Fred Thompson, whom many Republicans are hoping will swoop in at the last minute to save their party’s Presidential hopes, turns out to be just another anti-science shill.
He was on Paul Harvey’s radio show yesterday. I don’t listen to Harvey’s show; let’s just say that he and I are polar opposites when it comes to, well, everything (I prefer Paul Harris). But Thompson was on the show, and talked about global warming. You can just imagine how that went!
But then Thompson pulled out the hoary old nonsense of denying anthropogenic global warming because… wait for it… the other planets are warming too!
NASA says the Martian South Pole’s “ice cap†has been shrinking for three summers in a row. Maybe Mars got its fever from earth. If so, I guess Jupiter’s caught the same cold, because it’s warming up too, like Pluto.
This has led some people, not necessarily scientists, to wonder if Mars and Jupiter, non signatories to the Kyoto Treaty, are actually inhabited by alien SUV-driving industrialists who run their air-conditioning at 60 degrees and refuse to recycle.
Silly, I know, but I wonder what all those planets, dwarf planets and moons in our SOLAR system have in common. Hmmmm. SOLAR system. Hmmmm. Solar? I wonder. Nah, I guess we shouldn’t even be talking about this. The science is absolutely decided. There’s a consensus.
Bzzzt. Sorry, Mr. Thompson. You may be trying to sound all small-towny and home-spun like Paul Harvey does, but your ignorance is showing. There is a consensus, and it’s this: you’re wrong. Had you actually done any research, like I did, you’d find that the other planets’ warming has nothing to do with the Sun.
I suspect that this little meme will be spreading more and more as the Presidential elections loom. Citizens, it’s up to us to keep know-nothings like Fred Thompson from spreading them.
Update: Of course, the Republican candidates at the debate last night did everything they can to crush science into oblivion (if they actually believed in oblivion). TfK has the goods, as, of course, does PZ. And while I am totally underwhelmed with who the Democrats have up for grabs, I’ll ask you this: why aren’t they asked about science topics like evolution and global warming at the debates? Interesting, eh?
Tip o’ the sun shade to Matt McIrvin.
June 6th, 2007 at 8:45 am
Can I suggest all the nay-sayers leave their comments here? That comment thread is already spoiled.
June 6th, 2007 at 9:08 am
Americans don’t want intelligent leaders; intelligent leaders often make tough, unpleasant decisions. Americans want the illusion of intelligent leaders. As such, Fred Thompson is perfect…the next Ronald Reagan.
June 6th, 2007 at 9:10 am
Good grief. Of course Dubya did set the bar for Republican candidates dreadfully low, but another actor? They want to put someone who looks the part in the White House regardless of his lack of a brain? Can’t they find anyone better?!
June 6th, 2007 at 9:21 am
You know, I was actually quite shocked how much the republican candidates talked about global warming and energy independence in the CNN republican debate.
I’d obviously vote for a democrat, but if the next president is a republican who fights global warming like a president should, I wouldn’t be TOO too distraught. All the other issues can wait 4-8 years for the next president, but we should be doing something about GW now.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:15 am
Don’t worry folks!
Phil will finally read the right zodiac chart and be instructed that with maturity brings its own reality which happens to coincide with every reasonable persons reality…Go figure!
June 6th, 2007 at 10:29 am
I rather like Fred Thompson, but as an actor, not a politician. Of course, the way some politicians perform in office, I wonder if they were just actors, too. In any case, I agree with you, Phil: Fred, stick to acting. Oh, for an administration that would act on facts and not polls.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:30 am
The planet is warming, I guess. Though someone forgot to tell the midwest cause were still waiting for spring temps to stay. Anyhoo, Carbon dioxide is not causing the earth to warm, the warming earth leads to increase carbon dioxide silly’s. Everyone learned that in junior high or earlier. Warmer temps cause the oceans to release more carbon dioxide, colder temps cause the oceans to hold more carbon dioxide. And the only consensus that has been reached is that there is no consensus.
June 6th, 2007 at 11:11 am
I’m sorry, Phil, but I just don’t have it in me to go along with a “consensus” on such a highly charged issue. I work with scientists on a daily basis. Many can be orders of magnitude more political than the average person.
For debate:
http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2007/04/climate-skeptics-guest-post-why-david.html
>>> but another actor?
Yes, that would be *SO* much worse than the array of megalomaniacs, seedy lawyers and career politicians we have now.
>>> Americans don’t want intelligent leaders;
Oh good! More elitist broad brush painting of one of the most diverse populations on the Earth! Yay!
>>> I’d obviously vote for a democrat,
Yay! Keep voting those Party lines! That’s worked so well in the past!
>>> All the other issues can wait 4-8 years for the next president,
Yeah. SuperPresident will just solve everyone’s problems, won’t he/she?
Anyone want to start a real Galt’s Gultch with me? I’m real good at all things electrical. I could wire the place up.
June 6th, 2007 at 11:18 am
Hmm, are you actually surprised that the guy’s a moron?
He is lazy and like plastic surgery, would do what all the Cheneys tell him to do. I hope he doesn’t win. Hes not a real candidate, hes a shell, a mannequin.
As for the debate - republicans talk about global warming, coz they’re afraid of the democrats or the possibility of Gore running. The have to talk and can talk. Talking costs nothing. But they will not act.
And btw - Giuliani is a joke. Just like a guy, who belives in the bible LITERALLY.
Seems like they are short on really good candidates, with some brains to boot…
June 6th, 2007 at 11:29 am
“anti-science shill” “know-nothings” “the guy’s a moron”
Got to love it. Say anything against the holy consensus and let the name-calling begin.
June 6th, 2007 at 11:31 am
“holy consensus ”
Good thing you you didn’t stoop to the same level.
June 6th, 2007 at 11:44 am
>>>Yay! Keep voting those Party lines! That’s worked so well in the past!
Heh. How ironic. You’re presumably criticizing me for not being open minded and willing to research and vote for the right candidate, instead preferring to vote by “party lines”. However, you’re making unwarranted assumptions about me. You are (probably) assuming that I would rather vote for ANY democrat over ANY republican ANY time. How you came to that conclusion I do not know, but that’s simply not true. I’m not even sure what to say, besides that that’s completely false. If interpreted correctly, my previous statement means: Given the fact that this is a science blog who is mostly read by pro-science, skeptical, atheist liberals, it is clear that there is at least one candidate that is a lot better than the rest. It just so happens to be a democrat this time around, with these candidates running for the presidency.
I’m still personally not sure which candidate I’d vote for, but the top 3 are all democrats and the top republican is very low on the list
June 6th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Duuude…
Step away from the bong.
Give yourself a vacation from the sensomilla, dude… like, you know?
June 6th, 2007 at 11:58 am
Daffy, you obviously don’t have the intelligence to read what Ronald Reagan wrote, because if you did, you would indeed know that he was a man of superior intellect.
As far as “consensus” and global warming goes, you’re beginning to sound a bit dogmatic, aren’t you?
I mean, there’s hardly a consensus when there are highly credentialed scientists making a more-than-cogent case for the fact that the human factor in global warming, or global warming itself, for that matter, is no big deal. That we in fact face more of a menace with malaria and other mosquito-borne diseases than we ever would with global warming.
A consensus? Hardly. But if you have to believe in something, why not try the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus, or the Tooth Fairy? At least belief in them never led to deleterious domestic policy.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Yeah… Someone with a brain… like John Edwards.. Heh.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Elitist is only a dirty word in the USA. Everywhere else elitist or intellectual is a good thing. You want the elite to run the country. Not some ignorant idiot.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Unfortunately in US politics “elite” does not mean intellectual or bright but rather a kind of servant to modern aristocrats who promises wealth and power to corporate supporters and plays the role of a patriot of the people. Even George Bush filled this role though without the charisma of an actor. Republicans these days seem to like Fred Thompson which is natural for them. Their chiefs exploit the tendency of people to gravitate to figure heads. Figure heads who play the part of a leader while the big corporations and oil companies can get on with running the country, leveraging fear and terrorist threats against political rivals (and thereby do less to actually eliminate terrorism,) and start wars for the financial gain of their elite. They no doubt will continue to compare Fred to Ronald Reagan (the warm, smiling “Gipper” who also damaged the country.)
These claims that the scientific consensus on climate change are not valid or are just political are drivel for the good of their party. What Thompson is implying to his handlers is that he’ll continue the status quo, eliminate any regulations and fines looming from either the Democrats or some renegade Republicans, and do all he can for big oil and industry.
BTW - Ronald Reagan was not the real Gipper – that was a movie role. George Gipp was the real Gipper.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
On the topic of galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) (in response to Quiet_Desperation’s link): There are at least three major difficulties with accepting GCRs as a credible explanation for global warming:
1) The theoretical mechanism for converting changes in incoming GCR intensity to changes in Earth’s average cloud cover (and hence average climate) is fairly speculative and is only tentatively supported by laboratory experimentation. I don’t think it would be ridiculous for me to say that at very least, at this time the theoretical effects of changes in greenhouse gas concentrations are significantly more certain than the theoretical effects of changes in incoming GCR intensity.
2) There is little observational evidence that incoming GCR intensity itself has changed in the past half century or so, regardless of what the sun’s magnetic field has done.
3) There is little observational evidence that global cloud cover has changed significantly in the past half century or so, despite repeated attempts to detect such a trend.
In fact, what we have here is a relatively weak theoretical explanation with little observational evidence attempting to override a much more robust theoretical explanation (which works equally well in both chalkboard calculations and the most complex computer models) which possesses considerable observational evidence supporting it. Quite frankly, I don’t see much reason to accept the GCR claim right now. Maybe if they fish up a lot more evidence for it, I will consider it more reasonable. But not now.
But at very least the GCR claim indicates that even some contrarians are finally admitting how silly and indefensible the “changing solar output” claim is.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Leo,
Ronald Reagan accomplished nothing positive in his administration.
Reducing the budget? Please. During his presidency, he asked Congress for 16 billion dollars more than they gave him.
Tax cutter? He raised taxes on the self employed (trust me, I know that one personally), while helping out his rich, elitist buddies.
The fall of the Soviet Union? Perestroika, Glasnost, Communist idiocy, and a bloated military budget did that.
OK, he made Americans “feel good about themselves again.” Great; he’s the Captain Kangaroo of American presidents.
See? I did all that without one personal attack against you. Have a day.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
At the core of science resides a methodology. The methodolgy is designed to maximize the probability that the results are accurate. When followed scrupulously, the scientific method yields excellent results.
Why would anyone follow such a methodology, why not just wing it? Well, because the methodology appeals to an aesthetic sense and an integrity that are inherent in many of us. This aesthetic sense and integrity are not rare qualities, they are actually quite prevalent, although perhaps not universal.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Mark, Im a US citizen and I have lived in Europe (Heerlen, NL and Paris to be exact), Japan, and Korea. In none of those places have I ever heard someone speak of elitists in government as a good thing… so, where is this rest of the world you are referring to?
I have heard folks saying intelligent, reasonable, connected with the citizens people are the ones you want governing… but never have I heard anyone saying that elitists are who you want at the wheel. Intellectual != Elitist
Perhaps you meant to say the intellectual elite? Even then… I’ve not heard of anyone clamoring for nobel prize winners to be elected heads of state. I mean Stephen Hawking has an amazing mind, definitely a memebr of the intellectual elite, but I doubt his grasp of geopolitics matches his grasp of physics. He’s an astonishing physicist but I don’t think that makes him qualified to run a country.
Personally I’d rather see a renaissance man at the helm - well rounded education in all the important areas. Educated just enough to understabnd how much they do not know. Not an expert in any field on their own but versed enough to spot good advice from bad and therefore capable of picking advisors who are true subject matter experts and can be trusted. It’s a pipe dream… but I cling to it nonetheless. Needless to say I have been disappointed by governments (not just mine, all of them) for as long as I can remember.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Wow. I think I typed my last post into the wrong thread by mistake. Sorry.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Well worded nonetheless Brian!
June 6th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
My point was that in the US these days the word intellectual has been replaced by elitist. It is a bad thing to be considered an intellectual. I’ve lived in Holland, UK, France and the US. The US is the only country where so many people have something against intellectuals and where the word has become a four letter word…
June 6th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
I have seen the anti-intellectual bent in the US as well. I realize that intellectuals are hardly “superior” to other people, and anything they say should be taken with a grain of salt, but I think in the US the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction. It seems like a lot of people over here seem to think “The intellectual disagrees with my opinion, therefore the intellectual is being elitist”. Some opinions are more informed than others, despite how much the uninformed deny it.
June 6th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
There was a fantastic scene in The West Wing, where the president was showing off a bit about how much he knew about Mars. The press officer CJ told him to tone it down, and he went on a rant saying (paraphrased), “Yes, please, heaven forbid people see the President is actually intelligent.”
Man, I love that scene.
June 6th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Phil Plait for PRESIDENT!!!! Woohoo
Aroooga Aroooga!
June 6th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
No way!
For one, I am way too willing to admit I made a mistake.
For another, I listen to people who know more than I do, and take their advice.
And third, it would mean moving back to DC. Nope.
June 6th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
Oran_Taran: “You’re presumably criticizing me …”
You know what? I take it back.
It was just snark anyway.
I’m just so tired all the politics and nonsense and “my way or the highway” or “thou that don’t agree with me are morons” type of stuff. I’m a bright guy. I’ve read a lot on GW. I have yet to make a conclusion because of all the intellectual smog, and really distrust anyone who claims to have the absolute truth here.
Phil says to listen to the experts. I do. Some rather big ones have reversed their stance on anthro-warming recently, and are now skeptics.
And I also distrust any side that makes extreme doom and gloom warnings. It smacks too much of apocalytic proclimations of the religious crowd.
June 6th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Jupiter has the most stable weather of all the planets. The wind only travels in one direction. The equator moves from three degrees above edge on to the sun to three degrees below. Storms last for centuries.
And yet the central bulge is ten degrees hotter then when Pioneer flew by, Io began erupting between the Pioneer and Voyager missions, and there is a brand new Red Spot which will probably last forever as far as we are concerned.
I would call that different.
For you to explain change in Jupiter weather due to the planets internal heating (gravitational contraction) you would have to show a change in Jupiter’s specific gravity. You think Jupiter has been putting on weight?
June 6th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
IT’s interesting that Mars and Earth share Milankovic cycles. Why would they do that?
June 6th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
I found the recently disclosed admission from NASA that the Mars Global Surveyor was crashed into the planet due to operator error very disturbing.
It makes me wonder if bad astronomy didn’t team up with bad ideology on that fateful day.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
I read in the post that you linked in the main story that in your way of thinking, Venus (and Earth for that matter) would be affected in a more dramatic fashion then our outer planets.
My thinking on the matter is that Venus is already operating at a blackbody radiative maximum. A little more heat there would do what?
Make the lead more molten? How would we ever hope of seeing that?
On Mars there are two ice poles. These provide plenty of opportunity to examine the effects of global warming, due to there being something there to be affected.
When you examine the absorbtion spectra of Jupiter and realise that the planet’s atmosphere contains a layer of ammonia and methane equal to 2500 ppm - instead of the paltry 380 ppm of co2 the Earth has - if you believe in the basic mechanism of greenhouse gas, you have to carry that belief with you as you examine Jupiter. If there is an increase of insolance that is beyond the Earth’s bandpass, that extra solar input must impinge on Jupiter in some way. You can beleive in that without beleiving the sun is causing global warming on Earth.
If you can get this far conceptually, then it becomes a matter of mathematics to measure solar variation. Let it be investigated with all the power of our scientific community. Let them take apart how much methane traps heat. Jupiter is a perfect case study in how much or little the sun is involved with AGW.
You want to know for sure, I want to know for sure.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Re the “Elitist” debate, it seems to remind me of what I thought was a typical Australian trait: the “Tall Poppy Syndrome”. Anybody who excels in a chosen field, or perhaps rises to the top by virtue of popularity, is a marked person. Any little thing they do that is not quite in keeping with a certain accepted standard, suddenly find the rug pulled from under them, even sometimes with no discernable reason, other than they are that tall poppy and a good target to have their head lopped off.
There may be other expressions around the world for that behavior, particularly in this age of XXXX Idol and the latest Hollywood hearthrob, or Big Brother.
But “elite” here does not seem to have any un-toward connotations, they are just there, and, so long as they do not really throw their weight around, “good luck to them”. Though seemingly contradictory, we do acknowledge a distinction.
Ivan.
June 6th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
It is funny I think this whole debate on global warming. On the one had people are saying that we do not know enough about climate on earth, what’s causing global warming, etc etc. These same people use the relatively tiny amount of info we have on other planets in the solar system as an argument in their favour!
Very funny.
June 7th, 2007 at 12:19 am
Noted solar physicist Fred Thompson has actually recorded the sound of solar oscillations. Listen: http://blog.rickbreslin.com/extras/doink_doink.wav
Corry
P.S.: Be gentle, for he might get the BA equivalent of Slashdotting.
June 7th, 2007 at 1:09 am
Will some of you please read up the dog-darned definition of “concensus”? Then read up “unanimity”, and note the glaring differences.
Having some prominent scientists speaking out against AGW does not mean that there is no concensus, just that there isn’t unanimity.
Sorry, I just get angry whenever someone says “There is no concensus ‘cos this guy here doesn’t agree!” That’s a non-sequitur.
June 7th, 2007 at 1:13 am
And if anybody tries to descredit my argument by pointing out the dog-awful spelling error i Made (3 times), I will stick my arm down the inter-tubes and smack them silly!
June 7th, 2007 at 2:58 am
BA, I was less able than usual to concentrate on your post, being distracted by the third word. It is very rarely necessary to use “whom” rather than “who”: whenever you feel the urge, please think at least twice more about it, and when in doubt, stick to “who”.
Jim Roberts
June 7th, 2007 at 4:22 am
Phil says to listen to the experts. I do. Some rather big ones have reversed their stance on anthro-warming recently, and are now skeptics.
Really? Name one. Preferably an expert in climatology.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:30 am
I nominate jotetamu for the Nitpick of the Thread award!
June 7th, 2007 at 4:48 am
What a perfect post and thread for Boulder - the only place on Earth where you can see a brand new Mercedes SUV with a “No War For Oil” bumper sticker on the back…
I’m from Boulder and that’s not a “fantasy” report. Next time, I’m whipping out the camera phone for photographic proof.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:54 am
Someone upthread said : “Duuude… Step away from the bong. Give yourself a vacation from the sensomilla, dude… like, you know?”
Que? Sensomilla = ???
Someone also mentioned slashdotting which = ???
Two totally odd words I’ve never heard before on one thread .. Hmnn curious..
If you’re in any doubt about the reality of global warming then why not ask someone from Tuvalu (a pacific archepeligo going under with sea level rise) or near the disappearing Andean glaciers or the disappearing Kilaminajro icecap or the vanishing Larsen B iceshelf (ok folk living theretend tobe a bit harder to locate!) or etc ..
Whether its entirely, mostly or slightly human caused _may_ just may be another question but it is certainly happening and the industrial pollutants we’re pouring into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels clearly aren’t helping. It seems really most unlikely to me that all the huge amounts of extra oil fumes and other crud we’re adding are doing arehaving no effect our atmosphere… That sort of GW denialism sounds a lot like saying urinating and defecating on your carpet all day long is going to leave it unstained, unsmelly and still sanitary to me.
When it comes to elites / intellectuals running nations I second the nomination for Phil as President!
I will also note that like teh stroy /legend (?) of Cincinatus (spelling?) an Atehnian who was chosen leader, protested agaisnt that but then led brillantly then quickly went back to being a farmer, it shows the best leaders are those who do NOT want the job. I suggest selecting Presidents and Congressfolk, etc .. via the jury selction method followed by IQ /political knowledge test to find the most intelligent of those selected - then let the other eleven folk apply what they know from life experience and use their common-sense to decide anything &everything - & let panels of recognised experts from the relevant fields help them by outlining the knowledge, options and arguments.
It sems both sad and really self-destructive that in today’s America the perfectly good words and people called ‘intellectual’, ‘liberal’ or ‘academic’ find those terms have been twisted into labels of abuse rather than respect. A nation that worships brute strength and superficial appearance over intelligence and reasoned compassion is a nation that has its priorities _very_ wrong and will regret it later. Australia too - along with the United States and others has fallen into this trap as I see things.
One other last point : Albert Einstein was apparently offered but declined the presidency of Israel. Wonder how different history would have been had he agreed and led the place and how he would have delt with the Palestineans … ? My guess is that he would have negotiated a reasonable truce giving both sides a fair go although whether even Einstein could have solved that problem is a tough hypothetical indeed.
June 7th, 2007 at 6:05 am
papertiger Says: [June 6th, 2007 at 9:40 pm]
“It’s interesting that Mars and Earth share Milankovic cycles. Why would they do that?”
Both planets are tilted similarly on their axis and both have eccentric orbits - Mars more so than Earth which, incidentally, was ideal for Johannes Kepler working out his laws ofplanetary motion and getting rid of the notion of “Divine Circular” orbits for planets.
Both are similar rocky worlds with atmospheres, solid surfaces below reasonable atmospheres and active geology (at least in the past for Mars although its geological cycle is NOT plate tectonics like Earth) in many respects the two are very similar although Mars low mass makes it incapable of quite being earthlike enough to sustain an earthlike ecology…
Venus OTOH stands straight upright if upsidedownin its more circular orbit, Mercury has no atmosphere & the outer planets arewell very much outer …
No surprise really then given the way Milankovic cycles work that Mars and Earth have ‘em whilst the other worlds don’t .. Or at least don’t have anything quite the same. You can only have ice-ages where you have icecaps after all.
June 7th, 2007 at 6:06 am
“Slashdotting” - When a web-site is subjected to a sudden increase in traffic so extreme that the response of that site suffers horribly.
(As Yogi Berra would say “Nobody goes there anymore, it’s too crowded!”)
This is the typical end-result of a normally low-traffic site being linked to by a very popular site.
If I were to say something interesting my hypothetical GeoCities site, and someone at, say Slashdot.org, were to link to it, and then ten thousand slashdot geeks decended onto my site all at once, so that the 10,001st person could no longer reach it at all, that would be, literally, Slashdotting.
June 7th, 2007 at 6:13 am
Typos apologies … My usual lamentations for the lack of editing capacity here & one other small point :
Lengthof day may just play a role too.
Mars and Earth both rotate in about 24~25 hours. Venus, Mercury and others rotate either much more quickly or slowly.
So : 1) orbital eccentricity & distance from Sun
2) axial tilt &
3) length of day :
All those being similar seems to explain why Milankovitch cycles work so well on Mars and Earth and not so well - if at all - elsewhere.
Be interesting to see how any exoplanets in similar Earthly / Martian circumstances go in this regard … among others.
June 7th, 2007 at 6:16 am
Thanks Stuart.
Makes sense know I’ve heard the explanation - love the quote !
June 7th, 2007 at 7:29 am
Well, I know it’s not popular to question the consensus on global warming. How dare anyone. Back in the 1970s the so call consensus stated that Earth was cooling. How times have change. What the consensus never mentions is that probably we are in a glacial interlude. ~10,000 years during the last of many ice ages the Earth for unkown reasons warmed up - heavens sake. The consensus stated that this was a temporary situation.
Duke
June 7th, 2007 at 7:39 am
Back in the 1970s the so call consensus stated that Earth was cooling.
BZZZT! False.
June 7th, 2007 at 9:41 am
Phil,
You lost the tail of Fred Thompson’s quote….”Ask Galileo.”
Clever. Don’t dismiss this fellow so quickly.
Have the Republicrats have found their new Reagan?
One thing for sure: it’s gonna get hotter under the circus tent.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Why what an ignorant idiot. You of course not Fred Thompson. When are you guys going to accept the fact that people don’t buy your religion. It is a religion, as there is not ANY proven science here.
GO FRED GO!!!!
June 7th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
HUH???
Ivan.
June 8th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Ugh, recycling has nothing to do with global warming. If anything, it contributes to it. Ironically.
June 18th, 2007 at 4:09 am
It amazes me about the spreading ideas against human-induced GW.
Could it be that we don’t want to admit its our fault? Does this relate to the all too common attitude of people not wanting to be held accountable?
On a side note, I had no idea you and Paul Harvey were oppisites on *everything*. I used to listen to his news and comment show as a teen.
Care to give an expose on your opposing views? I’d be interested to see what I’ve been misled to believe (though thanks to site like yours, I believe I do have a clearer view of the, well, universe than before).
August 15th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Regardless of Freds conclusion.
It stands as a good point.
Other worlds warm too.
Sometimes swiftly. Sure we can explain some of it.
And sometimes……… well.
I guess some think they have all the answers.
What I find sad is the incredible hatred from the left these days when questioned.
Skepticism, questioning, and challenging is not anti-science.
It is a KEY part of science.
And sadly some confuse theory, with faith. And embrace it terribly so that they spit venom at anyone that dare challenge it.
God, devil or sun help them.
January 28th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
I read this meme in the Jackson Hole News & Guide today. I actually came to this site trying to find some information on Mar’s Polar Caps. Well, at least now I have the name of the originator of this Meme.