<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/platform.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar/9924031?origin\x3dhttp://apathycurve.blogspot.com', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

No Consensus

Meteorologist Robert Cohen tosses the warmies into the air, calls his shot, and hits them out of the park.

(If the stupid site pesters you for a log-in, go here. When are these morons going to learn that mandatory registration simply pisses people off?)

posted by Jar(egg)head at 15:54

3 Comments:

Blogger Banduar said...

The thing that puts me off about proponents of the human induced global warming theory is that their arguments are largely rhetorical rather than scientific. They are prone to say things like, "most scientists agree" or "its a problem that affects us all." Once you cut out the implied consensus and emotional appeals, there isn't really much to go on. They can, at best, prove that temperatures change over time, which we already know.

Common sense tells us to take care not to damage the environment that we depend upon for survival. However, the intention to protect the environment does not automatically equate to effective action towards that end.

Is it possible that our industrial society is affecting the global environment? Certainly. Should this question be researched? Absolutely. This is an important question that could possibly affect all of humanity and so it should be studied. But it should be studied by using the scientific method, and that requires CRITICAL analysis. Critical analysis msut allow for dissenting opinions; whoever heard of agreeable analysis? The environment is WAY too complex for there to be a simple answer and much more study is warranted before we start drawing conclusions.

Theories do not need to be marketed or sold through these rhetorical tactics. If a theory is true, scientific evidence will provide all the proof that is required. It will also provide the specific details required before an effective solution can ever be developed. Otherwise, we are just running around in circles yelling that the sky is falling.

16:42  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is a simple answer, using your so-called "scientific method"

Given:
Humans + Environment = Global warming

Solution:
Destroy all humans

16:47  
Blogger Jar(egg)head said...

Gah! We've been infiltrated by one of the Evil Bovines! Kill it quickly, before it begins subverting readers.

Oh, and somebody warm up the grill; I've a hankerin' for a nice, juicy porterhouse...

07:20  

Post a Comment

<< Home