling this "gap", regardless of the expertise of said observer.
In arguments about religion, climate or any other topic where one or more participants in debate have no discipline and little schooling in how to engage in productive discussion, this gets ugly fast. Fallacy and even outright lying appear. The urge to speak overcomes the need to learn (if it ever existed). That's why the advice is commonly to avoid religious discussion in polite company; in polite company, no one is supposed to think.
-----
Let me direct your attention to how foolish and superficial most arguments about climate are today. In most cases, you immediately hear about "this is the coldest winter ever here!"; this is followed by an argument about what Newsweek, Rush or Mr. Gore has said.
The proper way to start the discussion is actually back at the physics stage. Properly started, any discussion about climate should mention polar precession, the land/sea distribution of mass w/r/t latitude, Earth orbital precession (the ellipse's axis rotates) and Solar energy distribution.
Arguing over what other people or institutions say is pretty stupid until you familiarize yourself with the factors they are examining. And it's not that hard.
It's apparently just less fun than arguing.
Radwaste at July 4, 2008 11:11 AM
"I did go see Al Gore's film and I did so with an open mind. It raised some interesting issues. Then I saw The Great Global Warming Swindle and it showed how a lot of the "statistics" in Gore's film were made up. The most galling one was how Gore reversed the temperature and CO2 relationship. That could not have been a simple mistake." - Robert W.
Robert said this much better than I did. When you catch someone in a lie, it is hard to believe anything they say. That said, I am still keeping an open mind.
It's not surprising that the scientists critical of the Gore group are not more vocal. Anyone remember what happenned to Lawrence Summers when he suggested that men and women may have different innate abilities and preferences? In academia, if you go against the grain, you are committing professional suicide.
Steamer at July 4, 2008 11:39 AM
> the scientific community has
> always striven to discover
> the truth.
Your religious admiration of the "community" is not warranted. Read a history of science book, just about any of them. You'll see that it's a cutthroat political enterprise like any other, full of cheats and liars and self-interest and the occasional scrap of good dumb luck.
The middle-school cynicism in your description of an American presidency as a "regime" is telling, especially when seen in a sentence written to express googly-eyed faith in human providence. I don't think your perspective on these matters is broad enough for you to recognize the irony you presume to leverage. Occam in no way dignifies this thinking.
When you say "a scientist" has made an assertion about something, I'll have three questions, in increasing order of importance: [3.] Which scientist? [2.] To whose benefit? [1. (The Big One)] By what evidence?
I never hate Al Gore more than when he says "Science has spoken!", as if the time for discussion and learning had past. I firmly believe that most of these 'scientists' are signing off on this because they think there might be a committee chairmanship in it for them somewhere. The data offered in these matters is often so new, untested in other contexts, and contrary to the science-y fantasies of my own generation in earlier days as to be highly suspect.
I was surprised by that column yesterday, because Jillette isn't the kind of guy who needs to be so proactively humble. Sure, anyone should be able to honestly say "I don't know" at any time, and he's welcome to do so. But this is a guy who's made a handsome career out of describing bullshit, and GW fanaticism gives him much to work with.
Let me again link this video from Lomborg. Listen carefully when he asserts that GW is not humanity's defining crisis of the twenty-first century: You can almost hear the self-important Silicon Valley hipsters losing their erections: All that smirking condescension and heroic sincerity squandered on something that's not even cataclysmic!
Sorry guys. Humanity will survive, and will have to struggle no matter what. Tomorrow's a school day.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at July 4, 2008 11:59 AM
Double colon: poor sentence structure: embarrassed commenter.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at July 4, 2008 12:01 PM
That's OK, Crid. I can stand a little dirt, waiting for the gems to pop up.
Radwaste at July 4, 2008 3:44 PM
:thanks::dude:
Crid [cridcrid:at:gmail] at July 4, 2008 4:52 PM
So Flynne: your daughters would paraphrase the title of this post as
Three Short-Bus Riders: Penn, Teller and Alkon.
Do I understand the usage correctly?
Axman at July 4, 2008 9:01 PM
Here's a hypothetical question: if all the ice on Greenland and the Antarctic land mass were to melt into the sea, how much would the sea level rise? First, how much ice is that:
Greenland icecap area = 1,755,637 sq km.
Greenland average icecap thickness = 5,000 ft = 1.5 km approx.
Therefore volume of Greenland ice cap = 1.5 x 1,755,637 = 2,633,455 cu km.
Antarctica land area (ie excluding any sea ice) = 14,000,000 sq km.
Antarctica average icecap thickness = 2,000 metres = 2 km.
Therefore volume of Antarctic ice cap = 2 x 14,000,000 = 28,000,000 cu km.
Total ice volume of Greenland + Antarctic land mass = 30,633,455 cu km.
Next what happens to the sea level?
Surface area of the Earth = 510,072,000 sq km.
Therefore the melt water would be 30,633,455 / 510,072,000 = 0.06 km = 60 m deep.
That's a simple, back-of-the envelope calculation. The 60 m is averaged over the whole planet and in fact quite a lot of the land is over 60 m high and would not get any ice water at all, so some bits would get more than 60 m. If you divide the melt water volume over just the present sea area (361,132,000 sq km) you get a rise of about 85 m, so the actual figure would be somewhere between 60 m and 85 m.
I don't know about you but where I live, all the main population centres, power stations, oil refineries, harbours etc tend to be on the coast, well within 60 m of the sea. A rise of just a few metres would be devastating. It's all very well saying you live on a hill, but unless the butcher, baker, candlestick maker, and the rest of society that you depend on also live on your hill, your life would change radically.
This simple calculation should be enough to convince anyone who can understand it - everyone here I hope - that the subject deserves a closer look!
Norman at July 5, 2008 1:13 AM
We haven't had measuring tools in place long enough to know anything for sure regarding temperature or geography. A couple hundred years out of a planet that's seen thousands doesn't mean much.
That said, there does seem to be some evidence that things are changing.
I don't need a scientist to tell me things are warming up a bit adnormally here in the Pocono Mts.
But bigger picture stuff might include things like --- the earth tipping out of its normal axis. A few degrees closer to the sun is all it takes for us.
When you think about it, the entire universe is connected with magnetism, yes? So our Sun (and consequentially, our Earth) could be pulled toward... I dunno, a black hole or something, and all it takes is the tiniest degree of difference.. and POOF! us. Sad, but prolly not all that off from truth.
In my next life, I want to be a quantum physist.
But since I'm not there yet and still living right here and now, I'll just say Penn & Teller are awesome. Love their program. Surprised about the defensive response from Penn with this issue, but whatever.
Inquiring at July 5, 2008 1:45 AM
er.... abnormally
Inquiring at July 5, 2008 1:50 AM
"I keep seeing references in the astronomy press to evidence that other planets in the Solar System are showing signs of warming"
I would not place too much on that being related to any warming of our planet. If I remember correctly, the articles made reference to a very few (four?) degrees Celsius for Mars and then Pluto. Mars is about 1.5 times as far from the sun as we and Pluto is about 30. The inverse square law would indicate that any solar cause that raises Mars four degrees would raise our temperature by eight. Even two degrees on Pluto caused by the sun would raise ours by 1800 degrees.
sirhcton at July 5, 2008 4:26 AM
"When you think about it, the entire universe is connected with magnetism, yes?"
No.
At least four forces operate on matter and energy at all times: magnetism, gravity, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. I don't have enough room to describe each of these in a meaningful way; I suggest that you look at Wikipedia for each, follow the references, and then beware of definition. Faith healers, etc. are not talking about reality when they mention "vibrations" or a "soul molecule" while waving their hands.
Reality is far more interesting than fantasy, because there is more of it than all of mankind can make up!
Radwaste at July 5, 2008 9:26 AM
Not to get into the whole discussion but just a note...the Lomborg video that Crid linked a few comments above is WELL worth the watch.
Ang at July 6, 2008 12:12 AM
So Flynne: your daughters would paraphrase the title of this post as
Three Short-Bus Riders: Penn, Teller and Alkon.
Do I understand the usage correctly?
Yes, Axman, with tongue firmly in cheek! o_O
Flynne at July 6, 2008 12:42 PM
goddess: the same people hyping global warming were warning us in the 60s of an imminent ice age.
And rampant overpopulation, starvation, and shortage of basic commodities.
All of it caused by evil industrialism and a West that Took More than Their Fair Share of Resources (get the marxist undertones of that bit?). It's All Our Fault!
The solution of course was always increased government control of the economy, and regulation of our behavior. For our own good, of course.
The posters who referred to Global Warming as a postmodern religion got it right. It's not a scientific discourse - it is a modern marxist morality play.
ben-david at July 6, 2008 1:52 PM
I'm no Marxist - far from it. But, when resources are finite, or, say when use of those resources causes others to breathe fouled air, the answer isn't to just hog away but, for example, to seek an alternative that is less costly to others.
Progress isn't evil, but I take a Pigouvian approach to profit: costs to others must be factored in and taken out of your profits. For example, if you move your business into my neighborhood, it is incumbent upon you to fit the traffic that comes in the lot you rent with your business or to find another location, and not take over parking that is zoned for residents, but is not permit parking (due to Coastal Commission regulations meant to keep parking free for people who go to the beach on the weekends, not to fuck over the residents).
Your right to foul my lungs or blast music from your house into mine ends where my lungs and ears begin. Likewise, on occasions when my tiny dog runs outside and starts barking at some noise on the street I am horrified that I might be disturbing a neighbor and grab her and bring her in right away. We live in close quarters in my neighborhood, and I don't have the right to be noisy and keep my neighbors from the quiet enjoyment of their apartments.
Amy Alkon at July 6, 2008 2:28 PM
That's as may be, Amy. The problem with AGW is that its proponents are MAKING IT UP.
It's as though your neighbor who has no dog is being told to pay a fine for her dog barking all night disturbing the peace.
When it comes to AGW, there is no dog.
brian at July 6, 2008 7:07 PM
AGW?
Amy Alkon at July 6, 2008 8:45 PM
Anthropogenic Global Warming.
The idea that human activity is capable of influencing global climate.
It's bullshit.
I doubt any natural "global climate change" outside of historical ranges as well. The Earth is a self-correcting system. In order for the temperature to increase without bound (as the AGW people seem to think is going to happen) we would need some massive energy source forcing that change. What we've done in the past 200 years is nowhere near sufficient to change the environment.
And the entire concept is absurd anyhow as it presumes to know the "ideal" temperature for the Earth. We know that in the past thousand years it has been both much warmer and much cooler than it is right now. Unless the AGW people honestly believe that human activity is going to cause the temperature to increase such that it leaves the range it's been in since the planet cooled sufficiently to support life, then their entire premise is bullshit.
They would sooner drain the ocean with a teacup then turn down the temperature of the Earth.
brian at July 6, 2008 9:10 PM
Brian - The Earth is a self-correcting system. and And the entire concept is absurd anyhow as it presumes to know the "ideal" temperature for the Earth.
Shome mishtake surely?
temperature to increase without bound - straw man? All the figures I have seen refer to an increase of a few degrees Celsius.
---
Crid's video reference is worth following - but be warned, it lasts just over an hour.
Here is another reference I think should be a good read - I haven't read it myself yet.
Norman Paterson at July 7, 2008 12:42 AM
It is what I do. Just say I can not not give a good conclusion. I do not have all the facts so I can can say " I really do not know but I think ...... and I could be wrong"
The problems with me and the whole Global Warming Debate is
1. Witch Hunt - Somebody disagrees or does not toe the party line the get lambasted and yelled down. In this debate it should be the line "Where is you proof" not "What about the POLAR BEARS!".
2. We need a new source of Energy like solar, geothermal, biofuel, etc. Ignoring what could work quite well like "clean coal" power stations and Nuclear energy.
3. Environmental socialism. Since country A produces so much C02 they need to cut back or they can buy extra units from Country B. Thus the rich give to the poor on a Macro level.
4. Taxes / Fees like in Canada where they have decided to add a carbon tax to gas. How much do you bet that the the taxes collected do not go to solving the problem, but to government welfare and health care. Or that extra fee add to your new car that just add money to the business pocket and not towards a solution.
John Paulson at July 7, 2008 2:17 AM
Canadian taxes...slightly off topic, but the above comment reminded me of a sign I saw yesterday in a campground outhouse. It said that $2.00 of our camping fee was being put back into camping facilities around the province...like that was something to be happy about. Where the hell is the other $23.00 going? The enviromentalists around here are whining all the time about us terrible OHV campers, but my suspicion is that if we put all those dollars back into the areas that generated them, the enviromental impact could be better controlled.
moreta at July 7, 2008 11:42 AM
Leave a comment