John Stossel to Al Gore: The debate is not over

Piggybacking on my last post, I'm posting this John Stossel piece that though is 8 minutes long, should be viewed by all.  The fact that ABC ran it is surprising.  Hats off to Mr. Stossel and to Jay, once again, at Stop the ACLU for the tip.

Comments

[Morgan K Freeberg]

There certainly is a global crisis, alright, and it certainly does threaten to affect our children first and foremost, alright. And it certainly is related to a "climate" and it is most definitely the fault of the human species.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Nz_GB2GYWU&NR=1

I'm referring to the intellectual climate.

You see how churlish the little toe-head is in the above video. He's so angry! Why, he must be right.

There's a letter that appeared in my local paper just today...

It is now well-known that ExxonMobil and other big polluters have funded a disinformation campaign about global warming, of which Heartland Institute appears to be part. Failing to reveal this information about Heartland and treating [Joseph] Bast's assertions as legitimate are examples of sloppy journalits at best; such reporting has helped mislead the public into believing there is a debate about global warming.

So you see what I mean. You take a source and conduct a decidedly outcome-based litmus test on that source -- if ManBearPig is denied, well, it must be dirty. No actual proof is needed, you pronouce the source "appears to be part" of a "disinformation campaign" and that to treat the source's "assertions as legitimate" is "sloppy journalism at best."

Naturally, you have to discard such a source.

And among all other authorities that remain, of course the debate is over, and the conclusion is "unanimous." How in the world could it be otherwise?

We can save our kids by educating them about how human nature works. Our minds are conditioned to find new problems, once old problems are solved. Even in an environment most hostile to truly independent thought, I would hope the little moppets would be willing to concede it's an amazing coincidence that now, with the Nazi threat eliminated and the Great Depression over, and the rioting over civil rights a thing of the past, along with Watergate, the Iran hostage crisis, and the tragic events of 9/11 now fading from the nation's memory -- right now is when we've figured out the planet is suffering indigestion from having humans roaming around on it, as we've been doing for millions of years.

What an incredibly precious education that would be for them, if it would sink in.

[All's Okay in the World?]

Morgan Freeberg says that Global Warming is coming to a head because we need to find a new problem, now that the Cold War, WWII, 9/11 are long forgotten. Mr Freeberg newspaper must have limited news coverage. I still see that most of the world's population doesn't have access to clean water, there's place like Darfur. 9/11 is not forgotten, we are reminded of it everytime Bush needs $ or we travel by air. We don't need to make up problems, we have plenty already.

[Morgan K Freeberg]

Then my Freeberg newspaper should have seen it's last glossy photo of a confused looking polar bear for QUITE some time.

But -- oh no -- I see those quite frequently, too. And when you do some digging you find the concerns are exaggerated, if not pulled outta someone's ass altogether.

So, my dreary friend, you insist "we don't need to make up problems, we have plenty already." How come, then, we're doing exactly that?

[King Panteen]

Only among the ultra-humanist neo-fasci who masquarade as religionists, can you find individs. who want to destruct their own home, the Earth, ala the Red Chinese.

These are the same folq who go berserk if they get one strand of crabgrass on their massive lawns.
Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.
25,000,000,000 humans is their goal; Lyndon LaRouche is very pleased.

[Jocelyn]

I just worry that what you call "independent thought" is actually "uninformed opinion."

It's one thing to write off all of academia as leftist and untrustworthy. But who else spends their lives researching the minutiae of how the planet/human body/ecosystem works if we do so? Sure - scientists aren't always right, but the system is designed to produce further and further refinement, to chip away at the falsifiable until something is left that can't be falsified.

I have no doubt there are inconsistencies in Gore's movie. However, I have even more confidence (partly because I've studied some of the relevant science in grad school) there are even more inconsistencies with the few scientific arguments for alternative mechanisms to climate change.

I've learned so far in academia, that where critical issues of science, politics and the media intersect, it is important to go back to the scientific publications themselves, not the pundits, to determine whether the inquiry is sound.

With that, release the hounds!

[Peggy]

We can save our kids by educating them about how human nature works.

I just wanted to say that truer words could hardly be spoken or in a more succinct manner.

One of the biggest lies of scientism/naturalism, whatever you want to call a system which places its "faith" in science, is that science is the only way to really know anything and that through scientific advances, humanity can overcome its prior weaknesses. Basically, the lie says that science means salvation, redemption, clarity & certainty for the human race. In other words, science can and is eliminating human fallibilty. Therefore the findings of science can be trusted since human fallibility does not enter into it.

This is why the message of religion, particularly of Christianity, is so very necessary. Most religions teach on the natural and inherant fallibility of man. But only Christianity refuses to teach that this fallibility can be overcome by either system, as in Islam, or by individual effort, as in Buddhism and others.

Christianity is eternally skeptical of human nature. Given our past record, given that there is yet no indication that we, as a species, have overcome any part of our darker, weaker nature, I think this is the best, safest position that anyone could possibly take.

Yes, the best thing anyone could ever do, is teach their children the truth about human nature and that scientists are just as fallible as former politicians.

[Morgan K Freeberg]

It's one thing to write off all of academia as leftist and untrustworthy. But who else spends their lives researching the minutiae of how the planet/human body/ecosystem works if we do so? Sure - scientists aren't always right, but the system is designed to produce further and further refinement, to chip away at the falsifiable until something is left that can't be falsified.

I have no doubt there are inconsistencies in Gore's movie. However, I have even more confidence (partly because I've studied some of the relevant science in grad school) there are even more inconsistencies with the few scientific arguments for alternative mechanisms to climate change.

I have not yet heard any inconsistencies whatsoever, with, as an example, the supposition that warming has historically caused carbon dioxide as opposed to the other way-'round. In fact, I have not heard of a rejoinder to this. I'm not sure I ever will. Warming...produces gas...that's straight out of seventh-grade physics.

I have grave concerns about what we are being told science is, both in terms of where it can be found, and how we should know what it is when we see it. For example, Gore's movie. I've said so before: I was really awestruck by how little science is in it, bad or otherwise. Strip out all the background music and the voice-overs about how poor Al feels like he failed, and ALL the haughty lecturing about how our children and grandchildren won't be able to forgive us...I've just described about two thirds of the movie right there. What you're left with would be barely over half an hour.

But then there's the nature of science. It isn't a voting process -- although we've been bullied into thinking that's what it is, by both sides. The word "consensus" has nothing to do with it -- although we are frequently intimidated into believing in consensus science, particularly with regard to this issue. And real science is never "settled," no matter how many times we are told it is. The term scien-TIST is something that has been particularly open and subject to abuse. Like Reid Bryson said earlier this summer:

Reporters will often call the meteorology building seeking the opinion of a scientist and some beginning graduate student will pick up the phone and say he or she is a meteorologist, Bryson said. "And that goes in the paper as 'scientists say ...' "

There does seem to be a pattern where the younger scientists, still beholden to grant money and academic bureaucracies, are "pro-" global warming but the older, more experienced retired professionals, who no longer have to whittle their comments down to protect a career, are far more "cool-headed" about the same thing. "A bunch of hooey" is Dr. Bryson's description of global warming. He's not an isolated case at all.

I mean, what are we supposed to think when the "science is settled" -- among those scientists who are still beholden to political processes? That by itself looks political. The message also looks political: The planet is gonna die unless we consent to higher taxes. And most of all, the tactics look political. Scientists on both sides are fighting about who is being "muzzled" or "gagged."

That's not scientific. Any scientist, any logical thinker, should understand: People who can, and cannot, speak freely, are right, and wrong, a lot of the time. Being gagged has absolutely no correlation, in any direction, with being correct.

And yet these brave scientists like James Hansen are blowing whistles, speaking truth to power, about how muzzled they are...as if this is supposed to prove global warming will kill us all, because Dr. Hansen isn't free to tell us about it. And then not only do we notice how often we get to hear from him, considering how muzzled he's supposed to be -- but he's well-funded as well, courtesy of an anti-American, anti-capitalist megalomaniac who's been wanting to put his personal puppet in the White House for years now.

Subjective. Objective. If your source calls itself "science" but fails to keep those two separate, it's probably that weird, modern kind of science. If it does properly distinguish between those two, it might be the good, healthy, classic kind of science, which has been directly responsible for everything good science has given us over the years.