Why buying cheap energy certificates worsens climate change 16 Posted 14 hours, 10 minutes ago
Do diesel-based farmers dream of electric tractors? 6 Posted 9 hours, 1 minute ago
Copenhagen climate summit (part 1): the expectations 0 Posted 12 hours, 42 minutes ago
JACKA__
Pat Sajak -- yes, the host of Wheel of Fortune -- weighs in on the whole global warming thing, and folks, he's just not convinced.
Which old chestnuts trouble Pat? Well, 30 years ago, scientists thought the earth was cooling! Anyway, it's just a natural cycle.
Let's consult our Skeptics Guide. Yup: here and here. See how handy that thing is?
Can I have an S, Pat?
(via The Plank)
David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Flat
Erik Hoffner Posted 3:51 am
08 Feb 2007
The Orion Grassroots Network is a meeting place for 1000+ great grassroots organizations working for conservation and more: http://www.orionsociety.org/ogn
Permalink
Jones Posted 4:31 am
08 Feb 2007
Anyway, I'm not so worried about what "Sajak Says"...
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:55 am
08 Feb 2007
Forward!
Permalink
A Siegel Posted 1:03 pm
09 Feb 2007
At the end of the day, to a certain extent, he has a point about whether people are doing everything that they can / should to address Global Warming. If you believe in GW, should you be taking a private jet around the world?
By the way, the skeptics guide is truly wonderful, of regular use and recommend it to many others.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 4:57 am
10 Feb 2007
Wrong. The recent IPCC report did not specifically state that anthropogenic causes were absolutely the reason. That has been the missing link in both Al Gore's movie and in the IPCC report. Correlation and causality are two different things.
Point 2:First, they need to identify the mechanism behind this alleged natural cycle. Absent a forcing of some sort, there will be no change in global energy balance. The balance is changing, so natural or otherwise, we need to find this mysterious cause.
Second, they need to come up with an explanation for why a 35% increase in the second most important greenhouse gas does not affect the global temperature. Theory predicts temperature will rise given an enhanced greenhouse effect, so how or why is it not happening?
Mechanism? Why? In science you can identify a pattern long before the explanation exists. Lorenz identified mass variance before Einstein's equations "explained" it.
And the second paragraph is completely inane! One doesn't have to come up with explanations for why things are not linked! Under that logic, I could take any object or item which has increased in the last 300 years and link it to global warming. In another post I suggested that scissors production could be linked to global warming. Why not tattoes? More people are wearing them...they must be causing global warming.
Far from being a Skeptics "Guide" I think it's another case of illogic and poor science. Grist needs to buy a vowel before it can speak knowledgeably.
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services.
Permalink