| By niralshah - Mar 23rd, 2007 at 6:01 pm EDT |
| Also listed in: Campus Progress Blog |
While those of us in the progressive and fact-based community lament press coverage of global warming, conservatives (woeful cries of victimhood notwithstanding) seem to make out pretty well. Despite that well known study showing virtually zero significant dissent among actual scientific experts on the existence of human-induced climate change, every mainstream media outlet (confusing objectivity with equal time) always describes climate change as a contentious theory.
The Drudge Report has found new expert testimony to corroborate conservative denials, though. On his popular website (a link aggregator that appeals to conservatives by sticking Anna-Nicole updates next to calls for immigrant-hunts), Drudge posted this: 6th Graders Vote that Global Warming is not caused by humans...
Yes, those arbiters of wisdom and gods among men in the scientific community otherwise known as pre-teens have weighed in. Score one for Inhofe and Exxon.
!
Comments are closed for this post.
The Drudge Report has found new expert testimony to corroborate conservative denials, though. On his popular website (a link aggregator that appeals to conservatives by sticking Anna-Nicole updates next to calls for immigrant-hunts), Drudge posted this: 6th Graders Vote that Global Warming is not caused by humans...
Yes, those arbiters of wisdom and gods among men in the scientific community otherwise known as pre-teens have weighed in. Score one for Inhofe and Exxon. Even though we haven't found a way to tie a sixth grade classroom debate to Exxon, we'll just blame them anyway.
It just goes to show that even sixth graders are smarter than progressives.
Since there are several and they are well known, you'll have no problem naming them and pointing me to the reputable Science Journals they were printed in, right?
If you claim that bigfoot exists, it is up to you to prove that he does, not the other way around. It is not my responsibility to disprove every rediculous assertion contained in the daily progressive talking points. The burden of PROOF (that doesn't mean "very likely") lies upon you and the rest of the green religion to prove the existence of the CO2 Boogie Man.
The best proof out there, the IPCC report, says that warming is unequivocal and that human actions are "very likely" the cause. It defines "very likely" as "the assessed likelihood, using expert judgement...is over 90%." While I agree that 90% is not 100% -- and that the global warming hypothesis is more tenuous then, say, the one about gravity -- 90% is pretty good for a generally conservative scientific report (and one that was scaled down due to the influence of skeptical governments like ours). Are you really saying that we shouldn't take action on global warming, even if there is a scientific consensus on a 90% likelihood of its existence?
So let's start from the assumption that you're position is already considered full of shit, and you have to prove otherwise. because, right now, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that you're full of shit, and you just got called out directly on it. So either cite something or admit (if only to yourself) that you're full of shit.
Basically, you made an unsubstantiated assertion, then when you were challenged to offer any evidence to back up your assertion, you instead demanded that first someone offer proof that your assertion might be wrong. So, for example, if I said "you like to sit on your thumb and sing Mr Big songs off-key," and you said "no I don't, and it's irresponsible for you to make that claim without any evidence," and then I said, "oh, yeah? prove that you don't sit on your thumb and sing Mr Big songs off-key," that'd be about what you just did.
Further, theories are never "proved." The process involved in researching a theory's validity (commonly referred to as "scientific method"--I suggest going back to whatever high school science teacher you had and insisting that you be allowed to learn this stuff properly) is to simply test and retest a hypothesis and see if it is disproved by experimentation or observation. All you can know about a theory is whether or not someone has shown it to be false. Nobody has ever "proved" the theory of gravity, or the first law of thermodynamics, or anything you probably think of as "scientific law"--all we can say for sure is that those particular theories have held up amazingly well over the years, and that they are accordingly reasonable assumptions, based on the evidence we now have. CO2-caused global climate change is the theory that best fits with the available climate science, so any responsible scientist would have to start by assuming that theory is correct, THEN test that theory against the evidence to determine if it is flawed. That's the way science is done, and it works pretty well. But if you're too great to have to deal with little things like the scientific method or falsification, then we understand.
My advice: pull your thumb out of your ass, stop singing "The One Who Wants to Be with You," and learn how to proffer an opinion without making yourself look like you're abjectly full-of-shit.