Gimme a break, Al Gore.
Hat tip: Dave Oatney.
Hello world!
7 years ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
"Yet wisdom is vindicated by all her children." --Jesus
"Truth will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; Nay, you may kick it around all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver W. Holmes, Sr.
-- Oliver W. Holmes, Sr.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(620)
-
▼
November
(38)
- Star Parker on Huck's appeal
- Speaking of wisdom being vindicated
- Those un-mean-spirited folks at TinyCatPants
- Paintin' the GOP
- View the YouTube Republican Debate
- Please go away
- Immigration is a sharp object
- Euro-elites make McCain blush
- I'm sick and tired of this type of stuff
- "Greater good" indeed
- That's why they call it the Left coast
- Wee bit o' dancing pleasure
- Transparent cronyism
- Spinning the vicious, vicious budget cycles
- Thompson's "pro-lifeyness"
- I don't think Chuck Norris is acting
- More about Huckabee and Immigration
- Whom Would Jesus Deport?
- Torture the new abortion? hogwash
- Sort of an endorsement
- This matters
- Chavez: Godwin's scofflaw
- Surge of former insurgents
- Should we elect judges?
- Say thanks to the Troops
- Bill Clinton and statism
- Dobson leaning Huckabee? (Updated)
- Dogma's bark is worse than its bite
- The debate is over. Not.
- Bush on recent GOP endorsements
- Lead, follow or act like you're leading
- Thompson, talk radio and talking trash
- Great stump speech
- The Purpose Driven Post
- Would Chuck Baldwin vote for Jesus?
- "Inquisiting" minds want to know
- Know-it-all-ism
- Mr. Righteous addresses his critic
-
▼
November
(38)
Some Good blogs
-
-
-
Dealing with Disappointment13 years ago
-
"For the children" has lost its luster14 years ago
Categories
- 2nd Amendment (2)
- a couple things (5)
- blogging (1)
- Bush Derangement Syndrome (40)
- Economics (38)
- Education (25)
- Election 2008 (361)
- elections (105)
- Energy (3)
- Environmentalism (47)
- faith (6)
- Federalism (1)
- Foreign Policy (7)
- Fred Thompson (35)
- GWOT (136)
- healthcare (20)
- immigration (8)
- Law and the Courts (117)
- Liberals and Democrats (109)
- Marriage and family (10)
- media (30)
- Military and Defense (2)
- Obama (73)
- parenting and family (8)
- Race (31)
- Religious Conservatism (95)
- Sanctity of Life (87)
- Sarah Palin (19)
- science denying (3)
- Sexuality (56)
- Sports/Pop Culture (67)
- the Media (17)
- The Tennessee Plan (17)
4 comments:
All the skeptic myths are debunked here.
Lets look at the four scientists Stossel interviews:
1) Tim Ball - Ball can't even tell the truth about his own resume. His claim to be the first Climatology Ph.D. in Canada is a total falsehood; his degree was in historical geography - not climatology - and it was nowhere near the first ever granted to someone writing vaguely in the field. It also was granted by the university as a doctor of philosophy, not the more prestigious "doctor of science" that Ball claims.
Ball claims never to have been paid by oil and gas interests, but if you look at a Globe and Mail story in which Dr. Barry Cooper, the man behind Ball's former industry front group, the Friends of Science, offers this clumsy admission: "[The money's] not exclusively from the oil and gas industry," says Prof. Cooper. "It's also from foundations and individuals. I can't tell you the names of those companies, or the foundations for that matter, or the individuals."
2) John Christy - Christy and fellow University of Alabama professor Roy Spencer co-authored a 2003 global warming study based on extensive data from weather satellites. Their report, which concluded that the troposphere had not warmed in recent decades, was ultimately found to have significant errors. As The New York Times reported, when their miscalculations were taken into account, the data used in their study actually showed warming in the troposphere. Christy has also said that while he supports the AGU declaration, and is convinced that human activities are a cause of the global warming that has been measured, he is "still a strong critic of scientists who make catastrophic predictions of huge increases in global temperatures and tremendous rises in sea levels.
3) Roy Spencer - has strong ties to the Exxon-funded George C. Marshall Institute.
4) Bjørn Lomborg - Scientific American ran a series of articles from four well-known environmental specialists that lambasted Lomborg’s book for “egregious distortions,” “elementary blunders of quantitative manipulation and presentation that no self-respecting statistician ought to commit,” and sections “poorly researched and … rife with careless mistakes.”
Damning stuff, William, but I'm impressed with MediaMatters efforts.
“egregious distortions,” “elementary blunders of quantitative manipulation and presentation that no self-respecting statistician ought to commit,” and sections “poorly researched and … rife with careless mistakes.”
You sure they weren't talking about Gore's work?
And what's an "environmental specialist"?
“egregious distortions,” “elementary blunders of quantitative manipulation and presentation that no self-respecting statistician ought to commit,” and sections “poorly researched and … rife with careless mistakes.”
More on Bjørn Lomborg - one of Stossel's 'experts'
The presigeous scientific journal Nature described Lomborgs work as 'employs the strategy of those who argue that... Jews weren't singled out by the Nazis'. The Danish Committee for Scientific Dishonesty was called to evaluate his work. Their analysis of Lomborg's book concluded the following: "the publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice" "there has been such perversion of the scientific message in the form of systematically biased representation that the objective criteria for upholding scientific dishonesty ... have been met". Scientific American has a 12 page article titled "Misleading Math about the Earth" dedicated solely to debunking his book. And National Academy of Science member Norman Myers says Lomborg has not done "a fraction of the homework that could give him a preliminary understanding of the science in question."
Very well.
"The Danish Committee for Scientific Dishonesty."
That sounds like one of those Soviet Era committees, doesn't it? And I'm sure they don't have a dog in the fight.
Post a Comment