This will get a lot of views I can assure you. Interesting tidbits within.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
Rant, rant, rant… just take *his* words for it. Here is an (older?) man, unwilling to admit that there is a problem. In 20 years, I doubt that he will be laughing, because he will be dead. My kids should not have to suffer because of the selfishness of his (and our) generation.
Now, he offers zero facts, just his strongly worded opinions. Excuse-me!? (to paraphrase), this guy knows very little about what he is describing. His understanding of solar physics is ridiculous (believe me :-), and yes I am being sarcastic saying that), and right out of the middle age. So is most of what he seems to be drawing his conclusions from.
The idea that you can boggle down scientific progress for years by “teaching both sides”, “teaching the controversy” is something that has been rampant in the US. Common people simply do not have the intellectual tools to understand that one side has what is refered as scientific evidence (as imperfect as it can sometimes be) while the other side has *hot air* and disingenuous statements. If more people were actually more educated, and less science-phobic we might actually progress (and not only on the issue of global warming) but a significant number of old guards are making sure that this does not happen quickly. Which, I, and many scientists do find profoundly depressing….
#32 – tcc3
>>Paddy, I think *you* may not know what
>>network neutrality is.
Paddy-RAMBO is so far out of his league, I hesitated to point that out. I’m starting to feel sorry for him, as I did for Sarah Palin and Britney Spears.
Pay no attention to the Cranky old Geek behind the curtain . . . It just another example of Yellow Journalism from J. C. D. “It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing”.
every time you hear someone explaining why they thing global warming isn’t a genuine phenomenon, listen long enough and you will find that what they really fear is that in a push to try to mitigate its causes, some personal freedoms (i.e. to be wasteful) might be curtailed.
this is all they care about. they’re usually conservatives, aka, the me-first generation.
You’ve all contributed to global warming by posting in this tread.
I have not. I contribute to global cooling. After all, who’s cooler than me?
Global warming, blah blah whatever Algore and his morons wanted to call it, ended 10 years ago. The earth is now cooling again as it has for millenia. Want proof?
http://www.loveforlife.com.au/node/5325
Oh yeah, this won’t work for the religious zealots who believe in global warming even though it doesn’t exist. Sorry Mr. Ketchup and those of his ilk. Please burn me at the stake now….oops, that might increase global warming….
Oh well … if yet another meteorologist says it … it’s still a load of crap.
I admit that I have not wasted my time listening to these. Perhaps after work I will. Perhaps not.
One important point though is that meteorology is not climate science. In fact, it is not even one of the fields that pertain to climate science. This guy is no more of a climate scientist than I am.
Here’s a reply I just posted on cagematch. Rather than repeat typing in all of these links, I’ll just link to my other reply.
The links in this reply show that the deniers were right. The models were wrong. Unfortunately, they are wrong in the opposite direction. Things are catastrophically worse than the models made it appear.
My Cagematch Reply on Global Warming
#32 He wasn’t referring to “Internet neutrality”.
Nice try though.
#40, it’s time for us to walk away. People who continue to deny the reality of this issue will never be convinced by any amount of scientific evidence. There are also lots of people who think evolution is “unproven”, and don’t believe smoking causes cancer, and that the moon landing was faked. We can’t help them; all we can do is nod and say “have a nice day”.
At some point you either get what science is really about, or you don’t.
C’mon! I’m all FOR fresh air. It doesn’t take a scientist to see a huge brown cloud over a city and realize that this is not a good thing.
Look at that old codger rant. I’ll bet the last time he studied something Edison was still busy in Menlow park. Which doctor would you listen to? The old guy that hasn’t studied in years or the young guy that just graduated.
This sounds like weather vs. climate all over again.
It just is not the same. I don’t trust this guy on climate.
This sounds like weather vs. climate all over again.
It just is not the same. I don’t trust this guy on climate.
Besides real scientists tell us it is real, what is this guy again?
Oh, a Television man. Great that adds to his credibility.
And I just can not respect a man who calls scientific consensus a scam!
He might call it misguided or whatever. But a calling it a scam pretty much disqualifies him.
Just my 2 Eurocents
Houston, we have a problem trying to forecast climate change (not global warming or cooling, just change).
First, the Sun really does change its output from year to year, correlated with the sunspot cycle (more sunspots and prominences, more heat, and vice versa). That’s one variable, and it may be the biggest one, though it’s more predictable than the other variables.
Second, the flow of air and water around the planet are mathematically chaotic (I studied chaotic flow in both engineering and computer science classes), with more variability in air than water, and both are affected by the Sun’s temperature.
Third, there is the effect of pollution, natural (volcanoes, dust, etc.) or man made (CO2 from power plants, cars, etc., and methane from livestock), on the world climate.
If you don’t think that volcanoes can affect weather, look at Mt. St. Helens and Mt. Pinatubo and what they did to the world climate, at least temporarily.
When you combine these together, it turns out that global climate is affected in ways that are very hard to predict, simply because of the unpredictability of the variables.
Paddy why don’t you link me to the source of what you quoted so I can decide for myself.
#47 – tcc3
>>Paddy why don’t you link me to the source
Paddy-RAMBO doesn’t provide links. That’s so pedestrian! He just makes ex cathedra “pronouncements”, and more often than not he IS the source. From his keyboard to your eyes.
#44 – amo
>>Which doctor would you listen to
If we had two “doctors” here to choose from, at least it would be a choice.
Instead, we have the overwhelming concensus of people with PhDs in climatology vs. some cranky old fuck who played weatherman in college (probably during the Great Depression) and decided to make a living out of reading the teleprompter.
#27
“Consensus is not science. And not every scientists agrees on the global warming ‘theory’ and they should not be blasted for it. ”
You are right.
But…
Though science is not consensus, there is scientific consensus.
As long as you have no own educated opinion, it is best to stick with this scientific consensus, especially if you are doing risk assessment.
Assessing risk is assessing probabilities.
What do you think is more probable? That a bunch of real scientists have some agreement over that is pretty probable that man made climate change is happening and that it will be bad for us, are right.
Or some local weather man who tells you different knows the truth[tm].
If it would be a game of poker, you might be lucky listening to the underdog. It is clearly more exiting to see him win.
But I dare you if you do this when the risk is the fait of the planet.
I mean, how difficult is it to understand that scientific theories can be pretty good rated for probability of being true.
From a posting dated April 2007 predicting strong flares in 2008.
“The new cycle, labeled “Solar Cycle 24,” is already slightly behind schedule and is now expected to peak around October 2011. This delay has made predicting the storms’ intensity more difficult, Doug Biesecker, chair of a panel of scientists charged with making the predictions, told reporters Wednesday at NOAA’s annual Space Weather Workshop in Boulder, Colo.”
http://www.geotimes.org/apr07/article.html?id=WebExtra043007.html
I feel that the new age of Paganism is unstoppable.
There are too many ‘educated’ young men and woman in strategic positions in government and outside organizations who have taken the Pagan dogma has their foundation of truth. Any scientific counter arguments will be classified without further consideration as cynical, just like a christian deals with an atheist’s point of view.
#53: I’ve known people who called themselves pagans that were scientifically knowledgeable. Pagans really don’t have dogma. What they have is more of an affinity for the woods and wilderness than you do, and far less personal dogma than Christians or atheists. While I’m not religious, I have to say I get a better feeling when I’m hiking than when sitting in a church somewhere listening to a priest or preacher rant.
my only thought on this. several people have stated we need to “get over ourselves” and that “we can’t hurt mother nature, etc,etc,etc”
that is true we will more than likely die out before the planet does, but we really are not talking about that.
we are talking about our own survival. we do effect the environment, you are a fool to think otherwise. it is easy to see that we can have a bad effect on the environment. every heard of smog? is that not man made?
lets use smog as an example. is it killing the earth? no. is it bad for us? yes. so should we not take steps to stop the production of smog?
#53 – cgp
>>I feel that the new age of Paganism is unstoppable.
You may be right. But if you think the scientific consensus on climate change has anything to do with Paganism, I guess you don’t know any Pagans, and don’t know anything about Paganism.
Great qualities for a Denier.
I will quickly outline some of the disgraceful lies in Al Gores ridiculous movie.
C02 tracking global temperature exactly.
Yes but which one is the driver? No mention of the possibility that C02 may just be tracking the amount of vegetation. Why not given he has spent a partial career on this? It is spin of course, do not seed doubt amongst your audience.
Those rivers poring down the greenland glacier (moulins?).
Man this fraud angers me. These small lakes form from ice melt, over what period a month, a year, and a period. But get this when a dam is broached the lake spills over into a local crevice, the flow is gone in under an hour!!! This is not a continuous river, this is the immediate impact of the images, of drastic ice washing away. GORE YOU LIAR.
The weather channel man also mentioned greenland coasts being cultivated in the past. These landscapes change! GORE YOU LIAR.
Polar bears drowning. GORE YOU LIAR. Double emotional impact here for the kiddies.
Space images of the breakup of southern land bays of whole areas of ice sheet breakup. How I’m not sure here but might this be the annual ice sheet breakup which reforms every season?
No mention of the role that water plays in retaining heat and excluding heat via ‘continents of cloud’, on a planet that is 3/4 sea.
#55
i not crazy enough to step in to this debate here. it is too emotional and i don’t think anyone has their facts straight.
i was referring to comments like #13 LC
“Do people REALLY think we’re a threat to mother nature? As the people in New Orleans how much of a “threat” to mother nature they feel they are. How about the people in Florida wiped out by Hurricane Andrew? How about the people in Pompeii?”
they attitude that just because we can’t (in the big big picture) hurt the planet means we can’t hurt ourselves.
we can. we have. look at chernobyl. that is a stupid attitude to have. that is all i am saying.
‘this is about survival’
See a dogma totally entrenched- How dare anybody even debate this.
James Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis is nothing but Paganism brought to the current dopey under 30’s ill-educated scientific class. The planet as a living being in of itself (not a container) is an unscientific religion. There are no predictive outcomes of this idea.
C02 is the current filth that the scum of the earth (us excluding the members of the Pagan scientific societies) who must be erradicated by destroying their modern means of living by stopping 20th and 21st century energy production technologies with 21st bullshit updated 18th century technology.
There are other pollutants, but really other than naughty nations and corporations (no need for an evil adverb here) these have been cleaned up by the true green movement since the 70’s.
The C02 dogma statement is now mandatory rhetoric placed at the end of every paper whatever. The green movement has been contaminated by Paganism.
We have a fossil fuel crisis coming 20 -70 years, the Pagans are rubbing their hands in anticipation, massive depopulation and the end of technology rein of man will soon be here.
‘You can’t tell which sports team will win a given game by just looking at their lineup, but you can probably tell whether or not they will do well overall.’
As long as the debate on won will win isn’t over before the game is finished and the other side isn’t ridiculed for not agreeing with majority. It’s conjecture with out hard evidence that can be studied and verified by all qualified persons.
‘But…
Though science is not consensus, there is scientific consensus.
As long as you have no own educated opinion, it is best to stick with this scientific consensus, especially if you are doing risk assessment.
Assessing risk is assessing probabilities.
What do you think is more probable? That a bunch of real scientists have some agreement over that is pretty probable that man made climate change is happening and that it will be bad for us, are right.
Or some local weather man who tells you different knows the truth[tm].’
Scientific consensus? Really? Like the earth is flat? PTFE additives in gasoline are safe for the water table? The earth is the center of the universe? Second hand smoke kills? Let’s face it, the consensus hardly has a commendable track record. Mr. Coleman has as much right as anyone in debating the facts on global warming. I don’t know what his education level is on paper, but he has been in the weather biz for awhile. I’d say he’ s better qualified than many folks on this blog on the subject. One many not agree with his findings, but he shouldn’t be ridicule for challenging the science and scientists behind global warming. Any scientist should freely be able to challenge another’s hypothesis without fear of being called ‘unpatriotic’ or ‘evil doer’. That’s not science. That’s religion.
mmmm Kool-Aid
#63 – JCD
Ignorance is a bliss. It also gives good ad revenues.
The late Michael Crichton said it best:
No one says there is a scientific consensus that the sun is 93 million miles from the earth.
If you are using words like consensus, you are substituting politics for science.