Yes 7

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   katwink Posted 8:32 am
   12 Jul 2007

   Anyone have Limbaugh's email?Someone needs to email this link to Rush, not that he would appreciate it or even read it.
   
   This morning on his show, during a discussion of the No Child Left Behind debate, he exhorted listeners to encourage their children to study math and science. He said if your kid wants to be a physicist, encourage him. If your kid wants to be any kind of scientists, support him. "Except a global warming scientist because they are just activists and politicians."
   
   Doesn't say much about all the meteorologists, atmospheric scientists, etc. but it says volumes about RL. I hope his more thoughtful listeners see through the hyperbole.
   
   (I listen to RL on occasion to hear what other people think.)

   Permalink

2. 

   Delay And Deny Posted 9:19 am
   12 Jul 2007

   Consensus on what?
   
   Consensus?  On what?   First of all, your logical is circular.  If there were consensus there would be no debate.  If there were no debate, there would be no Grist to argue in.  Since there is a Grist, and we argue every day, there is no consensus.
   And then there's the question of consensus on which of issues and actions:
   
   
   Is temperature rising?
   
   At what rate?
   
   Is it guaranteed to rise in the next 100 years?
   
   Is the rise linear, or exponential?
   
   Is the rise due to CO2?
   
   Is the rise due to manmade CO2?
   
   Is the rise beneficial or detrimental?
   
   Should be just do nothing?
   
   Aren't there already technologies like nuclear and plug in hybrids that will pretty much automatically let us make a 60% reduction in HGGs?
   
   
   
   John Bailo
   
   
   You Read It Here First

   Permalink

3. 

   wacki Posted 6:41 pm
   12 Jul 2007

   Re: John BailoConsensus?  On what?
   Try reading the link.
    First of all, your logical is circular.  If there were consensus there would be no debate.
   Try picking up a history book and reading about Big Tobacco vs. well.. just about everyone.

   Permalink

4. 

   planetthoughts Posted 11:31 pm
   12 Jul 2007

   Rush Limbaugh... thoughtful listeners?I hate to say this, but at one time I listened to Rush Limbaugh on the radio to see what he was about.  I could only take if for a total of about three hours over the period of a few months, and then forever said goodbye.  He does not have ANY thoughtful listeners... it is too painful to the soul to hear distortions and destructive imagery used in the name of the dollar and power.
   I don't know if anyone else remembers this: about 10 years ago, on the radio he talked about a homeless woman who slept in a dumpster and was picked up with the trash by one of those trucks, and crushed.  He laughed about it.  That is the coldness, the disconnection of his mind.  People should understand how far some others will go in separating themselves from their own humanity.
   
   David Alexander
   
   PlanetThoughts.org
   
   
   
   Love your Planet.

   Permalink

5. 

   gmunger Posted 12:35 am
   13 Jul 2007

   noooooo!Great Link. I have to admit, though, I cringed at the metaphor of the IPCC as the Supreme Court of climate change. THAT is NOT a comforting thought.

   Permalink

6. 

   Sean Casten Posted 12:41 am
   13 Jul 2007

   Careful, JabailoYour points are valid, but by that logic, there is also a scientific debate on evolution.  Yes, there are debates about mechanistic points, but there is no serious debate amongst scientists as to the cause, direction or long-term impact.  There is a debate in the media, where a (very small) number of dissenters get a mouthpiece far out of proportion with their scientific credibility, but really no scientific debate on the important points.  It is identical to the Michael Behes of the world arguing that there is a scientific argument around creationism vs. evolution, and citing as a "proof" the fact that serious scientists do debate gradual changes vs. punctuated equilibrium.
   But when all is said and done, David's post was both more accurate and more concise.

   Permalink

7. 

   Delay And Deny Posted 7:36 am
   13 Jul 2007

   Mr. Wrong Meet Mr. WrongYour points are valid, but by that logic, there is also a scientific debate on evolution.  Yes, there are debates about mechanistic points, but there is no serious debate amongst scientists as to the cause, direction or long-term impact.
   That's simply not true.  As a Biology major at Princeton, I know that within Evolution Theory itself there are several very important, and very key sources of argument whose outcome can turn the theory on its head and back again.
   Just for example, there is the new science of Evo-Devo -- or Evolution/Development.   For decades we were told that most of our DNA was "junk" or unused.  Now we see that is not truth.   Those wide areas are used as regulators of growth...that is, the active DNA that builds structures -- arms, legs, wings, fins -- is very similar among species, but the regulatory DNA can make the basic form grow into the many phenotypes of life.
   That says a lot -- that means that there may not have been as much evolution or divergence in terms of primary structure between species as we thought.    
   In any branch of science, it can be a whole new ballgame year to year.   Do black holes exist?  Well, maybe not, some are saying now.
   Scientists, especially very public, book writing, New York Times article writing, committee sitting types, have to eat their words more often than not...
   
   John Bailo
   
   
   You Read It Here First

   Permalink