The American Mind

Who is “Cheryl Crow”?

The great political thinker responsible for the insight that we won’t have any war if we just give up on having enemies.

Today’s logical fallacy is the association fallacy. Look for many posts around the blogosphere today claiming that Crow’s dumbassery is somehow an invalidation of Global Warming as a theory and of the left in general.

[...] As a funny follow-up to the David-Crow/Rove spat Jules Crittenden guestimates what really happened. [...]

The great political thinker responsible for the insight that we won’t have any war if we just give up on having enemies.

…who?

Global Warming isn’t a theory; Global Warming is a fact.

The Greenhouse Effect [entailing CO2 as a significant contributor to G.W.] is a theory. The notion that human activity is substantially responsible for Global Warming is a theory. The idea that the very few degrees the planet will warm in the next 50-100 years might cause grave problems on Planet Earth is a theory.

Everyone agrees that the Earth is getting warmer; it’s simply a matter of figuring out why, and whether it’s really a problem, and if so what the best way is to solve it.

The fact that Crow, David, and Gore are hypocrites is not a refutation of any theory regarding the environment, but how can one help but laugh at them? They cry out for it.

The Greenhouse Effect [entailing CO2 as a significant contributor to G.W.] is a theory.

Um, no, it’s a fact. If it’s not -200 degrees Celsius where you live, you can thank the Greenhouse Effect.

The notion that human activity is substantially responsible for Global Warming is a theory.

Oh, it’s not. We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know that human industry produces more CO2 in a year than 10 eruptions of Mount Pinatubo. You do the math, I guess. Denying anthropogenic global warming at this stage means an assertion that human-produced CO2 just “disappears”, in direct violation of physical law.

The fact that Crow, David, and Gore are hypocrites

Is this the “Gore’s mansion” myth that you’re referring to?

When the sun can crank up the juice a tiny bit increasing earth temperatures I’m suspicious of the massive alterations required from Kyoto. And what will happen in 20 years when scientist cry about the coming ice age like they did in the 70s?

When the sun can crank up the juice a tiny bit increasing earth temperatures I’m suspicious of the massive alterations required from Kyoto.

The Earth’s insolation (that is, the solar radiation that enters the atmosphere) has been in steady decline since 1998 (consistent with other measurements of solar radiation), which corresponds with the greatest rate of warming so far.

Clearly the sun is not responsible, if the sun can cool but it still gets hotter here. I mean that’s just basic logic. (And before you talk about shrinking ice on Mars, remember that Mars is both in the middle of its year-long summer and has experienced orbital perturbations that left its ice caps pointed more directly at the sun.)

And what will happen in 20 years when scientist cry about the coming ice age like they did in the 70s?

No scientists were crying about “coming ice ages” in the 70’s. There was one article in Newsweek or whatever. There were no peer-reviewed journal articles, after all.

And what the article actually said was that we simply didn’t know the results of anthropogenic pollution, because we didn’t have sophisticated climate models.

Now we have more than 9 such models based on 640,000 years of climate data, and they’re in remarkable agreement about the future of climate. Claims about “buh, buh, scientists in the 70’s predicted TEH IZE AGES ZOMG!!” are just spurious misinformation from climate change deniers.

“Chet” is showing his youth. I lived through the seventies, and there was massive hysteria about “global cooling.” It was taught in schools and universities and was the basis of frequent media reports. I had a professor at the U. tell me that the coming ice age was an “undeniable fact” and that I had better prepare now. Sound familiar?
Ignorance of historical fact will not serve you, Chet.

“Chet” is showing his youth. I lived through the seventies, and there was massive hysteria about “global cooling.”

In the news, maybe.

In the science? Absolutely not. There was no scientific basis to conclude “global cooling”, it was just one speculative scenario.

I had a professor at the U. tell me that the coming ice age was an “undeniable fact” and that I had better prepare now.

Was he a climatologist? Or did he just have a subscription to Newsweek?

Do you still not understand that there’s a difference between media hype and consensus science?

[...] The NY Times is ending its participation in the White House Correspondents Dinner. Radar calls it a “boycott.” I’m not sure what that means. Was Rich Little that bad? Will reporters be barred from attending the social gathering known for mixing entertainers with politicians provoking some entertaining moments? Will Maureen Dowd or David Brooks be fired to showing up? Or will they simply not put up any money for the event? [...]