For some reason, the OC Reg’s Science Dude posted this graphic—evidently of Huntington Beach Congressman Dana Rohrabacher opening his big, dumb mouth again, to devastating effect.Rohrabacher on detainee treatment at Guantanamo Bay (June 4)
“Constituents may be interested to learn of the growing scientific consensus that global warming is not manmade, if it is in fact even occurring.” —Quoted at the Congressman’s website
Naturally, R's remark is flat false.
10 comments:
Technically we're STILL in an ice age, but you'd never know it listening to the likes of that huckster Albore.
Two points here:
First you may like living with an ice sheet that covers North America all the way to Texas, but I don't.I don't even like it outside below 65. I get 5 months of 20 degree mornings so I am all for global warming. Anything we can do to stop ice ages is a good thing. But I don't think we can. The ice sheet will come again.
Second, Since when are we so full of ourselves as to say that it is OK for nature to play around with the climate but not us? Aren't we just part of nature too? Hell, if you want to take that ridiculous argument all the way... try not even making a fire because it's changing nature! That's hecka dumb.
Let's get a grip on this nonsense. A rational understanding of cause and effect and good solid scientific inquiry is in order (and is underway). But social engineering to advance some crackpots idea of a perfect society (with them in the drivers seat of course) is a non starter. You threaten my freedom and the guns get oiled (when they take away the vote ;).
It's obvious we can't continue to use oil in ever increasing amounts. We are coming to "Peak Oil" soon if not now. This atmospheric loading ends when we use all the stuff up and makes a moot point about our role in climate change...that occurs without us around anyway. When all the stuff is burned up then the earth keeps doing what it has always been doing, with or without us on board.
We obviously must come to grips with the POPULATION problem that is driving what looks to be an endless succession of resource wars. WWII was the first of these. Gulf War I was next and now it's this Iraq adventure, part deux. Global warming will be a sideshow when there isn't enough oil AND food to go around. Katy bar the door!
As we approach the 7 billion mark that humans will be on this planet, what is the sustainability of that number of humans on a planet that we are denuding, polluting, and intruding on?
I always like the gun people's comments: "You threaten my freedom and the guns get oiled."
If a military junta came roaring through the country, the gun folks would be crying like little girls and scurrying into the underbrush.
10:19 So you figure in a country with more guns than people in private hands, that there would be NO insurgency at all. Americans everywhere would cower in fear of the junta.
You Sir, are (as is said) "full of shit".
As readers here might note, I am not fond of expletives but you had that one coming.
Maybe you could share how you would combat the military junta? Leaflets? Protest march? Run for the border? Prayer? Or maybe living on your knees is preferable to dying on your feet.
TB, ET AL.:
Listen, science, by its very nature, is unsecretive; it is open. It's (mostly) very smart people competing to make real headway--in a setting in which fraud and fallacy, in the long run, mean professional suicide.
To suggest that the prima facie consensus among relevant scientists and scientific organizations reflects, not honest scientific judgment, but political correctness (or a dastardly liberal conspiracy, or...?) shows a complete failure to understand the culture of academia and, especially, the culture of the scientific community.
Scientists tend to agree that Global Warming is real and that human activity likely contributes to it because the science keeps marching in that direction. This is why conservative scientific organizations such as the NAS has fretted about GW and about skepticism toward it.
These people may be mistaken, but that possibility is already built into their pronouncements on the matter (note the reference to probabilities). Scientists know that science is about probabilities, not certainties.
Without a viable conspiracy/PC theory regarding the view of the general scientific community, skepticism can gain no foothold. Forget the media. Forget the college classroom. Focus on the (relevant) scientific community. Focus. Why does this crowd tend to gain confidence over time that GW is real? WHY?
Are you willing to put your opinion above (relevant) scientific consensus? (If you tell me that there is no such consensus, you need to stop reading comic books.) (And remember: appealing to scientific consensus is--as we say in the logic biz--an inductive appeal; it is not supposed to be a "proof," just an "all considered" judgment of what is most likely true. So do let's avoid the sophistry of "nothing's proven yet so it's all just opinion." That's Bullshit. If you don't know it, take some logic.)
Democratic culture doesn't mean that everyone's opinion has worth. It means that everyone has a right to express their opinion, no matter its rational worth or lack thereof.
So tell me. If the scientific consensus is (as it surely is) that Global Warming is real (etc.), just what do you have to put up against that?
Your own "opinion" has no weight. It's rationally worthless. Cherry picking your own "experts" is just sophistry. So don't be telling us about some Danish statistician somewhere.
So--What then?
You've got nothing. The only reasonable view to take, especially for the intelligent non-expert, is that, very likely, GW is real--and, further, likely, human activity is contributing to it.
This ain't O'Reilly. You need an answer. One that makes logical sense.
All I'm saying, TB, is that most of the 2nd Amendment folks (who know not a whit about Constitutional interpretation) are unrepentant blowhards who, at the sight of a tank rumbling down the street, would be off to the toilet and soiling their armor in half a second.
It's a lot different than drinking a bottle of Jack Daniels and blowing the head off a deer, when the gun guy is up against something that can shoot back.
2:09 I am just amazed that you would presume that "2nd Amendment folks" don't know what the shortest amendment says. Of course, you're OK when someone parses (and tortures) "is" as well I presume. But then again I can sense your frustration in this issue.
Anybody who can read history knows that folks kept guns in their homes in the beginning. The founders would have just said folks couldn't have guns if that was their intent, They did not. This "gun control" crap is a lame attempt to corral a problem after the horse left the barn. The biggest problem is the carnage that goes with gun crime (albeit this is dwarfed by vehicle accidents).
One of the things that keeps me positive about public education, despite all its problems internally, is that it is the antidote for crime. There is an undeniable negative correlation between the level of ones education and the likelihood of criminal behavior. Education achieved even after incarceration continues to show this positive effect.So for your service to the educational community (despite our differences) I thank you. Keep up the good work.
If we could get to the criminals educationally before they commit crime we probably wouldn't be arguing over the 2nd Amendment. Let's put our "social engineering" money there rather than spend it on prisons later.
Chunk, I keep noting it and you keep ignoring it.
Two words: Ice Age(s)
The earth warms and then it cools. It does this whether we exist or not. Somehow some fool made a false association between our existence and a "warming" trend and blamed humans. This "warming" is measured in 1/10ths of a degree per decade. It actually went down during WW2 when massive unheard of amounts of "greenhouse" gases were released.
Anyway, other humans thought that that GW was a GREAT IDEA and like communism or religion the gullible from all over nodded in agreement. It's a sick craze now prodded on by a press selling papers.
The "problem" isn't GW. It's too many people. I really don't know what the carrying capacity of the planet is but I already feel like I'm on an inner city bus at rush hour...and the air conditioner quit working an hour ago.
The scientists I read and talk to seem to be aware of ice ages.
In any case, I certainly agree that there are too many people. I continue to be amazed that no major movement (that I am aware of) simply to seek a gradual reduction in the human population exists. This could easily be achieved without draconian measures of any kind.
I thought homosexuality was the answer to overpopulation?
Also, are the IPCC just a bunch of dummies? I remember reading that ALL nations represented by the IPCC had to ratify the findings. No surprise, only the US and China were the ones with any dissent to the actual report... That's a pretty damn big conspiracy of the top minds in the world...
Post a Comment