NationStates Jolt Archive

Evidently not.

Representative Dingell, of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, plans to rake Gore over the coals for Gore's stance on global warming.

Dingell is a known skeptic. And will be stacking "experts" of his own against Gore.

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/12/20/dingell/

Q. So you don't believe the scientific consensus on global warming is established at this point?

A. This country, this world, the [human] race of which you and I are a part, is great at having consensuses that are in great error. And so I want to get the scientific facts, and find out what the situation is, and find out what is the cure, and find out what is the cure that is acceptable to the country that I represent and serve.

And he's not big on shutting down the US auto industry to solve the problem...

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/12/20/dingell/

One job in 10 in this country is in the auto industry. Most people don't know that. The auto industry is the biggest user of carpets produced in the Carolinas. The auto industry is the biggest user of glass produced in Pittsburgh. The autos are the biggest consumer of steel. The autos are tremendous users of plastic. And they've got, I think, about four computers in an automobile. Now, you can be quite calm about destituting Detroit, but do you want to shut down Silicon Valley and North Carolina and the Gulf Coast and Pittsburgh and other places that are heavily dependent on this? Plus the transportation industry that moves these cars around?

Yep, sure. It's highly likely that we are causing changes to our planet that we will not be able to handle, no serious scientist would deny that in addition to being a sever danger to human health on more than one level, automobiles are also a danger to our planet on the whole, but let's not worry about how we could improve things. Let's just go on denying that anything could possibly be wrong.

http://www.caricatura.de/Kassel/wander/altes/greser_lenz/xrettet.gif

Save the hand-axe industry! Down with metal!!!

Evidently not.


So?

Save the hand-axe industry! Down with metal!!!
That's about Dingell's position, which is why Nancy Pelosi did an end-run on him when setting up a global warming panel. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/11/AR2007031101044.html)

I am not clear about what the point of this thread is supposed to be.

Are we supposed to believe that global warming is a myth because there is a Democrat who doesn't believe in it? I thought we weren't supposed to listen to the Democrats, and that they were all liars and traitors who hate America?

So? I bet I could find more than a few Republicans who have enough command of the scientific literature to recognize that anthropogenic global climate change is a reality.

It's not about belief. The facts are there. You can choose to recognize their implications, or not. You can't simply believe your way into reality.

:rolleyes:

We have a pretty good bead on global temperature trends. Right now we can see we're on the uphill side of a fairly large spike. We know CO2, and other gases we pump out into the atmosphere exacerbates this. So limiting the release of said gases is simply good policy, it does not require belief.

Whether humans are to blame or not is irrelevant to what must be done.

I am not clear about what the point of this thread is supposed to be.

Are we supposed to believe that global warming is a myth because there is a Democrat who doesn't believe in it? I thought we weren't supposed to listen to the Democrats, and that they were all liars and traitors who hate America?

Wouldn't surprise me.

As brought to you by the producer of "Does the Opinion of Iraqi's Count?" and "Are women "partially mentally handicapped"?".

I am not clear about what the point of this thread is supposed to be.

Are we supposed to believe that global warming is a myth because there is a Democrat who doesn't believe in it? I thought we weren't supposed to listen to the Democrats, and that they were all liars and traitors who hate America?

Eve just likes posting anything that makes him look like a complete idiot when everything he says backfires thanks to various other people. He's your average masochist, really.

No one's talking about shutting the auto industry, or any other industry for that matter, but about making cleaner cars and cleaner industries. This would not only not close industries, but would generate new ones and new technologies, plus make a more efficient use of resources in the long term.

The problem industry has is that the initial investment is steep, but it's not as large as the consequences of not investing now. It can probably be recovered in the medium term, also.

I thought we weren't supposed to listen to the Democrats, and that they were all liars and traitors who hate America?

Nah! just Extreme Liberals Should be mistrusted and yada yada yada! but then the same can easily be said for extreme conservatives.

haven't you ever heard to much of anything is bad for you!

Besides who cares if global warming is real or fake? if its real and the earth heats up Natural Selection will take over! the weak will die the strong will adapt, and new races will inherit the earth! what is it to be human anyway? our Genetic make up? or the culture we leave behind!


BTW did anyone ever figure that extreme heat would evaporate water causing the sky to flood with rain clouds, and that the constent heat on the clouds would cause the clouds to remain never gaining the chill they need to fall, But in essence cooling the planet beneath them while also filtering out tons and tons of UV radiation causing us all to have longer life spans!?

See global warming a good thing!

(im insane, I know!)

Who listens to Gore?

No, and you would be hard pressed to show where I said that or implied it.

I'm pointing out that for some reason, the Democrats don't have a consensus amongst their own leadership on global warming.

Not that the Republicans do either - but that's already taken as a given.

If you listen to Gore, you would think that only some Republicans, led by the oil and gas industry, are non-believers or skeptics.

well hes right. He obviously invented the internet and is 3rd emperor of the moon! dont you watch Futurama? the anwser is simple, We must KILL ALL ROBOTS

I am not clear about what the point of this thread is supposed to be.

Are we supposed to believe that global warming is a myth because there is a Democrat who doesn't believe in it? I thought we weren't supposed to listen to the Democrats, and that they were all liars and traitors who hate America?

No, and you would be hard pressed to show where I said that or implied it.

I'm pointing out that for some reason, the Democrats don't have a consensus amongst their own leadership on global warming.

Not that the Republicans do either - but that's already taken as a given.

If you listen to Gore, you would think that only some Republicans, led by the oil and gas industry, are non-believers or skeptics.

No, and you would be hard pressed to show where I said that or implied it.

I'm pointing out that for some reason, the Democrats don't have a consensus amongst their own leadership on global warming.

Not that the Republicans do either - but that's already taken as a given.

If you listen to Gore, you would think that only some Republicans, led by the oil and gas industry, are non-believers or skeptics.

Yeah, see, here's the thing: we know that already. What's your point?

No, and you would be hard pressed to show where I said that or implied it.

I'm pointing out that for some reason, the Democrats don't have a consensus amongst their own leadership on global warming.In case you missed it in the thread above, here's the reason--Dingell is in the pocket of the auto industry and has been ever since he was elected. That's why Pelosi did an end run on him for the Global Warming panel. I know it may shock you to learn this, but we are aware that we have politicians who are in the pockets of industry. We don't like it and quite often try to primary them or get them marginalized.

Not that the Republicans do either - but that's already taken as a given.

If you listen to Gore, you would think that only some Republicans, led by the oil and gas industry, are non-believers or skeptics.

And I suppose you have a quote or something from Gore to back that up? Or it's more of your straw man building.

Yeah, see, here's the thing: we know that already. What's your point?

Sorry, it's not something you see pointed out in the mainstream media.

Sorry, it's not something you see pointed out in the mainstream media.

Right, except that all of us here know it anyway, and this is where you chose to post it. If you were informing the general public who rely on the mainstream media for their news you might have a point, but since you posted it here, I again ask: what is your point?

Wait a moment, you mean that someone in the democratic party has an opinion that differs from other people in the party?

This is unthinkable! Contact our leadership, this man must be made to pay for his incolence about having an opinion that differs from the rest of us. This shall not pass!

Oh, no, wait. We're not republicans.

Never mind then, carry on.

Who cares about global pani..I mean warming

Gee.. There are fucktards on either side of the aisle? Who woulda fucking thought?

It's a pity that Pelosi didn't put this guy on a panel more appropriate for someone who doesn't understand climate science. Hopefully this problem with be fixed in the 111th Congress.

Gee.. There are fucktards on either side of the aisle? Who woulda fucking thought?

It's a pity that Pelosi didn't put this guy on a panel more appropriate for someone who doesn't understand climate science. Hopefully this problem with be fixed in the 111th Congress.His seniority has him as the chair of the Energy and Commerce committee, but it's his loyalty to the auto industry that caused Pelosi, as I linked above, to keep him off the Global Warming panel.

So? I bet I could find more than a few Republicans who have enough command of the scientific literature to recognize that anthropogenic global climate change is a reality.

It's not about belief. The facts are there. You can choose to recognize their implications, or not. You can't simply believe your way into reality.

:rolleyes:
We know that the earth is warming, not that this is anthropogenic. Sure, some scientists like to claim it is. This is a theory though. They have yet to conclusively prove anything of the sort.

His seniority has him as the chair of the Energy and Commerce committee, but it's his loyalty to the auto industry that caused Pelosi, as I linked above, to keep him off the Global Warming panel.

Funny, she's had the ability to fuck people with seniority before. Why not Dingell?

Funny, she's had the ability to fuck people with seniority before. Why not Dingell?

Dingell felt fucked by the formation of the global warming panel in the first place. Seems to me like she did fuck him--metaphorically at least.

in so far as we know anything in science, we know that climate change right now is being driven by anthropogenic forcings.
Yes, we know that anthropogenic factors may be contributing to it - but we most certainly do not know whether they cause it. In fact one of the theories is that we're coming out of a mini ice age.

science doesn't do proof, theory means "really well supported by the data and has already survived numerous empirical tests", all of the legitimate sci lit is on board, the denialists appear to be generally incapable of actually doing science (and, sometimes, math), etc.
No, science DOES need proof. Otherwise, you contradict yourself.

We know that the earth is warming, not that this is anthropogenic. Sure, some scientists like to claim it is. This is a theory though. They have yet to conclusively prove anything of the sort.

in so far as we know anything in science, we know that climate change right now is being driven by anthropogenic forcings.

science doesn't do proof, theory means "really well supported by the data and has already survived numerous empirical tests", all of the legitimate sci lit is on board, the denialists appear to be generally incapable of actually doing science (and, sometimes, math), etc.

We know that the earth is warming, not that this is anthropogenic. Sure, some scientists like to claim it is. This is a theory though. They have yet to conclusively prove anything of the sort.

You do know what "scientific theory" means, right? You never prove ANYTHING in science. "theory" is as good as it gets.

I swear it's like the anti-evolution crowd. "ITS JUST A THEORY!" Yes, yes it is. That is however as good as we're gonna get. Nothing in science is ever PROVEN.

Yes, as we know from my sig, scientists never make a mistake.


Difference being scientists are willing to admit they can be mistaken, unlike your pathetic dogmatic beliefs.

in so far as we know anything in science, we know that climate change right now is being driven by anthropogenic forcings.

science doesn't do proof, theory means "really well supported by the data and has already survived numerous empirical tests", all of the legitimate sci lit is on board, the denialists appear to be generally incapable of actually doing science (and, sometimes, math), etc.

Yes, as we know from my sig, scientists never make a mistake.
http://eee.uci.edu/clients/bjbecker/PlaguesandPeople/ruleof48b.jpg

"Usually the number of chromosomes is constant in a given species, although it may vary between different species even of the same genus. In man the chromosome number is forty-eight...." [Human Genetics and its Social Import, by S. J. Holmes (1936), pp. 8. The illustration above appears on p. 9.]

"... the number of chromosomes is in general constant for any given species. Thus in each cell of a human being there are 48 chromosomes (24 pairs)...." [Principles of Heredity, 3rd. ed., by Laurence R. Snyder (1946), p. 26.]


But... but....

"If you learned your biology a long time ago, you learned that men have forty-eight [chromosomes]--but the number has now been revised downward to forty-six (twenty-three pairs)." [The Language of Life: An Introduction to the Science of Genetics, by George and Muriel Beadle (1966), p. 89.]

Apparently, Swedes can count...

When and how did the discovery take place? Here's a first hand account from biologist, Maj Hultén, who was then an undergraduate student in Stockholm:

I was walking in the culvert linking the Institute to the Animal House, carrying my mouse cages. It was late at night the day before Christmas Eve, on December 23, 1955, when I suddenly heard the clapping (and echoing) sound of clogs behind me, and a heavy hand landed on my left shoulder. I got mighty afraid, but recognizing it to be the diminutive Chinese visiting scientist, Joe-Hin Tjio, I wondered what on earth this was all about. "I can see that you are equally kind to everybody around here. Would you like to come to my room? I have got something interesting to show you", he stuttered. "Yes, please", I found myself answering.

Peering down the microscope, situated on the bench to the right in Tjio's office cum lab, I was amazed to see the human chromosomes well spread out and separated from each other, and when Tjio demanded: "Count", I did so. My first comment was "You have lost two", but then in metaphase after metaphase there could be no doubt, the chromosome number was 46. It was a cliché to say that I can remember it as if it was yesterday, the stinging smell of the acetic orcein (making Tjio's broad thumbs bright red also when squashing the cells) blending together with that of Turkish coffee made by Tjio.

from "Numbers, bands and recombination of human chromosomes: Historical anecdotes from a Swedish student," by M. A. Hultén, in Cytogenetic and Genome Research 96: 14-19 (2002), pp. 15-16.

http://eee.uci.edu/clients/bjbecker/PlaguesandPeople/lecture19.html

No, science DOES need proof. Otherwise, you contradict yourself.

No, science does not need PROOF. Science never proves anything. Science needs data, and observation, and an explanation that best explains the data and observation.

Science never seeks proof. It only seeks data that helps confirm, or refute, a theory. Never proof. Nothing is ever proven.

I swear it's like the anti-evolution crowd. "ITS JUST A THEORY!" Yes, yes it is. That is however as good as we're gonna get. Nothing in science is ever PROVEN.
Actually, it isn't. The anti-evolution crowd have no alternative theories that are worth mentioning. Not the same in this case.

I swear it's like the anti-evolution crowd.

yup. they had to go that route back in the mid 90s when they ran out of legitimate avenues of opposition. poor denialists.

Yes, as we know from my sig, scientists never make a mistake.


And clearly because scientists are human and thus make mistakes they must NEVER BE RIGHT ABOUT ANYTHING!

That is, in fact, the logic you are using here. Deny it all you wish, but that's what you're saying, and you know it's bullshit because right now we're both using something that without science would be impossible.

Actually, it isn't. The anti-evolution crowd have no alternative theories that are worth mentioning. Not the same in this case.

It's quite the same in this case. Those that believe evolution is not man made have not presented a solid, peer verifiable, falsifiable, and non falsified hypothesis that has been consistantly backed up by evidence.

That is what a theory is.

Both sides have generally brought out CONJECTURE. But neither one has done anything that rises to the level of theory.

And clearly because scientists are human and thus make mistakes they must NEVER BE RIGHT ABOUT ANYTHING!

That is, in fact, the logic you are using here. Deny it all you wish, but that's what you're saying, and you know it's bullshit because right now we're both using something that without science would be impossible.

No, I'm not saying that.

I'm saying that we shouldn't believe it just because scientists say so, or say that they have a consensus.

That's why the scientific method has the idea of repeatable controlled experiments.

I should be able to repeat the experiments and get the same results.

Feynman was right - funding, politics, and other pressures will subvert true science to the point where no one will be allowed to question the results - or even repeat the experiments independently. We'll be forced to accept the results, even if they may be wrong or incorrect.

Maybe you should read this:
http://www.ise.ncsu.edu/jwilson/colloq.html

Science has an obligation to constantly question its own theories and results - and not submit to politically public scientist-bashing when the results aren't politically popular either way. It's a form of intellectual dishonesty outlined by Feynman. And now it's come true.

Langmuir's Symptoms of Pathological Science

1. The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.

2. The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability or, many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.

3. There are claims of great accuracy.

4. Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.

5. Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment.

6. The ratio of supporters to critics rises up to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to oblivion.

Actually, it isn't. The anti-evolution crowd have no alternative theories that are worth mentioning. Not the same in this case.

exactly the same in this case.

if the world were different, it might be the case that cosmic rays or solar output or orbital shifts would be the primary driving forces in current climate change. but they aren't in this world.

similarly, if the universe were different, it might be the case that earth was only 6,000 years old. but this is not that universe.

all these beliefs have empirical consequences. in both the young earther and the denialists' cases, the consequences have not held during scientific testing. therefore those hypotheses go to the fucking trash heap.

http://wwwcdf.pd.infn.it/~loreti/science.html

When I was at Cornell, I often talked to the people in the psychology department. One of the students told me she wanted to do an experiment that went something like this -- it had been found by others that under certain circumstances, X, rats did something, A. She was curious as to whether, if she changed the circumstances to Y, they would still do A. So her proposal was to do the experiment under circumstances Y and see if they still did A.

I explained to her that it was necessary first to repeat in her laboratory the experiment of the other person -- to do it under condition X to see if she could also get result A, and then change to Y and see if A changed. Then she would know the the real difference was the thing she thought she had under control.

She was very delighted with this new idea, and went to her professor. And his reply was, no, you cannot do that, because the experiment has already been done and you would be wasting time. This was in about 1947 or so, and it seems to have been the general policy then to not try to repeat psychological experiments, but only to change the conditions and see what happened.

Nowadays, there's a certain danger of the same thing happening, even in the famous field of physics. I was shocked to hear of an experiment being done at the big accelerator at the National Accelerator Laboratory, where a person used deuterium. In order to compare his heavy hydrogen results to what might happen with light hydrogen, he had to use data from someone else's experiment on light hydrogen, which was done on a different apparatus. When asked why, he said it was because he couldn't get time on the program (because there's so little time and it's such expensive apparatus) to do the experiment with light hydrogen on this apparatus because there wouldn't be any new result. And so the men in charge of programs at NAL are so anxious for new results, in order to get more money to keep the thing going for public relations purposes, they are destroying -- possibly -- the value of the experiments themselves, which is the whole purpose of the thing. It is often hard for the experimenters there to complete their work as their scientific integrity demands.

Remember this the next time you "trust" what a scientist claims. Always question the results.

So I have just one wish for you -- the good luck to be somewhere where you are free to maintain the kind of integrity I have described, and where you do not feel forced by a need to maintain your position in the organization, or financial support, or so on, to lose your integrity. May you have that freedom.

No, science DOES need proof. Otherwise, you contradict yourself.

problem of induction

hume ftw!

Agree with him or not, Dingell does make one good point: Consensus does not equate to fact. *nod*

Agree with him or not, Dingell does make one good point: Consensus does not equate to fact. *nod*

it is true that consensus does not equate to fact. That being said, if it's scientific consensus, formed through rigorous testing, then if you want to argue against that consensus you're going to need a lot more than "nuh uh" to be taken seriously.

it is true that consensus does not equate to fact. That being said, if it's scientific consensus, formed through rigorous testing, then if you want to argue against that consensus you're going to need a lot more than "nuh uh" to be taken seriously.

Very true.

You do know what "scientific theory" means, right? You never prove ANYTHING in science. "theory" is as good as it gets.

I swear it's like the anti-evolution crowd. "ITS JUST A THEORY!" Yes, yes it is. That is however as good as we're gonna get. Nothing in science is ever PROVEN.

Well, technically speaking there are certain things which can be "proven", in a sense. We can prove that the average temperature of the Earth is increasing. We can prove that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. However, what most people don't realize, is that facts alone in science are worthless. The reason? You can't do much of anything with facts. So we create theories, which we use to predict certain outcomes, that are supported by the facts. Theories aren't necessarily proven true, as they do not need to be, more or less. They can be shown as either being accurate models which have predictable outcomes, or not. More or less. Thus, it's not only that most people do not understand the meaning of a "Scientific Theory", they don't understand the purpose of them either.

Well, technically speaking there are certain things which can be "proven", in a sense. We can prove that the average temperature of the Earth is increasing. We can prove that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. However, what most people don't realize, is that facts alone in science are worthless. The reason? You can't do much of anything with facts. So we create theories, which we use to predict certain outcomes, that are supported by the facts. Theories aren't necessarily proven true, as they do not need to be, more or less. They can be shown as either being accurate models which have predictable outcomes, or not. More or less. Thus, it's not only that most people do not understand the meaning of a "Scientific Theory", they don't understand the purpose of them either.

We call theories with seemingly irrefutible proof 'laws'. But they're still theories. Science never rules out the possibility of new insights.

exactly the same in this case.
The earth can conclusively be shown to be older than 6000 years old. Anthropogenic causes of global warming cannot be conclusively shown to the extent that they rule out other possible theories.

Yes, as we know from my sig, scientists never make a mistake.
Funny, what I took away from your sig was that scientists are the ones identifying the mistakes in our existing understanding of the world, and it is scientists who are continually updating our knowledge of how things work.

Funny, what I took away from your sig was that scientists are the ones identifying the mistakes in our existing understanding of the world, and it is scientists who are continually updating our knowledge of how things work.

And how they can all agree, and all be wrong for decades, until someone questions the facts.

It's why I like Feynman. He expressed a concern about the true legitimacy of scientific results, especially in an atmosphere where funding and status is reliant on intellectual dishonesty.

in addition to being a sever danger to human health on more than one level, automobiles.....

No they're not.

The earth can conclusively be shown to be older than 6000 years old. Anthropogenic causes of global warming cannot be conclusively shown to the extent that they rule out other possible theories.

name me one denialist hypothesis that hasn't been outright falsified by the data

Wait - Do All Democrats Believe

Wait, let me stop you there.

No.

That's what 'big tent' means, not 'get your ass in this tent and fall in line or be labelled a traitor.'

And how they can all agree, and all be wrong for decades, until someone questions the facts.

no. mere questioning gets you nowhere. you have to do real science. the creationist/denialists' problem is that science simply refuses to make things come out the way they want. and therefore they do everything they can to avoid science, and pitifully attempt to call the entire enterprise into question as a way of knowing things.

name me one denialist hypothesis that hasn't been outright falsified by the data
The theory that we're coming out of a mini ice age? To my knowledge this has not been refuted.

no. mere questioning gets you nowhere. you have to do real science. the creationist/denialists' problem is that science simply refuses to make things come out the way they want. and therefore they do everything they can to avoid science, and pitifully attempt to call the entire enterprise into question as a way of knowing things.

Go read the Feynman link I provided so you'll understand what I'm saying.

And stop trying to construe my comments as some creationist/denialist shit.

The earth can conclusively be shown to be older than 6000 years old.

No, again, here's where you're wrong. THe earth CAN NOT be shown to be older than 6000 year old. Science can not conclusively PROVE anything. All science can tell you is "we have all this data, the data that we have available supports the theory that the earth is older than 6000 years."

So? I bet I could find more than a few Republicans who have enough command of the scientific literature to recognize that anthropogenic global climate change is a reality.

It's not about belief. The facts are there. You can choose to recognize their implications, or not. You can't simply believe your way into reality.

:rolleyes:

the facts are not there. There are only assumptions.

The only fact we know for sure is that climate change is and always has been a natural phenomenon.

No, again, here's where you're wrong. THe earth CAN NOT be shown to be older than 6000 year old. Science can not conclusively PROVE anything. All science can tell you is "we have all this data, the data that we have available supports the theory that the earth is older than 6000 years."
Then let me put it this way - the data in support of creationist theories of the earth's age are based far more on theological fiction than anything else. It's not analogous.

We call theories with seemingly irrefutible proof 'laws'. But they're still theories. Science never rules out the possibility of new insights.

even then, the use of the term "law" has fallen out of practice since the early to mid 20th century...even several of our former "laws" are now refered to as theories (theory of gravity is the term most often used, rather than the law of gravity)

the facts are not there.

You know, plugging your ears and yelling NAHNAHNAHN IM NOT LISTENING doesn't actually change reality.

nor does one's inability to understand reality alter it either.


There are only assumptions.

No, there is a theory. Quite a radically different thing.

The theory that we're coming out of a mini ice age? To my knowledge this has not been refuted.

you are using that word wrong. theory is a well supported set of hypotheses that have survived numerous critical tests. you mean something more like hypothesis. but not even that, as all you have done is describe what is happening - "it's getting warmer". we have an excellent proposed mechanism for explaining that bit of data. what's yours?

I'm gonna throw something out that i put in an earlier thread about global warming. Someone said something very much what EO said, about scientists occasionally being wrong. Then he went on to say something to the effect of "everyone throught the world was flat but Galileo proved them wrong, what if nobody listened to HIM huh?"

To that I have devised the following response:

The simple fact is, science need not entertain every damned fool notion to come out of the pipe. It need not entertain the belief that the world is in fact on the back of a giant turtle. It need not entertain the belief that the stars are small, coin shaped objects affixed to the heavens a few hundred feet above our heads. It need not entertain the belief in zero point energy. It need not entertain the idea of a young earth. It need not entertain the belief that crystals can cure. And in addition, it need not entertain the idea that mankind is not capable of bringing about, and actually causing, climate change.

Science, frankly, need not entertain every ludicrous claim, unfounded statement, and crackpot belief that comes out. And yes, it is true, that every now and then, the “crackpots” were right, and those of us who believe in science have suffered no end of smug, misplaced satisfaction as a result. For indeed today’s self named “skeptics” (who I will continue to refer to as crackpots) find it necessary to sit back in their chairs, declare their misbelieve, and when dismissed as the blind, ignorant fools that they are, chime loudly “would you say that to Galileo? He was called a crackpot and he was right too”. The fact of the matter is though, Galileo, rather than calling these foolish prognosticators his comrades, would probably sooner have spit in their face. He would have likely had less respect for them than I do. Galileo did not sit on the sides. Galileo did not look at popular belief, declare it wrong, then call it a day. Galileo tested, experimented, went through painstaking methods to collect data and then, ONLY THEN when he had enough data to examine, examined it, and made his discoveries.

So I have a little statement for all the crackpots who call themselves “people of science" out there. Don’t you dare invoke the name of Galileo. Don’t sit back, don your skeptics hat and back in the glory of the fact that a skeptic, once, a man far smarter than you, once got it right. Don’t simply sit back and decry, and insist on your own righteousness in the name of Galileo. Your methods weren’t good enough for Galileo, they shouldn’t be good enough for you and they sure as HELL aren’t good enough for me.

Science need not entertain every foolish notion. And if you wish for yours to be considered with any more weight than that, then stop invoking the name of Galileo and actually do what he managed to do, and what you are so far failing to do. Do what honest, true science compels you to do. Prove me wrong. I’ll be waiting.

I must have missed that memo that all people of a certain party suddenly had to achieve full assimilation within the Borg and regurgitate this talking point. Frankly, I have generally been of the opinion that that is a Republican behaviour more so than a Democrat.


So, does anyone pause for a moment to wonder the motivation behind a long term reperesentative of the fine people of DETROIT MICHIGAN might be on this matter - especially when the article itself states:

As they see it, his record has a sizeable hitch: as representative for a district that includes suburban Detroit, Dingell is a dogged defender of the U.S. auto industry. Though he helped author CAFE rules 30 years ago, in the midst of the Arab oil embargo, he has since staunchly opposed ratcheting up fuel-economy standards, on the grounds that it could imperil the American economy.


Well, shall we look at who finances his campaigns? (http://www.campaignmoney.com/individual.asp?cycle=00&candidateID=H6MI16034&statename=Michigan&statecode=MI&cname=DINGELL%2C+JOHN+D)

Gee - a whole lot of "Ford Motor Company", "General Motors", and "DAIMLER CHRYSLER" in there.... don't you think?


So - is it that there is a Democrat who doesn't believe in Global Warming? Or is there just a Democrat pushing the agenda of his constituents?




And, in the end, does it really matter ?