Comments blueberrymuffin has made

  • What's that?

    Are you upbraiding Grist, or science in general? Scientists create hypotheses, gather evidence, and eventually create theories to explain large pieces of disparate evidence. The creation of theories, in turn, fuels more hypotheses, data collection, and refutation or support for the theory. And so it goes. It's not about lies, it's about creating the best explanation for the evidence available. The evidence currently available indicates that global warming is real and that it is anthropogenic. There is a very real chance that this theory is not true. But until you can actually start formulating an alternative theory to explain what is occurring, a few anomalous findings or cold days in NYC do not dispute the theory.

    The theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, the theory of evolution ... these are all theories that explain large, complex phenomena. Though they are all linked to famous men, they are not dogma. They are not "proven" by one thing (say, a document that is irrefutable). They arose out of thousands of careful tests. What you seem to want, Jabailo, is the Bible of Global Warming and a God to come down and say "This is So." Unfortunately (or fortunately, for the sake of struggling with mysteries), science doesn't work this way. It is a process of discovery.On 'Glaciers have always grown and receded'--A few glaciers melting does not mean global warming posted 2 years, 9 months ago 14 Responses

  • Gore's the messenger ...

    I think about this controversy about what I think when people say "but Gore isn't even a scientist!" Gore has cleverly synthesized and effectively presented a lot of disparate scientific findings. He has made a very effective argument from a bunch of very dry scientific findings. Scientists are sometimes engaging, and sometimes connected, but rarely as engaging or connected as Al Gore. He had the capacity, the drive, and the charisma to make global warming an issue that's discussed at the breakfast table.

    Unfortunately, I remember the impetus behind saving the rain forests, and how much we cared about the "earth's lungs" and ... we haven't done too well. The really sad thing is that, until we can all make real, society-wide changes (and that means that Al Gore will be swept up in them, too), we cannot stop any of this. Not the loss of the rainforests, nor the destruction of the boreal, the loss of marine life, any of it. Global warming will be a bigger test, and it will have more dire consequences, but we will not win it with half-assed measures. That means change at a level above Al Gore. Changing how we think about consumption and necessities and success.  On Share with friends and family posted 2 years, 9 months ago 42 Responses

  • Anthropomorphize this

    Hint: Al Gore will be a judge, so use the word "anthropomorphic" in your audition.

    Do you mean "anthropogenic"?

    From Dictionary.com: Anthropomorphic - ascribing human form or attributes to a being or thing not human, esp. to a deity.

    Jabailo, you're not bright, but you're keeping me interested.

    I know that you have something against people who are not scientists voicing opinions about climate change. So, what's your profession, jabailo? Computer programmer, you say? Ah, yes, at the very cutting edge of climate research.

    While many non-scientists are advocating policy change in response to predicted climate change, this does not make the climate prediction, per se unscientific. Al Gore is not a scientist. He's an effective public speaker who collected a lot of disparate evidence and put it together in a form that can be easily understood by laymen. In doing so, he has not created an argument, he has amplified an argument.

    You, however, disparage the very science upon which his presentation is based. You should not attack Al Gore, Jabailo, you should attack the science. Then you'll really win one. On From Rockin' to Rollin' posted 2 years, 9 months ago 4 Responses

  • You present no evidence, jabailo ...

    But I'll take this on anyhow. This website is not manned by sneering environmentalists for you to hate.

    While your story may be true, you could at least link to it or something. Climate change skeptics gloat over and massage anything that contradicts climate change theories, its effects, or its possible negative repercussions. All of it is presented as evidence of a conspiracy pushing climate change, communism, anti-Americanism, um ... communism ... Well, if the preponderance of evidence indicates that climate change is occurring and that it will negatively affect the world in X and Y ways, then I guess it could look like a conspiracy to someone who simply refuses to look at the evidence and, instead, attacks the messengers.
    On 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 2 years, 9 months ago 170 Responses

  • Canadians vs. Americans

    I think that Canadians' concern for the environment is laudable, but it's a little unfair to compare Canadian CO2 emission to the U.S.A.'s emissions. Canada has far fewer people: 32 million, to 300 million for the U.S.

    Canada gets this wonderful, green image, courtesy of the small population concentrated near the border of the U.S. Ah, so much "wilderness" above it! So much untamed, untouched land. Meanwhile, Canadian logging practices are horrendous (and, yes, most goes to feed U.S. consumption; again, a function of population size). Canadian mining companies are exporting their bad practices around the world, after implementing them at home. Canadian fisheries have contributed to the collapse of northern cod, and don't forget about the seal hunting.

    This is not to say that the U.S. is in any way blameless, or that Canadian individuals shouldn't be voicing their concern for the environment. But extraction practices in Canada are not necessarily better than in the U.S.: there's just more land and fewer people. When people's concern translates to better practices, then it will be time to look to Canada as an example.On Environment is top concern for Canadians. Americans, not so much. posted 2 years, 9 months ago 9 Responses