Comments on W. C. Fields, Al Gore, and Flim-Flam “Science”

Go to A Distant Drum of the Coming RevolutionAdd a commentGo to W. C. Fields, Al Gore, and Flim-Flam “Science”

Writer

 

Cynic that I am, I view with mounting disbelief the sheer breast-beating hysteria in Britain ( the country from which I couldn't flee quickly enough ) over global warming. And, of course, it's as bad, or worse in America.

This is rapidly approaching the mass physical beating of the mediaeval Flagellants, who wandered the streets thrashing themselves with chains.

So irrational is the behaviour of these latter day Flagellants, that one often wonders if some substance, such as ergot of rye, which caused so much mental disturbance in mediaeval times is at the root of their lemming-like behaviour.

Britain : the what? fifth? seventh? biggest economy in the world, contributing 2% towards carbon emissions! Two percent! Pretty good record, huh?

" All these cheap flights into and out of Britain have to stop!" Blah, blah ... all air traffic contributes another 2% to the problem. So what percentage of this little bit of pollution does Britain contribute?

One can drive an ozone hole wide aperture through the " science"

For example, in the period 1860 to 1918, when filthy coal burning was at its apogee, average world temperatures fell. So, pray explain this, airhead Gore. Oh, and you might try explaining to me how rising temperatures cause tsunamis.

OMG, that man is living proof of life after death ; and the utter fautuity of pseudo-sciece..

The bottom line in all this? How much do you trust a guy who can't tell you what the weather's gonna be like for your holiday next month, but can predict with absolute confidence what it's gonna be a hundred years from now.

Gimme a break!

 

posted by ariel70 on December 23, 2006 at 10:15 AM | link to this | reply

Let me leave you with this.
Do you suppose that this (see http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060807.html) just might somehow, by some tiny little chance, might have something to do with climate change?

posted by WriterofLight on December 23, 2006 at 10:11 AM | link to this | reply

Thanks, too, Xenox!

I love that card!

Thanks for touching on something else that comes into play - what about that "10%?" Are they automatically to be presumed wrong because they are in the minority? That goes back to Galileo versus the consensus.

As for Greenland core samples - I don't have time to get into that now, as the house is about to be invaded by relatives, but we can kick that and lots more around after Christmas.

By the way, the role of scientific consensus was mentioned in another post. Here's an excellent refuation of that, courtesy of Michael Crichton: http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

 

posted by WriterofLight on December 23, 2006 at 10:07 AM | link to this | reply

oh yes about cyclical -- cores drilled in Greenland's ice cap and other pla
indicate that the earth has not been warmer for some hundreds of thousands of years than it is now -- i.e., this is the warmest

oh yes

 

 



posted by Xeno-x on December 23, 2006 at 9:59 AM | link to this | reply

Thanks, Shamsi, Corbin and Freeman!

The glaciers, the polar ice cap and so forth are part of what I was describing. It's cyclical. I'd like to see a study of the snowpacks and ice at these various locations, year by year, for as back as we can look. I'm confident that what I wrote concerning snowy mountains will be borne out.

And watch for that new blog after Christmas. It's going to be a lot of fun.

posted by WriterofLight on December 23, 2006 at 9:58 AM | link to this | reply

problem is aint just gore
about 90% of scientists involved agree with him

NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC ran an entire issue on the subject.

posted by Xeno-x on December 23, 2006 at 9:57 AM | link to this | reply

Writer.....
Isn't Gore's movie going to be nominated for  "Best Science Fiction"????

posted by Corbin_Dallas on December 22, 2006 at 7:28 AM | link to this | reply

And Merry Christmas

posted by FreeManWalking on December 22, 2006 at 7:22 AM | link to this | reply

Writer - Shams mentions the polar ice caps but all you need to see are

the Glaciers in Glacier Nat'l Park.  They're getting mighty small.  Also, go to Iceland and talk to some locals (most under 50 speak fluent English).  Their snowfall has drastically reduced from what it wat 20 years ago.  My old CO, a good man who I'm sure isn't a fan of Al Gore, even commented on how little snow we had in 2003-2005 compared to what he saw flying into Keflavik back in the late 80's.

I disagree with you and Rush Limbaugh (who I listen to daily) concerning concensus science.  All scientitsts can do is pool their data and try to form a big picture.  Anti-global warming scientists tend to work off aberrations.

posted by FreeManWalking on December 22, 2006 at 7:22 AM | link to this | reply

Writer......

posted by Corbin_Dallas on December 22, 2006 at 6:44 AM | link to this | reply

Shams
They're ugly and they destroy the view...

posted by Antipodean on December 21, 2006 at 11:48 PM | link to this | reply

And what about the polar icecaps??????

posted by Shams-i-Heartsong on December 21, 2006 at 11:36 PM | link to this | reply