Global Warming on Mars
comments powered by Disqus
roger w gathman - 5/3/2007
Halderman, nah, I wouldn't put you in jail. I'd just teach your kids to laugh at you, and as you pound the table and hammer out the truth that you received on Mt. Sinai that global warming is a belief - and that is true, it is a belief about a fact - I want the inlaws to look embarrassed and the waiter to giggle to the busperson about you. I'm a social shame person myself. People with moronic views, who uphold them by employing the language of a five year old in the back seat who wants to go to McDonalds, shouldn't be cluttering up our jails. They only bring down the tone.
As for Newton's law of gravity - uh, do you have any background in science history whatsoever? Look up Kepler, Ptolemy, Aristotle for alternatives.
Keith Halderman - 5/2/2007
It is called sarcasm. There are, however, a number of people who have made the assertion that disagreement about human generated global warming is a criminal act. Also, look at the strings on these two global warming posts. Which side is calling the other idiots and morons while talking about corporate pirates and right wing ideologues? The term global warming hysteria is an apt one.
Keith Halderman - 5/2/2007
What are the alternative explanations for matter-induced gravity. There are a number of alternative explanations for an increase in global temperatures other than human activity.
E. Simon - 5/1/2007
At what point is an observation not a belief? Matter-induced gravity is an observation that is widely believed even though it could be proved wrong factually tomorrow with a series of observations to the contrary. But political ideologues never address the whole burden of scientific proof that it is incumbent upon them to do, especially when so much is at stake. They just assume that such a reversal of scientific observation would occur because, well... you tell me.
The fact that something is believed does not mean that that something is no more than just a belief. Sheesh. Get a grip and learn some basic argumentation. And once you do, impart these lessons to Mr. Gregory since he seems to believe that if we can just find a way to ascribe a supposed agenda to someone's stance, then that agenda must be behind their stance. Such thinking might explain some of the poor argumentative forms on display here but it doesn't explain a scientific consensus that can't be ascribed to agendas any less disparate than that of a sort necessary to control or account for that consensus.
Jonathan Dresner - 4/30/2007
That's an extraordinary and inflammatory assertion: care to explain it?
Keith Halderman - 4/30/2007
I would bet that if it was in your power you would put me in jail right this minute. I am pretty sure Al Gore would.
roger w gathman - 4/30/2007
Uh, how about one example of someone being prosecuted for not believing that global warming is true. One. Otherwise, this is simply garbage. I can say that my neighbor is a criminal for turning up his stereo at 2 in the morning. Big deal.
Typical, though, of the talk radio argument style. I love it. Since you make a bunch of inferences that seem to be completely unconnected and illogical, and cap them with the criminal remark that applies to a null set, I do have a pretty good idea of your idea of good scholarship. Usually, it begins, once upon a time there was a brave libertarian labeled criminal by all the other dolls for not believing in androgenic warming, which is a just (sob) a theory, much like Newton's laws are just a theory. Just like, uh, Adam Smith's theory of markets is a theory.
My god, the garbage, the garbage...
Keith Halderman - 4/30/2007
You write "who believe that, wow, there are androgenic processes driving our rapid climate changes." The key word in that sentence is believe. Human enduced global warming is a belief not a fact and people who question that belief have been labeled criminals in the recent past.
Tim Sydney - 4/30/2007
The usual interpretation is that if Global Warming is discovered on planets X, Y and Z then the sun must be the common denominator. Maybe so, but maybe not. There are numerous planets and moons in the Solar System. There is a long established theory developed by Serbian geophysicist Milankovitch about 50 years ago. He explained the comings and goings of Earth's ice ages via the interactions between three overlapping orbital cycles. The hypothesis has stood the test of time well. If it is true presumably other planets have climatic cycles impacted by their orbital geometry too. My guess is that Milankovitch if he were alive today would tell us to expect to find some planets 'warming' and others 'cooling'. Given there are over 100 moons, and the planet count varies between 8 and 12 depending on who's doing the counting, it's likely that we'd see a range of climate change conditions, cooler and warmer, even if the sun's thermal output were dead stable.
Anthony Gregory - 4/29/2007
It's not a surprise that the big players in the energy industry would favor this as a pretext for more intervention in their sector. Why would you cite the CEO of Shell as some sort of authority?
BTW, the CEO of Ford agrees, too.
roger w gathman - 4/29/2007
Wow, that comment is so out in space it is hard to know what to say about it. No reputable climate scientist in existence claims that earth's weather is controlled by humans from the beginning of time. I think only your creationist friends actually think humans were there at the beginning of time. So, what do we have here?
a. a fact that is not explained
b. but is alluded to via a headline that was not written by the scientist
c. about Mars, a planet notoriously lacking in automobiles, coal power plants, and other paraphernalia of earth, so that
d. a wisecrack can be made about the group (which seems to include 90% of the world's scientists, the CEO of Shell, and numerous insurance company executives) who believe that, wow, there are androgenic processes driving our rapid climate changes.
Shall I simply label this stupidity? No, stupidity is honest. This is a species of discourse that was forged n the fake fires of talk show radio, and is now standard fare for rightwingers. And it is that fare that is killing them, slowly but surely. When purplefaced indignation and paranoid fantasies become the standard idiom of a political creed, it starts dying.
- Pittsburgh native David McCullough's next book will focus on generations of Northwest pioneers
- British historian Sheila Lecoeur is on trial for defamation
- Jim Downs laments that Americans still aren’t being taught LGBT history
- Historian Jeremy Kuzmarov calls on Obama to pardon Ethel Rosenberg
- Garry Wills says there’s one human test we can use to decide who’s the better candidate: Trump or Clinton