« Out of bounds | Main | "He was already in flames. It was obvious he was the real psycho of the pair" »

Arctic Monkeys Smarter Than Al Gore

I don't know who these guys are but I'm going to buy some of their music. Read some of these quotes:

Arctic Monkeys shiver at Live Earth 'hypocrisy'

Rock group Arctic Monkeys have become the latest music industry stars to question whether the performers taking part in Live Earth on Saturday are suitable climate change activists.

"It's a bit patronising for us 21 year olds to try to start to change the world," said Arctic Monkeys drummer Matt Helders, explaining why the group is not on the bill at any of Al Gore's charity concerts.

"Especially when we're using enough power for 10 houses just for (stage) lighting. It'd be a bit hypocritical," he told AFP in an interview before a concert in Paris.

Bass player Nick O'Malley chimes in: "And we're always jetting off on aeroplanes!"

Large parts of the band's hometown of Sheffield were flooded at the end of last month after a deluge of mid-summer rain that some blamed on global warming. Two people were killed.

But the band wonder why anyone would be interested in the opinion of rock stars on a complex scientific issue like climate change.

"Someone asked us to give a quote about what was happening in Sheffield and it's like 'who cares what we think about what's happening'?" added Helders.

"There's more important people who can have an opinion. Why does it make us have an opinion because we're in a band?"

You gotta love these guys... but apparently they are not alone:

They are not the only stars to take a cynical view of Live Earth, which aims to raise awareness about global warming but which will require many longhaul flights and thousands of car journeys to and from the music venues.

Many of the biggest acts have questionable environmental credentials -- the car-loving rapper Snoop Dogg appeared in a Chrysler commercial last year -- and there are doubts about the ability of pop stars to galvanise the world into action.

Bob Geldof, the architect of Live Aid and Live 8, the two biggest awareness-raising concerts in history, had a public spat with Al Gore about the need for the event.

"Why is he (Gore) actually organising them?" Geldof said in an interview with a Dutch newspaper in May, adding that everyone was already aware of global warming and the event needed firm commitments from politicians and polluters.

Roger Daltrey, singer from 1970s British rock band The Who, told British newspaper The Sun in May that "the last thing the planet needs is a rock concert."

And the singer from 80s pop sensations The Pet Shop Boys, Neil Tennant, attacked the arrogance of pop stars who put themselves forward as role-models.

"I've always been against the idea of rock stars lecturing people as if they know something the rest of us don't," he was reported as saying by British music magazine NME.

Slowly but surely reality is creeping into the music industry.

H/T Drudge


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/22302.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Arctic Monkeys Smarter Than Al Gore:

» larry borsato linked with Arctic Monkeys Smarter than Al Gore

» Do Well and Do Good linked with Will Live Earth Live up to the Hype?

Comments (63)

I agree, celebrities should... (Below threshold)
mmm hmmm:

I agree, celebrities should STFU about issues on which they are not experts (although I'm not going to change the channel if Angelina Jolie strolls in front of a camera holding a Cambodian orphan).

We should listen to scientists about scientific questions. By the way, Paul--what is the majority opinion in the scientific community on the issue of global warming?

Wonder if Gore III was prac... (Below threshold)
Gianni:

Wonder if Gore III was practicing to be a 'rock star'?

Sing it, boys.======... (Below threshold)
kim:

Sing it, boys.
=======

Amen to that. Now if we co... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Amen to that. Now if we could just get some people in Hollywood to admit they aren't experts on anything but self-love and lookin' pretty, we might be on to something.

There was a time in this country when a scientist like Albert Einstein could become a huge celebrity simply because of the power of his ideas. Now we have the "ideas" of people who have become celebrities based on their looks fed to us by the media as if they were informed or valuable. A sad state of affairs indeed.

Slowly but surly reality is creeping into the music industry.

I don't know if that's a typo or not, but I like it better either way.

Reality is pretty surly, th... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

Reality is pretty surly, that's why so many people avoid it.

We don't buy tickets to con... (Below threshold)

We don't buy tickets to concerts or CDs to hear musicians lecture us on politics.

Just sing and play your instruments. That's what we pay you for.

Hollywood and musician cele... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Hollywood and musician celebrities are probably, as a whole, the most screwed up people in the world. And for them to lecture anyone on anything is an absolute JOKE!!

And the fact that they don't realize this, is also part of the joke.

Take what these people say and do and vote the opposite. Then you know you're on the right track.

>By the way, Paul--what is ... (Below threshold)
Paul:

>By the way, Paul--what is the majority opinion in the scientific community on the issue of global warming?

Good question. 1500 lackeys for the UN said Global warming was real and man made.

Over 17,000 scientists, two-thirds of which have advanced degrees signed a petition saving they where full of crap.

The majority CLEARLY says global warming is bogus.

Thanks for asking.

thanks for the typo check g... (Below threshold)
paul:

thanks for the typo check guys

I think Alice Cooper said i... (Below threshold)
Pete_Bondurant:

I think Alice Cooper said it best:

"If you're listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who to vote for, you're a bigger moron than they are. Why are we rock stars? Because we're morons. We sleep all day, we play music at night and very rarely do we sit around reading the Washington Journal."


You here that liberals? You are bigger morons than Cold Play, Green Day, Bono and the rest of the high school dropouts who actually think they know what they are talking about.

In a free market, it is ok ... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

In a free market, it is ok for musicians to play music that projects their beliefs on issues, however the market is a fickle place. To respond to a previous poster. Since scientists are educated in a system poluted with leftist ideas, it is sometimes difficult to decern true science from that which has a political taint to it. When the head of the climatology department at MIT and some of the leading scientists who are knowledgable in this area state there is no connection between CO2 and global warming. When, while glaciers are retreating, ice mass at the south pole and Greenland is growing. I doubt if the verasity of a politician selling carbon credits, crying the sky is falling, the sky is falling is to be believed. Follow the Pied Piper if you must, but don't expect thinking people to follow him to their doom.

Celebrities and performers ... (Below threshold)
hermie:

Celebrities and performers spout the liberal talking points because of their nature.

They want to be liked. They want to be praised and admired and feted because that's how they make the bucks and have a nice lifestyle.

Liberalism is the easy way out. No conflicts, just making everyone feel good and no judging of people's attitudes, lifestyles, or behaviors (except conservatives, but nobody likes conservatuves, so its OK) being a liberal means that nobody will dislike you since you don't 'force' your opinions on people.

Being conservative is too hard for celebrities and entertainers to take.

Has anyone else noticed how... (Below threshold)

Has anyone else noticed how slowly but "surly" (hehe) we're seeing the Global Warming crowd change the description of their crusade to "Global Climate Change"? Kinda makes it hard to refute that the climate changes, even though the name is just new window dressing for the same argument. Now that we're seeing the beginnings of a Global Cooling scare, the new name can cover all the bases whenever they decide it's warming or cooling.

Changing your letterhead can get quite costly you know.

Oyster, they should just ca... (Below threshold)

Oyster, they should just call themselves the Chicken Little Society.

"It's a bit patron... (Below threshold)
Publicus:
"It's a bit patronising for us 21 year olds to try to start to change the world," said Arctic Monkeys drummer Matt Helders, explaining why the group is not on the bill at any of Al Gore's charity concerts.

Better wait until you are 40+, so you can start sending 21 year olds overseas to die in some senseless war. Vietnam = Iraq.

"Changing your letterhead c... (Below threshold)
hermie:

"Changing your letterhead can get quite costly you know."

But they do it on recycled paper, so it's OK

Publicus,By having... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Publicus,

By having kids you're supporting the war.

Publicus,You're no... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Publicus,

You're not a kid anymore. You can't do the drugs and free sex as casually as you once did. I know it's hard to grow up, but you must, before you humiliate yourself further.

It ain't the 60s. Vietnam and it's comparisons are over.

It's 2007. You're old. Your health is wearing down. You can't close your eyes and wish the 60s were back so you could feel important.

Get back to reality.

Mac Lorry -"By hav... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

Mac Lorry -

"By having kids, you're supporting the war."?

Please clarify, explain.

"It's a bit patronising ... (Below threshold)

"It's a bit patronising for us 21 year olds to try to start to change the world,"

I'm not exactly sure what he was saying there, or what he might have meant to say, but never fear! Publicus is here! And he'll clarify it for us, by golly. Even if he has to seque into a separate topic.

Over 17,000 scientists, ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Over 17,000 scientists, two-thirds of which have advanced degrees signed a petition saving they where full of crap.

Please.

Alice Cooper for President.... (Below threshold)
kim:

Alice Cooper for President.
============

Vietnam = Iraq.</b... (Below threshold)
Vietnam = Iraq.

Only if the left gets its way.

If we win, Iraq = WWII, removing a merciless dictator.

It's a good time to be a sk... (Below threshold)
kim:

It's a good time to be a skeptick.
=====================

C-S-G -Yep. The on... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

C-S-G -

Yep. The only problem with Vietnam was we didn't stick it out. We'd still be wasting young lives there today if it was up to people like you.

Thanks, mantis. I knew the ... (Below threshold)
mmmmm hmmmmmm:

Thanks, mantis. I knew the most intelligent regular commentator on this silly blog would say what I wanted to say before I got around to it. (I'm a dozen time zones away from most of you guys and gals.)

Global warming is a phenomenon about which we are uncertain, but that doesn't make the entire hypothesis false. Al Gore's hypocrisy doesn't matter one way or another to me. I'm going to go ahead and not be a douche bag about energy consumption, and if you're right and I'm wrong, you can rub my face in your unnecessary carbon emissions when the jury is in. Otherwise, thanks for contributing to environmental armageddon, assholes!

PleasePosted by: m... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Please

Posted by: mantis at July 5, 2007 02:13 PM

Ok mantis... for the sake of this discussion, I'll give you that every word he said was a true, accurate and representative of the whole population of the people who signed the petition. Your source is vulnerable on several fronts, but heck, I'll give it to you.

6 out of 30 now would not sign it today... ok that's 20%.

17,000 * .8 = 13,600

Now I've never been to good at this greater than/ less than stuff but if I if understand this right...

13,600 > 1,500

But feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Publicus,... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Publicus,

You said: "Better wait until you are 40+, so you can start sending 21 year olds overseas to die in some senseless war. Vietnam = Iraq."

To which I said: "By having kids you're supporting the war."

Then you said: "Please clarify, explain."

It's easy, if there were no kids for the 40+ somethings to send to war there would be no war.

It's meant in the same tone as your first comment above.

In the link provided by man... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

In the link provided by mantis, Tim Lambert makes the assumption that the only information the scientists who signed the petition had was what came with the petition. Given the credentials of the signers that's a rather naive assumption.

Lambert also seems unaware that there's competing theory of climate change that has passed the peer review stage and is currently undergoing testing at CERN.

If the CERN experiments demonstrate that the Sun is the major driving force of climate change it would be counterproductive to deplete our economic resources trying to reduce green house gases.

Also, as the head of NASA pointed out, there's no evidence that the current climate is optimal. The alarmists would have us react out of fear rather than knowledge.

Ok, Paul, let's have a disc... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Ok, Paul, let's have a discussion then. First, the number you quoted comes from this piece by Scientific American, which Lambert links to. The SciAm survey looked only at the "1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science," not the entire 17,100 signatories at the time (and rightly so, who cares what a biologist thinks about climate?). So your real number would be 1120 > 280, but let's look a bit closer at what they found.

Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases,

4 out of 30 were not even identifiable as published scientists. So there go 187 of the 1400.

11 said they still agreed with the petition

Which makes only 37%, or 513 out of 1400, who still agreed with the petition. Of those,

one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation.

Ah, so only three of those who still agreed with the petition had relevant expertise, and only one was an active climate researcher. If we took this data to be representative that would mean that of the 1400 who claimed to hold climate Ph.D.s, only 140 would have relevant expertise, and only 47 of those would be active climate researchers. If we are generous and count non-climate researchers with relevant expertise, we get 140 people who would still agree with signing the petition. And 280 of those who signed the petition have stated they would not do so again (of course this doesn't factor in all of the scientists who dismissed the petition as garbage in the first place).

280 > 140

But feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Now thirty people is too small a sample to be representative, but it's enough to make one reconsider the validity of this petition. Of course there are many other reasons: the disingenuous way they put their "research" out (pretending to be an NAS paper), the fact that their "research review" did not actually review the vast majority of climate research, the fact that many of the names that have been added to the petition are fakes, which the organizer, Robinson, admits, "there's no way of filtering out."

Anyway, there a lot of good reasons to doubt the validity of the Oregon Petition, but my main point was that even if it were entirely valid, it in no way supports your contention that, "The majority CLEARLY says global warming is bogus." The petition states,

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

So anyone who does not believe that humans will cause catastrophic heating in the foreseeable future, could honestly agree with that statement. That does not mean they think "global warming is bogus."

Paul will get back to you, ... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

Paul will get back to you, mantis, right after his head finishes exploding (always wanted to write that...).

I plan on burning a few tir... (Below threshold)
moseby:

I plan on burning a few tires in my back yard on Saturday to help with the live earth agenda.

The only problem w... (Below threshold)
The only problem with Vietnam was we didn't stick it out.

Partially correct. The other problem was that politicians were getting in the way of winning the war, by imposing too many restrictions (many of them quite absurd) on the troops in Vietnam. Kinda like the Dhimmicrats in Congress wanna do to our troops now.

You might want to look at history, Publicus. How many times since the end of Vietnam has a Democrat sat in the Oval Office? Twice. Once because Nixon was an idiot and once because we thought the Cold War was over and the Democrats weakness on national security didn't seem to matter.

National security matters again, and if the Dhimmicrats don't wake up, they'll face another long stretch without a President of their party.

Which suits me just fine.

Oh, good Lord, Leeward is b... (Below threshold)

Oh, good Lord, Leeward is back.

Turn off the fans, we won't need them, Leeward's spinning will create a nice breeze to keep us cool.

There are Spinal Tap moment... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

There are Spinal Tap moments with this overwrought Live Earth concert and I think Nigel Tufnel sums it up best:

It's such a fine line between stupid, and clever....

The IPCC's consensus claim ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

The IPCC's consensus claim has also been challenged and the IPCC has not released the names of the scientist who agree with their published position. The IPCC says it will release the names this fall.

In a number of articles I have linked to before several scientist who were once onboard the IPCC have since distance themselves from it's conclusions. It will be interesting to take 30 names from the IPCC list and see how many really support the IPCC's published position and how many are actually "climate" scientists. We know that many of the computer molders are mathematicians and physicists, so I guess we can throw out their names.

The real question is who's right, not how many are right or wrong.

The IPCC has been caught mi... (Below threshold)

The IPCC has been caught misrepresenting the science that they claim to rely upon before. The case of Chris Landsea resigning from an IPCC committee because the committee chairman was making claims about hurricane frequency and global warming for which there was no scientific support being a more famous example.

We know that many ... (Below threshold)
We know that many of the computer molders are mathematicians and physicists

A question I like to ask is, can your computer model go back in time and accurately determine what the weather was (without having that specific data input at the beginning)? For example, we put in the data for January 2007 and then ask it to predict the weather for June 2007. Since we know what the weather was in June 2007, we can use that as a benchmark for the accuracy of the model.

Now, I honestly might have missed it, but I haven't seen any of the models used to "predict" global warming undergo that kind of test.

If there have been any such tests, I'd appreciate links so I can check them out for myself.

Reality creeping into the m... (Below threshold)
Don Zimmerman:

Reality creeping into the music world? Omigawd! Someone better warn the Dixie Chicks.

Another swing and miss by P... (Below threshold)
jp2:

Another swing and miss by Paul. I can feel the breeze all the way over here.

Pathetic.

Must be my edumacation kick... (Below threshold)

Must be my edumacation kicking in, but "Now thirty people is too small a sample to be representative, but it's enough to make one reconsider the validity of this petition." is just a laughable comment at best. You are talking about taking 0.18% of a statistical body, extrapolating information from that 0.18%, and then applying it to the entire body.

Did you even bother realizing that before you wrote out that complicated, and now effectively pointless, bit about shaving down the numbers to meet your argument? Of course, do not even get me started on how you just started randomly throwing people out because they did not meet your definition of a "scientist", in the framework of your argument...

As the saying goes, figures never lie, but liars figure.

Thanks for the link, mantis... (Below threshold)
What Willis was Talking About:

Thanks for the link, mantis. I got a kick out of the comments. I really like Sarah. What a scrapper she is. When directed to "go to the library and read the journals, and see how many skeptics have produced evidence for their claims." She responds, "You mean the same journals that refuse to allow submissions that refute global warming to enter the peer-review process, because the editors deem their findings dangerous to humankind?"

Yep. Nothing but pure objective science behind it. And I appreciate that.

Linoge,You are ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Linoge,

You are talking about taking 0.18% of a statistical body, extrapolating information from that 0.18%, and then applying it to the entire body.

30 is 2.14% of 1400, not 0.18%. You should try reading before commenting. You even quoted where I said it was not a large enough sample to be representative, but apparently did not read it. Good work, dipshit. I would love to see a study with a representative sample with at least a 95% confidence level, but alas, none yet exists. All I was saying is that even this small sample is enough to raise questions.

Did you even bother realizing that before you wrote out that complicated, and now effectively pointless, bit about shaving down the numbers to meet your argument?

Well, yes I did, and I stated it clearly.

Of course, do not even get me started on how you just started randomly throwing people out because they did not meet your definition of a "scientist", in the framework of your argument...

More reading problems. Scientific American merely sampled those who claimed to hold Ph.D.s in climate-related science, so they, not I, threw out people, and not randomly. It also does not mean the others don't meet the definition of scientist, just that they don't even claim to have the relevant training or expertise to make their opinion valuable on this matter.

Ok, Linoge, now that I've dealt with your distortions and misperceptions, well, there's nothing left.

I'll come back to talk to the more intelligent commenters a little later.

You know, it is always quit... (Below threshold)

You know, it is always quite amusing when people who have absolutely no clue what they are talking about attempt to talk down to other people... The entertainment garnered by it is more than sufficient to keep you going for days.

Unfortunately for you, Mantis, you would be one of those people.

First, the number 30 is approximately 0.18% of the approximately 17000 signatories to this petition. But, then, I am not throwing out people simply because they do not meet my definition of a relevant "scientist". However, either way (the right way, or your way), the population base of 30 people is remarkably insufficient to draw any conclusions about the rest of the people. For all you know, the four out of those 30 could be the only ones who were not published... or the 26 out of the 30 could be the only ones who were. The problem is you do not know, and while the entire basis of prob/stat is making assumptions and projections based off the information at hand, even the loosest of statisticians (sp?) has his standards - and 30/17000 fails just about all.

Second, sure, you stated it clearly, Mantis... and then promptly ignored/forgot it, and based the rest of your fallacious argument upon it. Good job, and kudos to you for the effort! Admitting something is probably not statistically sound, and then running with it anywise... well, that is only something someone as stupid as you could do.

Third, of course, since it is relevant to your argument, you would only value the opinion of those who meet your narrow definition of someone who is able to have a vote on the topic. Something tells me you do not question the credentials of those who support "global warming" nearly as closely...

And, of course, tossing people out of the equation simply because they do not have a degree in the appropriate field is sheer and utterl lunacy. By dint of having any kind of academic degree, the individuals in question have demonstrated the capability of taking a set of information, understanding it (and, if they do not, doing whatever research is necessary to do so), and coming to a conclusion about it. And considering just how prevalent information is out there concerning just about any topic you could ever want (including probability and statistics, if you are so interested)... well, assuming that the people who signed this petition only signed it based off the information contained within it is, once again, stupid.

So, when it comes to distortions and misperceptions... well, Mr. Pot, you would certainly know.

And, just for clarification... (Below threshold)

And, just for clarification, now that I realize my writing was, once again, unclear, the real problem with the useage of the 30 people as a statistical basis is not so much the percentage, it is just that the body is so bleeding small. When one person can provide a 3% swing in either direction, there is no way to compensate for outliers, irregularities, incorrect data, etc.

My core message is still the same: It still fails. Just saying.

I'll come back to talk t... (Below threshold)
What Willis was Talking About:

I'll come back to talk to the more intelligent commenters a little later.

mantis=pwned

First, the number 30 is ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

First, the number 30 is approximately 0.18% of the approximately 17000 signatories to this petition. But, then, I am not throwing out people simply because they do not meet my definition of a relevant "scientist".

Well, if you're going to pay any attention to the gathered opinions of scientists as opposed to published research, I think you're better served by consulting people who know something about the topic. YMMV

However, either way (the right way, or your way), the population base of 30 people is remarkably insufficient to draw any conclusions about the rest of the people.

I agree, and I stated as much. However, it's pretty clear from the thread that Paul and I agreed to talk about the SciAm study anyway, despite its non-representative sample. Apparently, according to you, we shouldn't do that, even if we acknowledge that it isn't representative.

For all you know, the four out of those 30 could be the only ones who were not published... or the 26 out of the 30 could be the only ones who were

Possible, but very unlikely. In any case, once again, I recognize that the sample is not representative, but discussed what the numbers would mean assuming it were.

Second, sure, you stated it clearly, Mantis... and then promptly ignored/forgot it, and based the rest of your fallacious argument upon it.

No, I recognized that it was non-representative, and looked at the numbers anyway. Why do you have such a big problem with this?

Third, of course, since it is relevant to your argument, you would only value the opinion of those who meet your narrow definition of someone who is able to have a vote on the topic.

If you were curious about the validity of atomic theory, would you talk to a physicist, or a biologist? My "narrow" definition is summed up as "someone who has relevant knowledge of the topic." You have a problem with that why, exactly?

Something tells me you do not question the credentials of those who support "global warming" nearly as closely...

That something isn't a little voice in your head, is it? Yeah, you should stop listening to that.

And, of course, tossing people out of the equation simply because they do not have a degree in the appropriate field is sheer and utterl lunacy. By dint of having any kind of academic degree, the individuals in question have demonstrated the capability of taking a set of information, understanding it (and, if they do not, doing whatever research is necessary to do so), and coming to a conclusion about it.

Sure, but we have no reason to believe they have any knowledge of the field, have read any relevant papers, are familiar with the methods involved, etc. All we know is they are willing to put their (possibly real and verifiable) name on a brief statement they got in their email.

And considering just how prevalent information is out there concerning just about any topic you could ever want (including probability and statistics, if you are so interested)... well, assuming that the people who signed this petition only signed it based off the information contained within it is, once again, stupid.

Assuming they based it on anything more than that is also stupid. And considering that Perry Mason, Michael J. Fox, and a Spice Girl (Dr. Geri Halliwell!) are all named as signatories, I think there is good reason be skeptical about the knowledge of the signatories.

In any case, you seem to be under the impression that I think the SciAm study somehow disproves the petition. I do not. I think it's one among many reasons to be skeptical about this petition, but there are far better reasons, some of which I have stated in this thread. It's just that Paul chose that part to quibble with, and I responded.

Personally, I don't base any of my opinions or beliefs about climate change on the opinions of scientists, individually or in a survey. I base them on the published research (all of it).

C-C-G,Yes, the bes... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

C-C-G,

Yes, the best GCM (Global Circulation Models) can predict the climate (not the weather) in the past, but it's like the many examples of AI (Artificial Intelligence) that can predict the stock market in the past, which when applied the future do no better than random chance (throwing darts).

There's a reason why the GCMs can predict the past, but not the future. Prof. Dyson explains that the many components of climate models are divorced from first principles and are "parameterized" -- incorporated by reference to their measured effects. [another way of saying circular logic]

"They are full of fudge factors that are fitted to the existing climate, so the models more or less agree with the observed data. But there is no reason to believe that the same fudge factors would give the right behaviour in a world with different chemistry, for example in a world with increased CO2 in the atmosphere," he states.

Professor Dyson is a world renowned mathematician, physicist, and theoretician. Exactly the scientific credentials one needs to understand the workings of GCMs, but because he's not a "climate" scientists, some people like to discount his opinions. Of course many of the 2,500 or so scientists the IPCC is referring to in it's consensus claim are not "climate" scientists either. Many are chemists, biologists, mathematician, physicist, etc. It will be interesting to see just how many "climate" scientists are in the 2,500 and how many of them actually support the IPCC's published conclusions.

That's why I said without h... (Below threshold)

That's why I said without having that data input. Fudge factors is just another way of saying, "we know it can predict June 2007 weather because we input June 2007 weather."

@I agree wi... (Below threshold)
Beeblebrox:

@


I agree with the sentiment of your post but you mispoke on one point:

"leading scientists who are knowledgable in this area state there is no connection between CO2 and global warming."

But there IS a connection between C02 and global warming. Al Gore's own chart displayed in an "Inconvenient Truth" shows it.

The fact is Global Warming induces C02 production. Al Gore's chart, if examined with more granularity (which is hard to do since he cruises through it so quickly one can't appreciate that he is using the chart in exactly the opposite way than what it actually shows) one notices that as the earth warms, eventually C02 concentrations rise.

This is indisputable. Anyone who thinks like Al Gore, that C02 causes AGW, is either an idiot or is selling something.

Anyone who thinks ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Anyone who thinks like Al Gore, that C02 causes AGW, is either an idiot or is selling something.

Or in Al's case, both. The alarmists aren't going to let a little things like cause and effect get in their way.

Has anyone else no... (Below threshold)
Has anyone else noticed how slowly but "surly" (hehe) we're seeing the Global Warming crowd change the description of their crusade to "Global Climate Change"?

I've noticed it too. I tried to change the climate change entry at Wiktionary to read "What people used to call weather", but the Lefties running the place didn't like that.

Why should any reasonable d... (Below threshold)
jrunner:

Why should any reasonable dictionary allow an entry by someone who doesn't understand the difference between "weather" and "climate"? If wikipediate is run by "Lefties", do right-leaning dictionaries contain such inaccuracies?

I don't mind celebs or rock... (Below threshold)
LAB:

I don't mind celebs or rock stars wanting to be role models (depending the on the role they're modeling after). But when I go to a concert, I want to have a drink, relax, dance or whatever and listen to music, not politics. I did not pay money to hear politics. And when the artist is extra adamant about making his or her point, my whole perspective on them is completely changed.

It's not the difference bet... (Below threshold)

It's not the difference between "weather" and "climate" but "weather" and "climate change". As Oyster has noticed, the rant has changed from beware of global warming; something definite, temperatures increasing, to the nebulous charge of beware of climate change. That way even if it gets colder the Lefties can still blame evil capitalists.

What Oyster has noticed is that what we used to call weather is now being sold to us as climate change.

mantis has global warming d... (Below threshold)
kim:

mantis has global warming derangement syndrome, but he's getting more skeptical by the minute.
========================

And don't sacrifice my virg... (Below threshold)
kim:

And don't sacrifice my virgins for your superstitions, mmmmmmm hmmmmmmm.

Asshole.
==========

I'll explain. Along with t... (Below threshold)
kim:

I'll explain. Along with the shift in rhetoric from 'anthropogenic global warming' to 'climate change' there has been a rhetorical shift in 'skeptic', too, at least partly secondary to the effect of Gore. It is not hard to be skeptical of most of Gore's hyperbole; it's hard to believe its extremes. The ones being demonized now are the 'deniers'.

Skeptic=good

Denier=bad

See? I could be a leftist, too.
====================

One reason I brought it up ... (Below threshold)

One reason I brought it up is that twice now, when I've asked someone to provide their proof that humans are the number one over-riding factor in the claim of ever increasing temperatures, I've gotten, "So, do you deny that the climate is changing?" answer.

The other reason is that Google searches produce more and more results of people using the terms Global Warming and Global Climate Change interchangeably. It only leaves one to deduce that is also equal to Global Climate Change. How can one deny that? The Earth has been through numerous periods of cooling and warming, but since the new "consensus" is that humans are responsible for warming, we are prompted to deduce that they are also responsible for cooling even though there's that pesky little fact that the Earth has not always been inhabited by humans, yet, the climate is ever changing.

In all this I am not saying that we've been responsible caretakers of the planet. But haven't we, expecially here in America, done well in addressing issues of air quality, proper waste disposal and the importance of recycling? We've tried to educate the old and young alike on the importance of these things. Why even Los Angeles' pea soup air has markedly improved.

What I DO take issue with is the politicizing of this matter and the manipulation of data to drive home the point that not only are humans almost completely responsible, but particularly "American" humans. I take issue with the alarmism of millions of people being driven from their homes taking refuge in other parts living in squalor and destitution. I won't even get into the bigotry and hypocrisy of the Global Warming crowd's most stalwart proponents.

Can we do more? Why yes! But can the scare tactics and don't tell me that because I don't ride my bicycle to work I'm a bad person.

sorry, don't know how I lef... (Below threshold)

sorry, don't know how I left it out but this sentence should read:

It only leaves one to deduce that Global Coolingis also equal to Global Climate Change.

What alarms the alarmists i... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

What alarms the alarmists is that more and more science is demonstrating that past climate was warmer than it is today, yet without human activity and with the warming leading any increase in atmospheric CO2. Most reasoning people would then concluded that some other mechanism is at play.

CERN is actively studying the interaction between the Sun's magnetic field, cosmic rays and cloud formation. The theory that links these explains past climate change data far better than the greenhouse gas theory and it's testable in the lab. Preliminary results indicate a strong connection, but it could take many years to fully understand the real word impact. How than can the scientific debate be over?

It's not the difference ... (Below threshold)
jrunner:

It's not the difference between "weather" and "climate" but "weather" and "climate change".

That's no difference. Weather and climate are different things, and climate change is a climate that is changing. Disagree with it as a scientific theory if you want, but its still not weather.

Oyster has noticed, the rant has changed from beware of global warming; something definite, temperatures increasing, to the nebulous charge of beware of climate change.

That's a valid thing to notice, but it still has nothing to do with weather. It went from beware of a specific kind of climate change to beware of climate change in general. It's still not weather.

What Oyster has noticed is that what we used to call weather is now being sold to us as climate change.

No, don't blame this on Oyster. This is your mistake. Oyster said Has anyone else noticed how slowly but "surly" (hehe) we're seeing the Global Warming crowd change the description of their crusade to "Global Climate Change"?

He didn't mention "weather". You did. If you didn't understand what he was talking about, you shouldn't have responded. And you shouldn't have tried to vandalize wiktionary.

The best way to correct the... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

The best way to correct the wiktionary entry is to change "especially those produced by global warming " to the more accurate and more politically neutral "especially those produced by global cooling and warming"




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy