Image: Matt Collins
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Here’s my conclusion: the only strong evidence we have that Oklahoma Senator James M. Inhofe isn’t a clown is that his car isn’t small enough. As I write in early December, the Copenhagen climate change conference has just begun. And Inhofe, that gleeful anarchist, says he is going to Copenhagen to try to sabotage the affair.
Inhofe has famously called climate change “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.” (Actually, the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people was Lord Amherst’s distribution of smallpox-ridden blankets, but I digress.) But he has also called global warming the “second largest hoax ever played on the American people after the separation of church and state.” Well, it’s good to know that the senator is capable of revising his theories after he acquires new information, a necessary condition for a truly scientific worldview.
Inhofe’s attacks on climate change science have been so engrossing that until recently I was unaware of his influence in Uganda. Investigative reporter Jeff Sharlet points out that Inhofe influences Ugandan parliament member David Bahati through their common membership in the Washington, D.C. evangelical group called the Family. Bahati introduced legislation in Uganda that recognized “aggravated homosexuality,” punishable in some cases by death. (Scrutiny by MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow led to Inhofe repudiating the bill as this issue went to press.)
“Aggravated homosexuality” ranges from being infected with HIV to failing to report a homosexual to authorities to supporting same-sex marriage. Passage of this bill would thus mean two things. First, I would have to call my father and come out to him that in Uganda I engage in aggravated homosexuality. Second, some gay friends of mine will have to change their own definition of aggravated homosexuality, which currently means having trouble getting Lady Gaga tickets.
Inhofe himself is so intolerant that he once proclaimed, “I’m really proud to say that in the recorded history of our family, we’ve never had a divorce or any kind of homosexual relationship.” Based on statistics, I’m betting that the Inhofes will welcome a homosexual to the family in the near future or that the senator’s use of the word “recorded” was strategic.
(And if I ever hear any of his family singing show tunes from the great American musical named for the state the senator represents, I’m calling the cop in the Village People to make an arrest. The charge: fabulousness.)
Inhofe may subscribe to the unscientific young earth view of creation, which puts the age of our planet at about 10,000 years. I called and wrote his office in 2008 to find out his belief about the earth’s age, as I suspected it might inform his views on climate and fossil fuels. After almost a year, I got an information-free reply, thanking me for my interest.
Which brings me to young earth creationist Ray Comfort. He’s the antievolution activist who, along with former child sitcom star Kirk Cameron, recently passed out copies of On the Origin of Species with a new introduction that in effect explains how Charles Darwin was wrong, a bigot, a misogynist, Hitler’s dad, a cribbage cheat and the true kidnapper of the Lindbergh baby.
Comfort himself has been accused of cribbing parts of that intro from the writings of University of Tennessee lecturer Stan Guffey, who told the Knoxville Metro Pulse: “[Comfort’s] introduction begins with a nice, sweet little biography, then degenerates into intellectually lame, lazy distortions, selective reading of the literature, picking and choosing of facts, and misreadings of the historical record.... [He] gently moves folks into the notion that they don’t want to read what comes after the introduction. He just wants his 50 pages read, 47 of which are anti-intellectual, dishonest drivel, the first three of which are pretty good because I wrote them.”
See what we're tweeting about
79 Comments
Add CommentWhat scares me is that it seems more of humanity leans towards Inhofe's style of deceptive or non-thinking than otherwise. It is amazing we have any sort of civilization at all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry I thought I was on the Scientific American site. I guess not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou _are_ on the "Scientific American" site. If you want to read something positive about Imhofe, you'll have to go to "Nonscientific American".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, it seems that the new religion of AGW dictates that they not only abandon science, but writing about it as well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShamefully, Inhofe knows more about AGW than the author of this sham piece. But then I am coming to expect shoddy writing from this new national Enquirer.
I think Soccerdad was hoping, like I was, that an article on Scientific American would include some science, rather than random ad-hominems.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, James Mountain Inhofe is a fool, but I'd rather read about that in the Washington Post than Scientific American.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne of the weirdest articles I've read recently. What was the point again?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisprotoPosthuman: pointing out that Inhofe and Comfort are peddling antiscience sounds like a perfectly reasonable topic for an opinion piece in a popular science magazine.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thispostHuman: Care to point out the ad-hominems in the article? (Hint: criticising someone's arguments is not an ad-hominem)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is not science. Whether you support Imhof or not, you shouldn't be engaging in ad homimem rhetorical tricks if you claim to be taking the high road. If I want to read this kind of trash, there are plenty of Internet sites dishing it out. SciAm has dropped a long way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is the kind of thing those global warming E-mails contained.
This is not science. Whether you support Imhof or not, you shouldn't be engaging in ad homimem rhetorical tricks if you claim to be taking the high road. If I want to read this kind of trash, there are plenty of Internet sites dishing it out. SciAm has dropped a long way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is the kind of thing those global warming E-mails contained.
A specific ad hominem is "Inhofe himself is so intolerant that ...." The intolerance (assuming it exists) has no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of his arguments. The whole article is an ad hominem argument because it doesn't address his climate change positions, it talks about minor issues (like the cardinality of the hoax) and his views about homosexuality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisseeker: Inhofe has got a long and depressing history of attacking science, and it's only reasonable to call him on it. To do so is not an ad-hominem attack. Sorry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd as a reader of a science publication, it's not unreasonable to expeexpect you to understand the scientific evidence in favour of global warming and evolution without it having to be pointed out in every article that mentions them. If not, I'm sure you can find plenty of detailed coverage on this very site.
More claptrap from SCIAM. Greedpiece et. al must be threatening to pull their advertising unless SCIAM ups the moronic, useless, unscientific, vacuous commentary.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSCIAM editors: Please serve up some science; let rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck stick to the political attack ads.
"Here’s my conclusion: the only strong evidence we have that Oklahoma Senator James M. Inhofe isn’t a clown is that his car isn’t small enough."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is an ad-hominem. This statement does not criticize Inhofe's ideas at all; it merely insults him.
"And Inhofe, that gleeful anarchist..."
This one, too. Inhofe is a United States senator, so claims that he is an anarchist need a little more support.
Uh, if you'd care to read the article, you'd notice that that statement is immediately followed by several paragraphs criticising his ideas. Calling someone who is beholden to a mountain of non-scientific views a clown sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"This one, too. Inhofe is a United States senator, so claims that he is an anarchist need a little more support."
Sorry. Should all tongue-in-cheek comments be clearly labelled as such? Do I really need to explain the joke to you?
But the statement itself isn't necessary! If Scientific American wants to waste paper and electrons randomly criticizing a public figure for holding unscientific views, the least they could do is present such criticism in a professional manner.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI understand that it's a joke; I even laughed at it. Despite that, it doesn't belong in a professional magazine dedicated to delivering news about cutting edge scientific development. Read the About page for the website. Does it, at any point, talk about how the magazine is world-renowned for bad-mouthing scientifically ignorant public figures? No. Scientific American claims only to be a leading source of information for science and technology, which is what it should be.
And who's the audience for this article, anyway? Readers of Scientific American are primarily educated liberals who don't need to be told that evolution is true and creationism is false. No one who reads Scientific American is going to read this piece and say, "Okay, got it, don't take science lessons from untrained senators and former child stars." And no one that needs convincing of evolution's truth is (a) going to read this article, (b) going to be convinced by it, and (c) not going to be offended by it.
So, again, what does this article do besides waste space and make the science community look bad?
Let's face it--the scientific issues that affect most of us are inseparable from politics. An opinion piece deriding a public official for being off the reservation when it comes to those issues is important journalism, and since the issues are scientific we're talking about science journalism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientific American is not a scientific journal, and even journals have editorial comments. I don't get this hands-off-politics attitude; politicians aren't keeping their dirty hands off science.
Amazing how many people who claim to be S.A. readers who do not know what a Steve Mirsky column is about. Hint: try pronouncing his last name with a lisp.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for editorial diatribes on S.A.: why not? As long as the opinions expressed are backed up by scientific evidence (which from what I have seen, they are) this seems perfectly reasonable. It is those who present opinions as facts who are the problem.
c'mon... sack this goofball... he is as insane as the goofballs he maligns... keep your mag free of such idiots please
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswell said
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd then there are those of us poor bastards who are NOT of the Religious Right, Republicans, or Creationists of any kind, who also recognize AGW as just another religion - short on facts and prepared to attack anyone who asks questions and indicates any sort of "non-belief" in the eco-religion of AGWers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWithout going into detail, I will only say that according to all the evidence that I can find, the scientists who have found the AGW argument (and evidence) unconvincing and/or inaccurate, have been much more convincing in both their evidence and their presentation of it. This ol' atheist cannot get on board the AGW church bandwagon, I'm afraid.
You are just jeallous that he is correct and you are wrong about climate change/global warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe Curmudgeon
I suspect that I am as wrong as your spelling of jealous is right........(A curious trait of AGWers.....)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLove it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave a co worker that had passed to them a copy of Comforts "On the Origin", to which I had been more than happy to enlighten upon.
There are many who have not sought the wealth of information that has since accumulated in favour of evolution, and have instead preferred to husband their sensitive feelings and hide behind the skirt that people like Comfort provide.
A stunt like this was intended to give these people the impression that Evolution begins and ends with Darwin. But Darwin was merely the beginning.
I have mentioned in the past that Creationism belongs next to the likes of perpetual motion machines and penis enlargement devices. Comfort's ergonomic banana does not disappoint.
I have mentioned in the past that Creationism belongs next to the likes of perpetual motion machines and penis enlargement devices. Comfort's ergonomic banana does not disappoint.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStill not science enough for ya?
Oklahoma and Kentucky and Kansas school boards are constantly attempting to kick Charles Darwin completely out of school curricula, and now we have Oklahoma U.S. Senator James Inhofe attempting to appoint himself the world's greatest scientific expert climatologist. There must be some mysterious exotic molecule in the water in Oklahoma and Kentucky and Kansas that shrinks the brains of certain residents of these states and causes them to reject well known scientific facts and begin telling anyone dumb enough to listen that the earth is not round...it is flat. All you S.A. readers who think this humorous article has nothing to do with science and shouldn't even appear in S.A. need to wake up and smell the science coffee. Governments and religions have had a LONG world history of attacking scientists and science, and Inhofe represents a government AND a religion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis genre of article has EVERYTHING to do with science. Ask Copernicus and Galileo.
We learn much of our habit of evidentiary analysis from our parents, and the fundamentalist area you describe has been teaching faith-based science for a long, long time. Expect more of it, much more, until we have a truly national and world educational system. I think the internet is the answer, and I'm now meeting kids in the bay area who ran away from parents who tried to take away their Web access. Kids know what information is for, even if their parents don't.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for the dolts who have been self-appointed to rub out Anthropogenic Global Warming, they need to go to the Weather Underground and look up the blog about current high and low record temperature trends. If they're smart enough. It will require more than just parroting bumper stickers.
Too bad.
You denigrate one set of religious clap-trap only to promote another. The reading material you recommend is but "The Watchtower" in disguise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere are the facts?
In a set of short term weather numbers, sez U.
Well Sez Me sez that the long term figures (untweaked by funding seekers & politicians) prove ya wrong.
tharriss,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe don't......
"...AGW as just another religion - short on facts and prepared to attack anyone who asks questions and indicates any sort of "non-belief" in the eco-religion of AGWers."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually I see a highly organized campaign largely funded by big oil and other private interests with the sole goal of casting doubt on the findings of science.
"...according to all the evidence that I can find, the scientists who have found the AGW argument (and evidence) unconvincing and/or inaccurate, have been much more convincing in both their evidence and their presentation of it."
Well I am glad you have convinced yourself but in the end it amounts to a big pile of nothing. You reading a bunch of junk articles on sites like worldclimatereport does nothing to change anything except your own perceptions. Please share with us your education background which qualifies you both understand and properly interpret the scientific data provided.
What I am getting at is this, if you are not a scientist yourself with a background in environmental sciences, or some other field directly related to climate change I have less than zero interest in what you think about the subject.
It is sicken how in the information age people think that just because they have an opinion and a means in which to share it that their opinion is actually important to the discussion at hand.
Excuse me, but this ad hominem attack is typical of the AGW crowd when dealing with anyone who disagrees with them...Instead of pointing out where Inhofe may be incorrect, you attack him on a multitude of points that have nothing to do with AGW, make accusations of what he believes without evidence, and use character assasination instead of facts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is primarily because of people like you that many are turning from the theory of AGW. Your doing so only indicates that you have no interest in Science, just your own oppinion.
The main ideas that are being criticized have nothing to do with the subject of the article. Nor does the author support that these are actually Inhofes beliefs. Nor does the author say why these ideas are wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is nothing but a sick ad-hominem attack, and reflects very poorly on Scientific American and the author of this post.
In other words, if someone does not agree with what you believe, he is an idiot.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho should I believe: "Poor bastards" like Sez Me or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific literature:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this* Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
* Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.
* Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized, although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century (pages 13 and 18).[41]
* The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.
* World temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 �C (2.0 and 11.5 �F) during the 21st century (table 3) and that:
o Sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 cm (7.08 to 23.22 in) [table 3].
o There is a confidence level >90% that there will be more frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfall.
o There is a confidence level >66% that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides.
* Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium.
* Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values over the past 650,000 years
In IPCC statements "most" means greater than 50%, "likely" means at least a 66% likelihood, and "very likely" means at least a 90% likelihood.
The key phrase is "peer reviewed and published scientific literature," says me.
Source: Wikipedia
Check this site out about the use of ad hominem arguments
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
I've tried being polite to nonscience believers, patiently explaining how their beliefs contradict the evidence. Then I stopped being polite because I was wasting my time on them. Then they were determined to peddle their nonsense in the public schools.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCreationists have been proven to be frauds in court. Global warming deniers have an entire planet full of evidence to contradict. Only an honest, intelligent person is worthy of an honest intelligent argument. For deniers of reality and outright liars like Inhofe, the only worthwhile treatment is ridicule, mockery, and insult.
Preachers of nonsense in the public square deserve no better treatment.
I am proud to see SciAm finally realizing that science SHOULD be in politics, and that calling an uneducated demagogue like Inhofe on his bad science, while pointing out his asocial character, is the right thing to do!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientists should not be neutral when the future of the species is at stake. We need their authority to force movement away from the dark side of human sociology so long ignored, but now becoming evident through brilliant research in cognitive science.
If this leads to changes in human society that abolish war, greed, starvation and the endless breeding of dumber and dumber people, well, it could be worse. We could continue on the path we're on.
We need to change as a species which is now too in thrall to its evolution to a vanished niche of forest and savannah and small warring tribes.
Here! Here! A voice of reason and a breath of fresh air. Perhaps if SciAM had you writing instead of the policital clowns that seem to have infested it, it might gain some credibility back.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNatedog, then you are blind. YOur big oil is the biggest contributor (private - public dwarfs everyone else) to the AGW cause there is. But then keep drinking the kool aid. Until your svengali tells you to drink the cyanide with it (after all, one tenet of your religion is that there are too many people).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJmiinnis, better do your own research. The IPCC report has been found to be not relying on peer reviewed data (glaciergate anyone? Amman-Wahl , etc.).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeems you have drunk the kool aid as well.
It's all about education and when half to three quaters of our population favors more religious, competitive and tribal indocrtination and less even basic science, math, social sciences, humanities and unbiased history then this is what you get. Our goal should be to educate all individuals at the level of a BS/BA degree by the time they graduate HS but instead it seems we are going in a manner where even those that graduate college barely achieve that level anymore (except on the piece of paper they get). America talks a big game when it comes to education but as regards actual results, not so much.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs that a secret to you that all the planets in the Solar System are warming up more or less? Think about it!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd yes, we are messing up our planet.
Inhofe has taken over $700,000 from the oil companies, and he votes their position 100% of the time. He is essentially an oil company employee.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Excuse me, but this ad hominem attack is typical of the AGW crowd when dealing with anyone who disagrees with them..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo my attack is against those who have no place arguing the merits of climate change when they lack any of the skills necessary to even understand climate change.
If I preform scientific tests that suggest that human actions are causing the earth to warm up, you may refute my finding by performing your own scientific tests or by attempting to find the flaws in my test scientifically. That is the ONLY way you can refute my claims and that us why ONLY another qualified scientist is in any position to judge the merits of my research.
All the rest of you are just blowing hot air and your comments are beyond useless. The real issue here is that many of you just don't seem to realize that. Tough love but there it is.
"Instead of pointing out where Inhofe may be incorrect, you attack him on a multitude of points that have nothing to do with AGW"
I am not pointing out why is incorrect scientifically because he didn't put forth any scientific arguments. I think I have more than satisfactory pointed out why he may have no place posting his opinions to begin with though.
Just once I would like to see a scientific article on this site being discussed by those who understand the subject matter. Instead it is always the same fools posting opinions they just grabbed out of thin air. In religion you can make stuff up, science holds itself to a higher standard.
make accusations of what he believes without evidence, and use character assasination instead of facts.
It is primarily because of people like you that many are turning from the theory of AGW. Your doing so only indicates that you have no interest in Science, just your own oppinion.
Inhofe has taken over $700,000 from the oil companies and votes their position 100% of the time. He is essentially an oil company employee.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNatedog - "If I preform scientific tests that suggest that human actions are causing the earth to warm up, you may refute my finding by performing your own scientific tests or by attempting to find the flaws in my test scientifically. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOk, show us the tests. So far there have been none. There has been a lot of falsified data (see latest IPCC scandal), but so far no tests, just an hypothesis that the proponents do not want anyone to test.
So what is Inhofe supposed to contest? Flawed data? That is rampant and easily available to anyone that bothers to research. INstead of launching ad hominem attacks against others and accusing them of doing that (when all they are doing is trying to find a scintilla of evidence of this massive fraud), perhaps you could actually spend some time trying to find out why Pachauri and his ilk have been benefitting greatly from this and why there is so much false data and statements about it. Is that too hard for you to do?
"Ok, show us the tests. So far there have been none."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLOL, what can I even say to that?!? I could bury you in piles of research so deep you would never be able to climb out.
"There has been a lot of falsified data (see latest IPCC scandal), but so far no tests, just an hypothesis that the proponents do not want anyone to test."
Riiiiggggghhhhhhttttt....... and evolution is just a theory. If man made climate change was a hoax someone dreamed up there isn't anything in the would that could stop the oil companies from hiring a bunch of scientists, performing the experiments and saying "Here, see, we are not the cause".
The truth is that they can't perform the tests because already know it will give them the same answers the countless other tests being performed are telling us. The earth is warming due to human activities, largely due to the burning of fossil fuels.
"So what is Inhofe supposed to contest? Flawed data?"
If he was any kind of scientist that is exactly what he would do. He would disprove them scientifically.
"Instead of launching ad hominem attacks against others and accusing them of doing that (when all they are doing is trying to find a scintilla of evidence of this massive fraud), perhaps you could actually spend some time trying to find out why Pachauri and his ilk have been benefitting greatly from this and why there is so much false data and statements about it. Is that too hard for you to do?"
I like how you throw in the the term "massive fraud". You are so full of shit. You don't know anything of the sort. It is your uneducated guess that man made climate change is a fraud. I have no doubt you read a couple articles on the subject, formed an opinion and ran with it. Congratulations, you just failed your first test on your way to getting a real education. People lie, evidence doesn't.
I don't care in the least about the IPCC, Pachauri, Al Gore, or anyone else you want to mention has to say about climate change. I am only concerned with the actual scientific data.
"all [we] are doing is trying to find a scintilla of evidence"
There is mountains of evidence. Raw data that you can study yourself free of any basis or interpretations. By all means, study it yourself, prove us all wrong.
Long on rant and non existant on rebuttal. Just what one is coming to expect from "Scientific American". The author is obviously more upset about anyone thinking that homosexuality is wrong or may possibly believe in *gasp. dare I say the dreaded three letter word* God than anything else. Global warming is a hoax. Anyone who has followed even the far left "main stream" media can see that through emails urging scientists to doctor data, actual long term cooling trends, and the fact that not only is our northern polar ice receeding, but that on other planets in our solar system as well despite the aformentioned cooling trends. How are our SUV's affecting the mars polar caps I want to know? SciAm should drop the pundancy and stick to reporting science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"LOL, what can I even say to that?!? I could bury you in piles of research so deep you would never be able to climb out."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisResearch yes. Did I say research? no, I said tests. Clearly there is a disconnect here. The Scientific method is to do the reseArch (observation and such), form an hypothesis, test the hypothesis. If testing bears out, then you have a theory. Then proof of the theory gets you a fact.
So yes, on research. You are saying no on testing? but that contradicts your earlier statement where you said there had been testing. So which is it? research or Testing?
I will save you the trouble. There has been no testing yet. It is an hypothesis waiting for testing. At best you can claim the models have been tested. But as we see from all results, those models have failed. So at best you can say we have had failed tests.
Which is no way to prove an hypothesis.
Reporting on Jim Inhofe and his views on science is appropriate. Also, providing quotations by Jim Inhofe is salient, to wit this 2007 jewel: I have been called -- my kids are all aware of this -- dumb, crazy man, science abuser, Holocaust denier, villain of the month, hate-filled, warmonger, Neanderthal, Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun. And I can just tell you that I wear some of those titles proudly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm guessing that "science abuser" is the one of the titles Inhofe wears proudly.
An amazing bit of fact-free and toxic character assassination on Mirsky's part. Let's see, Mirsky's degree, not a PhD, is in chemistry and not in biology or in any of the climate sciences. So where does Mr. Mirsky come to think that he can presume to know if bananas were not designed, at least in part, to be gripped by humans and other primates? And how does he presume to be able to look into some sort of transcendent crystal ball and settle the debate on whether or not supposed global warming is indeed happening while many PhD climate scientists still dispute this notion...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.petitionproject.org/
All this amidst the coldest winter in over 3 decades
...http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britain-in-grip-of-coldest-winter-for-30-years-1861627.html
Could it be that Mirsky has abandoned science journalism to become a mouthpiece for anti-religious, Leftist political interests? Methinks!
My issue is not so much with the article, but with the innaccurate digression in paragraph 2. Lord Amherst may have signed off on the idea, but it was never carried out. It was tried earlier in the war at Fort Pitt, but was evidently unsuccessful. There is no indication that a single ember of any tribe died as a result of this single action.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for the use of the italicized term, "American" to imply that those who were born and raised on the North American continent like myself, are somehow less American than the aboriginal Americans exposes the political nature of this article.
If I was born here and my forebears going back 20 generations were born here and I am not fully American, then is there a continuum of American-ness?
I guess I can claim to be more fully American than Albert Einstein and Enrico Fermi. How American are you, based on this scale, Mr. Mirsky.
Steve, excellent article. You're right on the money; unfortunately, the cultural climate is geared toward producing opinions like the ones being expressed here. Ignore them; it's all you can do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWill skip all the banter and the character evaluations. If quoting an inept and inarticulate opponent is proof that he is right is the best that the author can do, it shows the weakness of his position.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFang1944 says, "Inhofe has taken over $700,000 from the oil companies and votes their position 100% of the time. He is essentially an oil company employee." Well, scientists get most of their funding from the Fed, is it any conincidence that their "concensus" is "politically correct? Hmmmmm....
(There are many scientists that are not of the "consensus" about man-made global warming, by the way.)
They point out the falacy of deliberately leaving out Water Vapor from the equation of greenhouse gases.
Water Vapor is truly a "Greenhouse Gas". CO2 is only about 3 1/2 - 4% of all greenhouse gases. Man-generated CO2 is even smaller than that. If we cut Man-generated CO2 in half we don't even make a dent in the total greenhouse gases in volume.
I know, I've seen figures on the "effective percentage" of CO2, trying to get the figure up to the 14-20% range but those are hard to reconcile with other facts that show that Methane and Water Vapor are the most "effective" greenhouse gases, meaning they "absorb" more heat than CO2.
The ONLY way you can show that by reducing CO2 will slow global warming is to ignore Water Vapor!!
Here's what the man-made global warming argument boils down to: " The global temperature has risen recently. Man's spewing of CO2 has risen at the same rate (I've seen the charts). Therefore, man is causing global warming. "
All the data is then manipulated to prove that conclusion. Let's just conveniently ignore Water Vapor. Include Water Vapor in ALL the discussions about greenhouse gases and you CANNOT prove man-made global warming. Man's contribution to the TOTAL GREENHOUSE GASESwhen Water Vapor is included is MINIMAL!!
If you totally eliminate ALL CO2 (we need to quit breathing) and count Water Vapor as a greenhouse gas (which it is) we don't even make a DENT in reducing the greenhouse effect.
For these reasons alone, along with the evidence of data manipulation, I also call man-made global warming a "hoax" and my name is not Imhofe......
Lestan - "Here's what the man-made global warming argument boils down to: " The global temperature has risen recently. Man's spewing of CO2 has risen at the same rate (I've seen the charts). Therefore, man is causing global warming. ""
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother of the assumptions is under question now as well - i.e. that the global temperature has risen and by how much. See the paper at: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf
I did not find the Anti Gravity article, Greenhouse Bananas, by Steve Mirsky
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisin the February issue even the slightest bit amusing.
In fact I was repulsed by this article and its attack on Senator Inhofe and his stance
on global warming. The article starts with the most common tactic of a liberal,
to belittle as much as possible, by indirectly calling the Senator a clown.
I guess Mirsky missed the fact that thousands of emails were released showing
that the global warming data was being cooked and that man-made global warming
is indeed a fraud, a HOAX, just as the Senator stated that it was.
A hoax perpetrated on the American people and the World by the likes of Al Gore
and others for their own personal gain.
John Coleman, a meteorologist, and founder of the weather channel, has dubbed it
"The Greatest Scam in History".
References:
http://www.icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337710,00.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547730924988354.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk8SSqc7ekM 1 of 4 John Coleman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI 1 of 4 Prof. Bob Carter James Cook University.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1145804/weather_channel_founder_to_sue_al_gore_for_fraud/
The Great Global Warming Swindle Part 1 of 9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TqqWJugXzs
Unlike most of the comments regarding this article I've included references to back up my thoughts on global warming. Of course most of the libs. won't even notice.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey would rather tear someone down than hear facts.
If you don't watch anything else watch the series by
Prof. Bob Carter James of Cook University, Austrailia.
I did not find the Anti Gravity article, Greenhouse Bananas, by Steve Mirsky in the February issue even the slightest bit amusing.
In fact I was repulsed by this article and its attack on Senator Inhofe and his stance on global warming. The article starts with the most common tactic of a liberal, to belittle as much as possible, by indirectly calling the Senator a clown.
I guess Mirsky missed the fact that thousands of emails were released showing that the global warming data was being cooked and that man-made global warming is indeed a fraud, a HOAX, just as the Senator stated that it was.
A hoax perpetrated on the American people and the World by the likes of Al Gore and others for their own personal gain.
John Coleman, a meteorologist, and founder of the weather channel, has dubbed it "The Greatest Scam in History".
References:
http://www.icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337710,00.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547730924988354.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk8SSqc7ekM 1 of 4 John Coleman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI 1 of 4 Prof. Bob Carter James Cook University.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1145804/weather_channel_founder_to_sue_al_gore_for_fraud/
The Great Global Warming Swindle Part 1 of 9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TqqWJugXzs
"Research yes. Did I say research? no, I said tests. Clearly there is a disconnect here. The Scientific method is to do the research (observation and such), form an hypothesis, test the hypothesis."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo tests are included in research but doing research doesn't count as doing tests?
Congratulations. You just proved you are an idiot.
No, but clearly you have nothing to add since you have decided to resort to name calling. you suffer from a very common misconception in logic. let me illustrate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll Native Virginians are Americans. (All A are in B). But All Americans are not native Virginians (not all B are in A).
Clearly you suffer from a classic case of post religious stress syndrome. You believe AGW because you have been told to, but you do not understand what you believe, so it is only faith to you.
Wouldn't you people be happier on a Tea Party site?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are happy here. Whether we are Tea Partiers or not. At least we are willing to argue the point with real data and not try to belittle you or your freinds by name calling and personal attacks because you have different opinions. Facts are facts.. and the fact is that the GW bunch has been cooking the books for some time now and fighting to supress ANY differing opinions. Unfortunately the liberal media has swallowed the Kool-Aid. Real science and facts supporting our view abound, they have just been supressed by the globalist and the likes of Al Gore who invented the Internet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy guess is that you believe that one too.
No, I dont care for tea. I am a gate crasher however:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClimategate
Pachaurigate
GlacierGate
AmazonGate
How many gates does it take to make a mockery of science?
Dear Mirsky,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI did not learn anything new from your peice but i just LOVE your humour. Keep up the good work, maybee believers in the magical supernatural will get the message through humour even if their rational apparatus is deficient.
Bernard Cloutier
I found this opinion very entertaining and dead on, with its colorful descriptions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReason should always trump religion.
Varita et Aquitas.
I found this opinion quite entertaining and dead on, with a flair for the American-English language.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReason should always trump the mythology of current religions.
Varita et Aquitas.
Obviously Steve Mirsky's column seems to have brought out a number of writers who have never read SciAm. My guess is they were asked to rebut his remarks by some anti-AGW blog somewhere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem is that many religious people were taught their religion's principles as very small children by parents they trusted to impart truth and wisdom. Those early lessons remain with us, often for a lifetime even though subsequent study suggests other truths.
To question those early teachings risks too much for some people to even begin to consider the validity of a new idea.
I suppose it would be inappropriate to ask for God's help in straightening these folks out.
The greatest threat to the environment is uncontrolled population growth. As long as we humans keep reproducing exponentially, so will our trash piles and debris. Time to get serious about sex education, marriage laws, and birth control freedom for women, and end government and religious interference with reproduction choices on a global level.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe greatest environmental threat is exponential, uncontrolled human population growth, not Inhofe's vacuous attitudes toward reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr. Mirsky,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not sure I follow your logic. Senator Inhofe does not believe in "man-made" global warming or, using the new term, "climate change". So what? After all the fudging going on with the data I have problems also. Inhofe is not a scientist so lay off.
Your argument consists of attacking his religious beliefs. Again, what has this to do with climate change. You then go on to make fun of some whacko creationists. Even if we all agree that Inhofe and the creationist you describe are weird, what has this to do with global warming.
I cannot believe that you present your case in a prestigious scientific magazine at the level of a junior high school reporter. Please, there are many scientific and logically ways to state your case.
Charles Bosco
Harvest, AL
141 Scientists Sign Letter Sent to UN Secretary-General Questioning Global Warming
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLINK:
http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/
Open Letter to UN Secretary-General
His Excellency Ban Ki Moon
Secretary-General, United Nations
New York, NY
United States of America
December 8, 2009
Dear Secretary-General,
Climate change science is in a period of ‘negative discovery’ - the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly, the science is NOT settled.
Therefore, there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes. Before any precipitate action is taken, we must have solid observational data demonstrating that recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed in the past and are well in excess of normal variations caused by solar cycles, ocean currents, changes in the Earth's orbital parameters and other natural phenomena.
We the undersigned, being qualified in climate-related scientific disciplines, challenge the UNFCCC and supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate. Projections of possible future scenarios from unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation.
Specifically, we challenge supporters of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change to demonstrate that:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries;
2. Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global climate;
3. Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly influence climate;
4. Sea levels are rising dangerously at a rate that has accelerated with increasing human GHG emissions, thereby threatening small islands and coastal communities;
5. The incidence of malaria is increasing due to recent climate changes;
6. Human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate change as they have done in the past;
7. Worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in Polar Regions , is unusual and related to increases in human GHG emissions;
8. Polar bears and other Arctic and Antarctic wildlife are unable to adapt to anticipated local climate change effects, independent of the causes of those changes;
9. Hurricanes, other tropical cyclones and associated extreme weather events are increasing in severity and frequency;
10. Data recorded by ground-based stations are a reliable indicator of surface temperature trends.
It is not the responsibility of ‘climate realist’ scientists to prove that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening. Rather, it is those who propose that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the supposed ‘problem’, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that recent climate change is not of mostly natural origin and, if we do nothing, catastrophic change will ensue. To date, this they have utterly failed to do.
�I didn't know whether to laugh or cry as I read this. Certainly the gulf between the worldviews of people like Inhofe and Comfort and those who write for Scientific American is depressingly large. So what, you ask? I suppose it doesn't matter--unless you're frustrated by the inability of often highly polarized democratic institutions like the US Senate or a local school board to act on matters of public concern: global climate/energy concerns, science textbook selection, etc. I'm wondering what common ground exists between these science and non-science camps? I don't doubt that both sides hold their beliefs with great conviction and sincerity. I don't doubt that some of the gulf can be attributed to different religious perspectives and education (or lack of it.) I suspect some of the scientific illiteracy so widespread among the American public (even the supposedly well-educated!) can be traced to intellectual comfort: people are uncomfortable considering concepts or issues possessing more than a certain level of complexity. Many, rightly or wrongly, put nearly all math and science concepts into that category.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile I have been known to delve into--even find delight-- in such complexity, I also like the KISS philosophy ("kiss it simple, stupid!"). Every spring when I'm doing my income tax return, I long for simpler tax code laws. In the last year, I've been especially depressed by the complexity of legislation proposed to reform the USA health care system and address global climate/energy concerns. In response to these latter concerns, last summer the House passed a bill built around "cap and trade" schemes for limiting carbon dioxide emissions which is 1250 pages long! Not surprisingly, on his website, Senator Inhofe, who has called global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American public" blasts it. The senator's biography one finds there describes his "common sense, conservative Oklahoma values" and portrays him as "a strong advocate for the principles of limited government, individual liberty, and personal responsibility...[who] believes that the federal government works best when it returns dollars, decisions, and freedom to our local communities and families."
Recently two of Senator Inhofe's colleagues, Democrat Maria Cantwell and Republican Susan Collins, have introduced a "cap and refund" alternative to the House bill. According to a The Washington Post editorial ("Senate offers some hope for legislation to combat climate change" The Washington Post, Feb 10 2010)--the bill--The Carbon Limits and Energy for America's Renewal (CLEAR) Act--"would cap the amount of carbon the United States produces and sell pollution permits to those who produce or import dirty fuels. Suppliers would pass these costs to customers, which would discourage carbon-guzzling. It would also raise costs, of course, but the government would rebate 75 percent of the revenue from the permit auctions back to the populace...Ms. Cantwell and Ms. Collins estimate that 80 percent of Americans would break even or come out ahead, even as consumption patterns shifted toward greener goods and greater energy efficiency." I am especially intrigued by the inherent simplicity of their approach--and by their bill's length: its complete text is a mere 39 pages! While I'll be amazed if Senator Inhofe, who sits on the key Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, supports it, I see it as a compromise designed to appeal to those Americans who value simplicity, honesty (see "A Refreshing Dose of Honesty" The Economist Feb 4 2010), common sense, and some of the things Inhofe does.
for complete analysis from worldview perspective: www.projectworldview.org/worldview5watch.htm)
Oklahoma was stolen from aboriginal peoples 2x. If the
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistrue owners of that land governed it now, who used stone
tools when European immigrants first met them, surely
it would be a more enlightened place than it is.
I'm from Oklahoma...I am a scientist by training. Environmental geology, to be exact. Inhofe has been an embarrassment for many years now. While I don't think global warming is the immediate scare some make it out to be (another 17,000 years before North America is a desert), that doesn't give us carte blanche to keep trashing our dear Mother Earth either. We need to do what we can NOW to clean up and keep it clean. We need to ensure clean water sources for all of humanity. I can't drink oil. :-|
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSteve, what the F is going on out there. I can appreciate free speech but some take it to a whole new low. Is there somewhere we can clump these anti-evolutionists? Perhaps a cage or better yet, an aquarium, that way we don't have to hear them. These jokers are a sentence away from saying darker skin is under homo sapien suspicion. Oh the day is near, and have no fear the clown car will be mowing some down to size.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObviously Mr. Mirsky dislikes Sen. Inhofe because the latter chose to listen to those scientists that do not take the climate hoax promoted by the IPCC as final, definite, irrevocable and indisputable truth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirstly, there are no final truths in science; these only exist in religion or politics as religious or political dogmas.
A scientific theory can't be proved, it can only be disproved; a theory stands while we have no experimental evidence contradicting it.
Now, the AGW hypothesis that Mr. Mirsky and Scientific American have been promoting over the years never even got to its feet as a theory.
Indeed, none of the IPCC climate models which are being used as "proof" is able to reproduce one and most important parameter of the real climate system, namely, by how much will the outgoing radiative flux change if the average surface temperature changes by 1 degree. The experimental results we have are those collected by satellites over the last 30 years; they produce a positive and high value of this parameter, indicating a stable climate system, which reduces the consequences of any perturbation, by dissipating more energy when heated. On the other hand, the IPCC models uniformly produce a negative value, indicating an unstable climate system that amplifies any perturbation, by dissipating less when heated, and more when cooled. It is exactly this feature of the climate models that produces catastrophic runaway heating upon doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide, anywhere between 1.5 and 7 degrees centigrade (an impressive accuracy with the billions of dollars paid by the taxpayer), whereas the experimental values produce warming from 0.3 to 0.5 degrees C, for the same doubling.
Mr. Mirsky is free to choose his beliefs, but he should not be representing those as science. AGW hypothesis embodied by the climate models never got to its feet, whereas all other evidence is circumstantial. To be sure, we don't need the AGW hypothesis to explain the climate change of the past century, only 0.1 C is attributable to increased carbon dioxide, whereas all of the remaining 0.64 C is explainable by growth in solar activity and reduction in atmospheric aerosols, due to better environmental legislation implemented in the developed countries in the 80s. We can expect +0.2 C contribution of CO2 in this century, provided the emissions remain unabated. They better should, as we are in for a new Little Ice Age, with temperatures expected to hit the bottom by the middle of this century.
Keep the good work, IPCC and Mr. Mirsky!
wikipedia has been falsified by heroes of the Climategate scandal, source:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://sppiblog.org/news/wikipedia%E2%80%99s-climate-doctor#more-630
Sciam disappoints me lately. You used to have challenging or witty articles about science. Now, I often find articles that take pot-shots at fringe groups and flirt with politics. Where has the banter gone? I realize that the advancement of science requires politics and many of those who oppose the advancement of science do so under the banner of religion, but the religion that is "discussed" is so far from mainstream that it only degrades the magazine and its arguments. If Sciam is going to talk about religion and openly mock those who believe in a higher power without acknowledging that people can believe while maintaining reasonable, non-creationist views, it is guilty of the same misrepresentations as the creationists that it criticizes. I understand that this is an editorial, and, therefore, is one person's inherently biased opinion, but this is part of a disturbing trend I have noticed in the magazine, even outside of this piece and the editorial section. Use your wit to build up and entertain, not tear down and beat up. Reason wins in the end; in my opinion, God gave it to us for a reason.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this