moonbattery.gif


« Loco Ono Eats a Dog | Main | Church Organist, Choir Director, Sex Toy Saleswoman »


May 30, 2007

Al Gore, Brainiac

It's never easy to tell if Dana Milbank is serious, but he seems to mean it when he suggests in WaPo today that Al Gore is too smart to be President of a dumb country like America:

Imagine the Iowa hog farmer cracking open "Assault on Reason," and meeting Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Paine, John Kenneth Galbraith, Walter Lippmann, Johannes Gutenberg, John Stuart Mill, Thomas Jefferson and Marshall McLuhan — all before finishing the introduction.

Or maybe Milbank is just making fun of the Goracle's intellectual pretentiousness and the fawning idiocy of his servile fans. One is described as wearing a t-shirt depicting W as the "Worst President Ever" and quoted as slobbering,

I want the smartest guy around to be president. [… But] how do you convince people it's okay to feel inferior to their leaders?

A little background on Gore's intellectual achievements:

Gore's undergraduate transcript from Harvard is riddled with C's, including a C-minus in introductory economics, a D in one science course, and a C-plus in another. "In his sophomore year at Harvard," the Post reported, "Gore's grades were lower than any semester recorded on Bush's transcript from Yale." Moreover, Gore's graduate school record — consistently glossed over by the press — is nothing short of shameful. In 1971, Gore enrolled in Vanderbilt Divinity School where, according to Bill Turque, author of "Inventing Al Gore," he received F's in five of the eight classes he took over the course of three semesters. Not surprisingly, Gore did not receive a degree from the divinity school. Nor did Gore graduate from Vanderbilt Law School, where he enrolled for a brief time and received his fair share of C's. (Bush went on to earn an MBA from Harvard).

Historical name-dropping and $5 words dug out of a thesaurus do not make Gore intelligent — though he is certainly smarter than those he has suckered with the global warming hoax.

al-gore-genius.jpg
Al Gore, genius.

Hat tip: Blogmeister USA.

Posted by Van Helsing at May 30, 2007 10:04 PM

Comments

Van, Van, Van. When are you going to get it?

Democrats smart, Republicans dumb, by definition. So simple even Republicans can get it, with effort and patient instruction from their betters.

So Gore didn't get good grades. It was because he was thinking such high thoughts of state that he couldn't be bothered with such mundane, piffling matters as grades. Of course a superior intellect does poorly in college - it's beneath him!

Bush was working his ass off, nose to the grindstone, to get slightly better grades. So what? If Gore had wanted to, he could have done a lot better than Bush, which proves he's smarter. QED.

Same thing goes for Kerry.

Got it now?

Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 30, 2007 10:29 PM

"Bush was working his ass off"....BWAHHHHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Bush has NEVER worked his ass off at ANYTHING! He has FAILED at EVERYTHING he has ever done.

If it is not abudantly clear to you by now that Bush is an intellectual midget compared to just about ANYONE, then you truly are an idiot.

Now I'm not defending Gore here. He, exactly like Bush, is also a spoiled son of a politician who did not gain entrance to an Ivy League institution based on his own merit, but bought his way in on "legacy" policy at these schools. (Another shameful institutional inequality in the American education system). But at least Gore can formulate a grammaticaly correct sentence, and possesses a higher than third grade "Bush" vocabulary. Maybe Bush is not really an idiot, but just talks down to his constituents because he understands that stupidity appeals to them...?

But yes, Right wing, religious fundamentlists tend to be pretty stupid people, and they tend to vote Republican. Given the large majority of posts, and respones, on this blog, stupidity seems to be a pretty prized character trait among these Christian fundamentalist types. I mean, religious belief demands ignorance, and is fundamentlly opposed to rationality and reason...Wasn't it Martin Luther who said that reason and rationality were the enemy of Christianity....Thanks, but I'll take rationality any day.

Posted by: westerberg at May 31, 2007 4:27 AM

"Bush was working his ass off"....BWAHHHHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Bush has NEVER worked his ass off at ANYTHING! He has FAILED at EVERYTHING he has ever done.

If it is not abudantly clear to you by now that Bush is an intellectual midget compared to just about ANYONE, then you truly are an idiot.

Now I'm not defending Gore here. He, exactly like Bush, is also a spoiled son of a politician who did not gain entrance to an Ivy League institution based on his own merit, but bought his way in on "legacy" policy at these schools. (Another shameful institutional inequality in the American education system). But at least Gore can formulate a grammaticaly correct sentence, and possesses a higher than third grade "Bush" vocabulary. Maybe Bush is not really an idiot, but just talks down to his constituents because he understands that stupidity appeals to them...?

But yes, Right wing, religious fundamentlists tend to be pretty stupid people, and they tend to vote Republican. Given the large majority of posts, and respones, on this blog, stupidity seems to be a pretty prized character trait among these Christian fundamentalist types. I mean, religious belief demands ignorance, and is fundamentlly opposed to rationality and reason...Wasn't it Martin Luther who said that reason and rationality were the enemy of Christianity....Thanks, but I'll take rationality any day.

Posted by: westerberg at May 31, 2007 4:29 AM

I mean, religious belief demands ignorance, and is fundamentlly opposed to rationality and reason...

What a total goofball crock of crap statement that is. You must be of the "tolerant" persuasion.

Silly liberals say the absolute stoopidist stuff...

Posted by: Jimbo at May 31, 2007 5:46 AM

Left wing moonbats are so predictible aren't they? LOL!!!
First of all, it doesn't matter what lefty politician you criticize. Their immediate response is to utilize the opportunity to talk about Bush. Classic Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Their take on the subject of religion is also hillarious. They are so filled with hate for... what were they called again??...oh yes "Christian Fundementalist types", and choose to show condescention and pity towards the poor, ignorant religious folks who simply don't know any better.

I submit to you that there have been countless people far more intelligent than the poster Westerbug, who held a belief in a Supreme Being. "Stupid people" like Einstein, George Patton, John Adams, and William F. Buckley, to name some of my favorites.

Additionally, it is always amusing that the moonbats that love to refer to others of a different set of core beliefs as "stupid", when one of the hallmarks of the left wing moron is that they can never seem to figure out how to post without messing up. To wit: Mr. Waterbug posting his inane rant twice....LOL!

Posted by: Jack Bauer at May 31, 2007 6:02 AM

Seems to come down to this, westerberg: algore, every time he opens his mouth, comes across as a complete idiot, though I will admit he's smart enough to fool thousands of equally stoopid people on the whole "man-made" global warming hoax (but that's mostly because these morons WANT to be fooled -- they love the feeling of guilt they get when the Goracle tells them they're destroying the planet, assuaged for a time when they buy his "carbon credits" or plant trees, etc.).

I'm not a big fan of GWB, especially as he now seems to want to destroy this country and everything it stands for by fostering an outright invasion of epic proportions, and lord knows he is a miserable public speaker (for the most part; every once in a while he does just fine), but he at least comes across as a man of some refinement and intelligence, who stands for something (victory over Islamofascism) that algore would surrender to in a heartbeat. You do remember 9/11/2001, don't you? I know most people have completely forgotten -- literally.

The big question is, now that GWB's second term is winding down, who's next? Defeatocrats Hillary, Edwards or even the Goracle (Obama will be marginalized before too long; no way Clinton, Inc. is going to allow him to survive into the primaries)? Or will the Republicans actually come up with somebody that has the cojones to continue to kill the (alleged) people whose sole mission in life is to slaughter anything and everything non-Muslim, and maybe even step it up a notch? Reckon we'll see, won't we? Should be an interesting 18 months or so until November, 2008.

Posted by: jc14 at May 31, 2007 6:03 AM

Westerberg is a typical left-lib, who dresses up his bigotry as enlightenment.

One of the members of my church is a trauma surgeon who is fluent in six languages. Another invented an inventory tracking system based on radioactive isotopes. "Pretty stupid people" indeed.

Posted by: V the K at May 31, 2007 6:03 AM

I'll stand by it. The notion of religious belief, requires suspension of rationality. You cannot rationally believe in something that can not be empirically proven. Most religious people will admit that their belief in God cannot be proven, but that you just have to believe. This is in direct oppostion to rationality and reason.

Even Martin Luther understood this. So did Thomas Jefferson and most of our founding fathers. That's why they made such a big deal out of seperation of church and state. But I guess Jimbo thinks they were "stoopid" too.

Posted by: westerberg at May 31, 2007 6:05 AM

Another one of westerberg's open-minded, tolerant brethren refuses to even shake hands with Mitt Romney because of Romney's religious beliefs.

The arrogance of people like westerberg is in assuming that because they are incapable of understanding religious faith, it can't possibly be real.

Posted by: V the K at May 31, 2007 6:10 AM

Martin Luther who said that reason and rationality were the enemy of Christianity

I'm calling 'Bullshit' on this statement until you can provide an exact citation of where he said it and in what context.

Posted by: metalgarth at May 31, 2007 6:29 AM

MG - I consider everything he wrote 'bullshit' - it's all right out of the liberal's big book of fairytales.

Posted by: Jimbo at May 31, 2007 6:38 AM

Remember that the scientists who first developed
nuclear fission in Oak Ridge, TN pronounced it
Newcular.

Posted by: mockinbird at May 31, 2007 6:51 AM

"You cannot rationally believe in something that can not be empirically proven....."

So does this only apply to God, or can we apply your lofty assertion to one of the sacraments of Moonbattery, i.e. anthropogenic global warming?
(And please, don't come back and offer "computer models" as empirical proof. You'll be laughed off the stage....)

Posted by: Jack Bauer at May 31, 2007 6:53 AM

Even if Luther said it or, much more likely, something like it, does it matter much? Would it make anyone abandon faith in God and embrace secular-progressive-socialist-environmental-totalitarianism?

After all, it's the "reality-based" community that gave us "Bush Is Hitler," "The Joos Blew up the WTC (Google it!)," "Bush blew up the levees in New Orleans," and "Al Gore is a genius!"

Posted by: V the K at May 31, 2007 7:09 AM

"Posted by: "Jack Bauer" at May 31, 2007 06:53 AM"

You wish, buddy!

"So does this only apply to God, or can we apply your lofty assertion to one of the sacraments of Moonbattery, i.e. anthropogenic global warming?"

Yes, of course it does. Rational science says it's happening. Your suspension of belief in science (and rational thought) makes it possible for you to believe anything you want, whether it is true or not.

Posted by: gunboat at May 31, 2007 7:50 AM

Doing my best Dean Wormer impersonation: "Mr.Gore: GPA 1.7. 3 Cs, 2 Ds, and an F. Congratulations Mr.Gore, you have the highest GPA of the entire Democratic fraternity."

Posted by: phil at May 31, 2007 8:21 AM

If the ManBearPig cultists are so sure science is on their side, why do they want to shut down all scientific debate on Global Warming?

Posted by: V the K at May 31, 2007 8:23 AM

how do you convince people it's okay to feel inferior to their leaders?

wtf? Feel inferior to like anyone named Clinton, Kennedy, Gore, Patrick? I've got a dog that's smarter than Gore.

Posted by: Bandit at May 31, 2007 8:35 AM

Might as well go to the source on this: Matthew 11:25

"At that time Jesus said, I give praise to you, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have kept these things secret from the wise and the men of learning, and have made them clear to babes."

The word used here for "wise" is from the Greek "sophistikos". To be sophisticated is to be debased and polluted from being so "worldly", and to be a sophist is to deceive by putting forth baseless arguments. Christ was referring to mans's ego and "reason" vs. divine wisdom. It helps to have an extensive background in the sciences (I do), and to espouse reasoning in the physical universe, but then the physical realm is only one dimension, whereas the spiritual encompasses all including that which we cannot experience due to physical limitations. A course in logic and great learning are not prerequisites to acquiring wisdom and Christ Himself openly said it. Don't know what the rest are up to but I'm in His corner on this one.

Posted by: fellowes at May 31, 2007 8:59 AM

Westerberg also cannot prove empiracally that God does NOT exist. You need faith to believe either assertion (that God does exist or that God does not exist).

Posted by: Anonymous at May 31, 2007 9:02 AM

"Bush was working his ass off"....BWAHHHHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Um, that was me speaking in character as one of the "reality-based (my fingers cramped up typing that) community" attempting to explain why Bush did better in college than Gore. I have no illusions about his college days, but think about it: assuming he partied hard and didn't study, and still did better than Gore or Kerry…

I mean, religious belief demands ignorance, and is fundamentlly opposed to rationality and reason...

Kind of like belief in socialism/Marxism/communism, whatever you want to call it? ("True socialism/Marxism/communism has never been tried, so you can't say it doesn't work!")

Or belief in global warming - the Y2K of our time - which no one of normal intelligence and psychological balance takes seriously? (computer models are great; look at the great visual effects they can produce now in movies. Conclusion: you can get whatever you want from a computer model, depending on what you put in.)

Or the belief that all cultures are equally valid and valuable? How about the Aztec culture? Good one we should have saved?

Or that all races and both sexes have the same abilities in the same degree, and therefore representation in some context that differs from that in the population necessarily indicates discrimination? How about the NBA?

The point: the left has the same irrational religious impulses that you impute to the right, simply directed elsewhere, in the face of much more adverse empirical evidence, and to much less salubrious effect.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 31, 2007 9:24 AM

To say a creator being, whoever or whatever it is, doesnt exists because we cant see it, is ridiculous. There is no way to prove a creator(s) does not exist. Of course, the creator(s) could simply choose to reveal it/themselves in a spectacular way. Then again this universe might be a big science experient and we are rats in a maze.

Some day Im sure scientists will one day seed other planets and moons with life they create, site back and watch what happens. If they place intelligent life there, will those life forms one day debate on whether or not there is a creator? Of course we would know we existed, but they wouldnt be able to prove it for a very very long time. Scientists are already making freakish things like glowing tobacco plants.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 31, 2007 9:31 AM

"If the ManBearPig cultists are so sure science is on their side, why do they want to shut down all scientific debate on Global Warming?"

Is this the equivalent of: If everyone is so sure the Holocaust happened, then why are they scoffing at the holocaust conference in Teheran?

The scientific debate goes on. You guys just aren't part of it, because you don't believe in science!

Posted by: gunboat at May 31, 2007 9:35 AM

"You need faith to believe either assertion (that God does exist or that God does not exist)."

You need faith to believe He exists. As an atheist you can cite the lack of evidence of his existence, which leads you to the rational conclusion that He does not exist. It is not a matter of faith for the non-believer, it is a rational choice.

Posted by: gunboat at May 31, 2007 9:40 AM

"After all, it's the "reality-based" community that gave us "Bush Is Hitler," "The Joos Blew up the WTC (Google it!)," "Bush blew up the levees in New Orleans," and "Al Gore is a genius!" "

Quite ironic, coming from a guy who believes that "All the worlds scientists are conspiring against us!".

Posted by: gunboat at May 31, 2007 9:44 AM

Gore's view of the human mind is scientifically flawed.

gunboat, you're an idiot. The Holocaust is a documented historical event. Global Warming is speculation about the future, and speculation about man's effect on a vast and ancient climate system. Are you really so retarded you can't see the difference between the two?

It's the environmentalist whacko side that wants to shut down scientific debate and cast out those who question Gore's apocalyptic vision as heretics that are the enemies of science and reason.

That bus that took you to school must have been a two-seater.

Posted by: V the K at May 31, 2007 9:50 AM

The scientific debate goes on. You guys just aren't part of it, because you don't believe in science!

The considerable likelihood is that I've trained more scientists than you've ever met, and written more scientific papers than you've ever read.

Of course religion is irrational. That is not a pejorative in this context. Religious faith is not the subject of reason, therefore by definition it is irrational.

And while I'm an atheist myself, there have been times in my life when I wished I could believe. I also respect people who believe and who live their religion (as opposed to merely paying lip service to it).

Global warming is hardly established; it's a conjecture (i.e., a notion of a research direction), not even a hypothesis at this point. Science requires the ability to falsify a hypothesis, and it's hard to imagine how one would definitively falsify notions of global warming on the timescale of a human lifetime. So global warming is hardly science at this point.

And before anyone trots out the tired chestnut about how many scientists believe it, let me point out that scientific matters are not settled by a show of hands, but by dispositive data. One man with such data trumps 100,000 jokers with opinions. See the Helicobacter pylorii story for an example.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 31, 2007 9:53 AM

"It's the environmentalist whacko side that wants to shut down scientific debate"

This coming from people that want to see creationism as part of a biology class? And how exactly are environmentalists "shutting down" scientific debate?

The fact that you feel sorry for the oil companies (a few posts further down)when they have been bringing in the biggest profits recorded in history show where your allegience lies. Corporate profits over common human interests.

"The considerable likelihood is that I've trained more scientists than you've ever met, and written more scientific papers than you've ever read."

No, that is unlikely, given my position. And those "scientists you trained" - which branches of science did you "train" them in?

"Global warming is hardly established"

I'm sorry, but it is. There is virtually no one left in the mainstream scientific community that doubts that Earth has been warming of the last decades. Is it your opinion that Earth's temperature is stable or cooling? Can you please provide the data?

"Science requires the ability to falsify a hypothesis"

Your hypothesis being that earth's temperature is not changing beyond the norm of recorded history? Yes, that one *was* falsified by data.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 31, 2007 10:13 AM

I'm so tired of the bigotry, hatred, elitism, racism, and intolerance of the left.

It's a wonder they can sleep at night with all the hypocrisy. Shows a complete lack of conscience of morals.

Posted by: NudeGayWhalesForJesus at May 31, 2007 10:19 AM

"I'm so tired of the bigotry, hatred, elitism, racism, and intolerance of the left."

Yes, yes, those words are hardly ever used to describe the right. Hitler, after all, had none of those characteristics.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 31, 2007 10:44 AM

Way to spew the talking points, anonymous coward.

So, are you going to contend that this is the first time in geological history the Earth's temperature has ever changed? What is the correct temperature for the Earth to be at, within a tenth of a degree? And if human activity is the cause of temperature variation, why are Mars, Neptune, and the moons of Jupiter also showing temperature rises? Are the oil companies on Mars now?

Idiocy drives a Prius.

Posted by: V the K at May 31, 2007 10:45 AM

NGWFJ -
Did you notice the silly liberals (as shown again and again by gungloat) always claim to be able to read minds? "You all think...", "You think that...".

gunblote - I guarantee you have absolutely no idea what I or anyone else really thinks. If you did you'd crap your britches and crawl in a hole and hide.

Posted by: Jimbo at May 31, 2007 10:50 AM

"I'm so tired of the bigotry, hatred, elitism, racism, and intolerance of the left."

Yes, yes, those words are hardly ever used to describe the right. Hitler, after all, had none of those characteristics.

Posted by: Anonymous

Actually, anonymous moron - Hitler showed ALL of those traits. He was, afterall, a mind-control socialist - just like you and your little god, algore.

Posted by: Jimbo at May 31, 2007 10:58 AM

"anonymous coward."

Yes, yes, "V the K" is so not anonymous. Even your website hides its ownership.

"So, are you going to contend that this is the first time in geological history the Earth's temperature has ever changed?"

No. What is your point?

And if human activity is the cause of temperature variation, why are Mars, Neptune, and the moons of Jupiter also showing temperature rises?

What do you mean: "also"? I thought Earth's temperature is not rising - isn't global warming a hoax?

Posted by: V the M at May 31, 2007 11:00 AM

"Actually, anonymous moron - Hitler showed ALL of those traits. He was, afterall, a mind-control socialist - just like you and your little god, algore."

Hitler was far right.

And so are the Islamic states you guys hate so much.

Posted by: V the M at May 31, 2007 11:04 AM

Anon, you probably weren't aware of this, but Nazi is shorthand for National Socialist. Hitler was anti-smoking, pro-environment, pro-mass transit, pro-state controlled media (a la Chavez and the fairness doctrine), and pro-Daycare. Now, whose agenda does that sound like?

Presumably, Hitler would have had no problem with embryonic stem cell research provided the embryos were Jewish. Mengele could have led the program.

And, yes, I believe global temperature fluctuates over time. 10,000 years ago, the Earth was in an Ice Age. How did it end? Because the Earth got warmer. More recently, there was such a thing as "the Little Ice Age," (Google It!) during which the Earth was much cooler and since which, temperatures have increased. Only a complete ass would assume that there is one ideal planetary temperature and the minor fluctuations in this temperature over decades was cause for massive panic and government-directed social restructuring.

Posted by: V the K at May 31, 2007 11:11 AM

"Only a complete ass would assume that there is one ideal planetary temperature and the minor fluctuations in this temperature over decades was cause for massive panic and government-directed social restructuring."

And only a complete ass would assume that when temperatures go higher than ever recorded that there is no cause for alarm. Oh wait, temperatures aren't increasing, it is a hoax - right?

Posted by: V the M at May 31, 2007 11:20 AM

1. The Earth is getting marginally warmer, and at some point it will start getting marginally cooler.

2. This is because Earth's primary source of energy is a giant fusion reactor in the middle of the solar system whose energy output fluctuates over time.

3. Socialists who yearn to control every aspect of human behavior exploit the general ignorance of #2 to advance their political agenda.

Posted by: V the K at May 31, 2007 11:22 AM

"Anon, you probably weren't aware of this, but Nazi is shorthand for National Socialist."

Really??? You must be very, very smart!

Hitler is defined as being to right of the political spectrum. He worked closely with corporations and was pro-business. He was a nationalist, but not a socialist, at least not in the common definition of the word. If you want to invent your own definitions, where Hitler is left, then be my guest. That won't change the fact the Hitler was on the far right. Where you stand in the polical spectrum is not determined by your views on smoking, just in case you didn't know.

Posted by: V the M at May 31, 2007 11:29 AM

And only a complete ass would assume that when temperatures go higher than ever recorded that there is no cause for alarm.

When did that happen? The all-time high where I live was set in 1913. The all time low was set in 2003.

And how warm did it get before thermometers?
Temperatures set all time "recorded" lows this past winter; is that cause for alarm? Is it just coincidence that all the other planets in the solar system are "warming"?

Posted by: Jimbo at May 31, 2007 11:37 AM

What unites Hitler and the Modern left is their mutual obsession with absolute control over all aspects of human behavior. Lefties whine that conservatives care too much about what goes on in the bedroom. Lefties will let you do anything you want to anyone you want in the bedroom (unless you play Lacrosse for Duke), but once you're out of the bedroom, they want to dictate what you eat, what you drive, where you're allowed to live, whether you're allowed to defend yourself, what kind of appliances you can use (cf Berkley city council), how often you're allowed to fly (British greens), what you can listen to (Fairness Doctrine), what you can watch (Chavez), when you can criticize politicians (McCain-Feingold), they want complete control over the education of children (Hitler outlawed home-schooling), if you're a business owner they want to control who you can hire and fire, if you're a landlord they want to control who you can rent to, if you make too much money they want to take away whatever they deem "too much" to be, they want to dictate your health care (HillaryCare)... the desire of the left to control human behavior literally knows no limits.

Posted by: V the K at May 31, 2007 11:58 AM

"When did that happen? The all-time high where I live was set in 1913. The all time low was set in 2003."

Are you not aware of the difference between weather and climate?

Posted by: V the M at May 31, 2007 12:06 PM

Wow. I've only seen that "weather and climate" talking point 150,000 times.

Not much independent thought on the left. Just robots reciting talking points.

Posted by: V the K at May 31, 2007 12:10 PM

How come the moonbats won't answer a simple question:

Is it just coincidence that the other planets in the solar system are also warming?

This has been asked by several folks throughout this thread, and not a single silly liberal response.

Hmmm.

Hello! hello-hello-hello...

Just an echo - the moonbats must have left thier cave.

Posted by: Jimbo at May 31, 2007 12:37 PM

gunboat,

you said:
"You need faith to believe He exists. As an atheist you can cite the lack of evidence of his existence, which leads you to the rational conclusion that He does not exist. It is not a matter of faith for the non-believer, it is a rational choice."

lack of evidence is NOT evidence. this is your logic. you are saying that because God's existence cannot be proved, He therefore does not exist. but if you read the post that you responded to carefully, the anonymous poster stated that people cannot prove that God does NOT exist also. if you can't see what i'm saying, i'll ask you directly:

can you prove that God does NOT exist?

remember, lack of proof is not proof. this is faulty logic.

tell me, how do you know that God does not exist?

Posted by: MoleOnABull at May 31, 2007 12:55 PM

No, that is unlikely, given my position. And those "scientists you trained" - which branches of science did you "train" them in?

I was professor of chemistry in a top ten university. And I stand by my earlier speculation.

Your hypothesis being that earth's temperature is not changing beyond the norm of recorded history?

No. Thanks for setting up a straw man, however. I don't have a hypothesis regarding the global climate - and frankly don't much care if the climate is changing (which I'm fully prepared to believe it is, but I doubt that we could do anything about it in any case). On the contrary, I am sceptical of those asserting arguments for what I loosely referred to as global warming, by which I meant "anthropogenic global warming," the one we are exhorted to combat.

The critical point is whether any such change arises from man's actions. If one likens the composition of the atmosphere to the population of the US, CO2 would correspond to approximately 150,000 people (out of 300 million). Anthropogenic CO2 would correspond to about 4500 people (3% of 0.054% on a molar or partial pressure basis). Water vapor (which has a whacking great oscillator strength in the infrared and microwave regions) would correspond to about 5-10 million.

In view of those figures (no one disputes the composition of the atmosphere), the burden of proof lies on those elbowing their way through the crowd of infrared-absorbing atmospheric constituents to collar the 4500 culprits as those responsible. That I find incredible, until and unless someone generates dispositive data that speak directly to that issue.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 31, 2007 1:12 PM

Al Gore gives the impression of someone who was born on 3rd base and struts around like he hit a triple.

Posted by: The Panday at May 31, 2007 1:38 PM

let's get something straight...I have never defended al gore nor the "environmentalist" movement he represents...I simply don't know enough about the science of it all to develop an educated opinion. The few studies I have read appear to offer evidence on both sides. i do believe, however, that mankind is definately capable of abusing its environment to a sufficently dangerous/deadly extreme, and it appears clear that we need to continue to investigate this area. I don't consider myself a democrat but independent. i don't fit in to the narrow little boxes you people appear so eager to place things in.

Those of you complaining that the existence of God cannot be disproven are severly handicapped when it comes to logic and reason..The non-existance of something can NEVER be proven, and it is, in fact, the theist who has the burden of proof regarding the claim. You can't disprove the belief that little purple elephants are controlling the world from a giant circus tent in the sky, if I were to make such an outrageous claim. And this is exactly what religion asks us to do. To forget rationality, reason. To not question or doubt.To simply believe. Or else, go to hell! That's religion's essence. Considering we have a president who says things like "God told me to invade Iraq", well, there couldn't be anything more unamerican, and downright sick. This is exactly the kind of crap we are all over the Muslims over....same shit, different God. Bush should be impeached simply for saying something so outlandish and deranged.

Albert Einstein did not believe in a Supernatural God. This is a myth invented by Christian fundamentlists. Look it up in a real book, dipshit.

Here's the full quote from Martin Luther:

"Reason is the greatest enemy that Faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things but more frequently than not struggles aginst divine Word, treat with contempt all that emenates from God" ---You look it up dipshit...

Posted by: westerberg at May 31, 2007 2:12 PM

westerberg (and others),

You are making a claim, are you not?

You are claming that there is no God, based on the fact that His existence cannot be proved. However, as I already said, that is not proof to say that God does NOT exist.

You are making a claim... the claim that God does not exist. It is a claim, is it not?

I am simply holding you to the same standard you are holding me. I am asking you to prove that He does NOT exist.

Another point:
When you make a claim, isn't that claim something that you believe in? Or is that claim just empty words that you spout?

You would not claim something if you didn't believe it, would you?

What is the basis of your belief? That's all I'm asking.

Posted by: MoleOnABull at May 31, 2007 2:36 PM

westerberg,

You say "non-existence" as if it's a fact. Where is your evidence, proof, data? Where did you get that from?

The burden of proof is not just on me, it's on both of us. It's actually quite simple:

I say He exists, you say He doesn't.

Who is right? How will I prove to you that He does exist? And how will you prove to me that He doesn't exist?

We both have to come up with evidence (proof)... we both have homework to do.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 31, 2007 2:45 PM

"And how will you prove to me that He doesn't exist?"

I think you are missing the point. If I claim that pink elephants created the universe, then you cannot disprove it. That does not make it true, nor something you should believe in.

"We both have to come up with evidence (proof)... we both have homework to do."

No, since the burden of proof doesn't apply for the non-existence of something.

Nonetheless there is plenty of evidence for the absence of a God as described in the Bible. There is however no evidence (that is not self-referential)for the existence of God, let alone your specific type of God.

Posted by: gunboat at May 31, 2007 3:23 PM

"and frankly don't much care if the climate is changing (which I'm fully prepared to believe it is, but I doubt that we could do anything about it in any case)"

Why would you assume that we cannot do anything about it? We have managed to pollute our seas to the point where it is no longer recommended to eat fish more than once a week. Fish would be one of the healthiest sources of protein we could eat, but we managed to screw it up. Do you believe that we cant do anything about that either?

"by which I meant "anthropogenic global warming," the one we are exhorted to combat."

You know perfectly well that until recently the same crowd that now (grudgingly) accepts that earth is warming denied it vehemently until a year ago. Some still do. Some now accept that, and most have even accepted that humans do play a role in it, so now they have moved on to: Sure Earth is warming and humans are a cause, but is it bad for us?

"In view of those figures (no one disputes the composition of the atmosphere)"

The relative impact of the various greenhouse gases has been estimated and CO2 contributes between 9-26% of the greenhouse effect (at current concentrations). The big difference between water vapor and CO2 is that water vapor, the main greenhouse gas, does not accumulate or stay long in the atmosphere. It is in constant flux. Unless you have a hypothesis as to why water vapor should be produced over the last two centuries in increasing amounts (and why that is *not* related to human activity) and the data to back it up, then I fail to see how it has any bearing on *rising* temperatures or athropogenic warming. Or are you making the assumption that the scientists working on this issue were too stupid to examine the effect of water vapor?

What has been increasing is the CO2 concentration and along with it the temperature of Earth.

Posted by: V the M at May 31, 2007 3:47 PM

Regarding the photo of Al Gore (above), when did he start dipping snuff?

As for faith and science, they do not have to be in conflict with one another. Some scientists understand that there is much beyond our simple comprehension, i.e., there are limits to human knowledge.

As for the comment:

"And only a complete ass would assume that when temperatures go higher than ever recorded that there is no cause for alarm. Oh wait, temperatures aren't increasing, it is a hoax - right?"

Our ability to measure temperatures is still in its youth, since about the 1880s or so. So when we consider that the Earth could be 4.6 billion years old, a database only going back to the late 19th century doesn't mean much in the larger picture. There is ample evidence in the geologic record for periods as warm as today, if not warmer.

As for the "causes" of global warming, the "hoax" word refers to the political paradigm that blames humans for the bulk of the warming.

Most skeptics do not question the premise that we might influence the climate, by way of small anthropogenic carbon dioxide contributions, deforestation, and other changes in land use patterns. But we believe that most of what we see in the recent past and present is probably natural.

Most of the Global Warming hysteria is based upon computer models of what might happen. The geologic and paleoclimatological record tells us of what has happened already.

Posted by: joe-6-pack at May 31, 2007 4:40 PM

Typical Liberal "debate": spout accusations to force your opponant to defend himself rather than keeping to the subject. You idiots from the Left keep accusing us of not believing in science, yet you have no proof of that any more than you have proof of your RELIGION of "Mother Earth".

No one is DENYING that "global warming" is a fact, we are saying that MAN IS NOT CAUSING IT!

Posted by: KHarn at May 31, 2007 4:44 PM

THIRD REQUEST
How come the moonbats won't answer a simple question:

Is it just coincidence that the other planets in the solar system are also warming?

And if I may borrow a word from the vast, articulate vocabulary of westerberg; you're "dipshits" if you don't answer.

What say you, silly liberal, sky-is-falling "dipshits"?

Posted by: Jimbo at May 31, 2007 5:24 PM

Please read through some of the articles (many linked from this blog--do a search) describing how some scientists interpret the facts to mean that humans do not cause global warming. (You already know that some interpret the facts to mean that humans are causing it). No one is denying anything, scientists just interpret the info differently when they make predictions and try to identify causes.
Here's one article to start with (be sure to scroll down to read the whole article).

Posted by: A. at May 31, 2007 5:44 PM

Posted by: A. at May 31, 2007 5:51 PM

We have managed to pollute our seas to the point where it is no longer recommended to eat fish more than once a week. Fish would be one of the healthiest sources of protein we could eat, but we managed to screw it up.

Arguable whether this is true (but irrelevant in any case, because it's an unconnected issue). First, analytical methods have increased in sensitivity to the point where ludicrously low levels of anything can be detected. Many analytes are now detectable at ppb level or lower. Where once various toxic compounds/compounds (e.g., aflatoxin) were down in the limits of detection, now they're not, and so neurotics have something else to worry about. (For example, 35 years ago, before unleaded gas, the average person's blood level of Pb was 30 micrograms/dL; at 10 micrograms/dL today you'd be hospitalized.)

You know perfectly well that until recently the same crowd that now (grudgingly) accepts that earth is warming denied it vehemently until a year ago.

I know nothing of the kind.

The relative impact of the various greenhouse gases has been estimated and CO2 contributes between 9-26% of the greenhouse effect (at current concentrations).

If one includes water vapor, CO2's total relative contribution drops to less than 4%. And approximately 3% of that is anthropogenic.

Unless you have a hypothesis as to why water vapor should be produced over the last two centuries in increasing amounts (and why that is *not* related to human activity) and the data to back it up, then I fail to see how it has any bearing on *rising* temperatures or athropogenic warming.

This, of course, assumes that insolation remains constant, for which there is zero evidence, and in fact evidence to the contrary. First, minor variations in the sun's activity could easily change the earth's climate. Second, solar activity clearly changes over time, as evidenced by sunspots. Third, other planets apparently have warmed recently too.

What has been increasing is the CO2 concentration and along with it the temperature of Earth.

Barometers drop when it rains. Do dropping barometers cause rain? Correlation is not causation. Moreover, CO2 levels track global temperatures - with a 700 year lag. (Note also the temperature variation shown by the Vostock ice core over the last 400,000 years; did SUVs go in and out of fashion over that time?) I don't necessarily believe these or any other figures; the point is that there is significant controversy about the data, their interpretation, and which data are relevant.

Here's the news: no one really believes in global warming. No one. Laurie David claims to believes in it, but jets around the country. Would she do that if she really thought it was dooming her and everyone else? If she thought jet travel caused breast cancer, would she indulge in that regardless of the risk? Of course not. Conclusion: she doesn't really believe it either.

Global warming advocacy is an opportunity for galloping narcissists to attract attention by striking a fashionable pose, a new wrinkle on the Hollywood award shows. Nothing more. ("I'm not an overindulged superannuated adolescent! I'm a concerned human being! Look at me, emulate me, adulate me, I'm cool! Really! All the cool people say so!") Anyone who actually believed our survival hung in the balance would be agitating to ban, inter alia, all rock concerts, television, film, vacation travel, and other frivolous wastes of energy and build nuclear power plants. Ain't gonna happen. Pigs will have an Air Force before then.

Anthropogenic global warming is an exercise in psychology, not science. The hysteria of those propounding it is by itself a dead giveaway. Those of us of a certain age (ahem) have seen so many doomsday scares come and go that it's hard to keep a straight face on hearing the most recent one. (As Abraham Lincoln said, "No matter how much cats fight, there always seems to be plenty of kittens." And somehow despite all the doomsday scenarios, the freeways become more and more crowded.) I'm old enough to remember when global cooling (caused by aerosol deodorants) was going to kill us all, and the polar bears were going to march down over the ice sheets and eat everyone in Miami. Now these maritime bears that can swim 60 miles out to sea are drowning. Teach 'em to mess with us!

Much like Wall Street touts, global warming poses the moral hazard that there's no downside to being an alarmist, because everyone will forget erroneous predictions. Only if the predictions are borne out, or appear as if they might be, will those making them point them out to all and sundry. A case in point: last year NOAA predicted a "very active" hurricane year, with four to six category 3 or higher storms, yada yada. Outcome: bupkis. Oops.

We should make the prediction business interesting. If a climatologist makes a public prediction that's substantially wrong, he should be fired and banned from getting federal funding. Now - he was saying?

Face it - global warming is a fad. Nothing more. Cynics are manipulating the cognitively disenfranchised (subtext: "vote for liberals, or we're all doomed, doomed I tell you!" Women are especially susceptible to the "It's for the children!" nonsense. It establishes their bona fides as mothers, or hopeful mothers-to-be.). In five years' time, global warming will join Y2K, heterosexual AIDS, killer bees, the ozone hole (now worse than ever, btw), and shark summer as the punchline of a joke. And you'll be telling people that you always had your doubts about it, and never really believed it. (I know: I tell people I never wore bell bottoms.) The grownups will nod gravely, and shoot bemused sidelong glances at each other, too polite to guffaw out loud.

You heard it here first.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 31, 2007 9:24 PM

Jay,

excellent.

Posted by: MoleOnABull at May 31, 2007 9:32 PM

Jay;

Good post.

Just a small addition.

"What has been increasing is the CO2 concentration and along with it the temperature of Earth."

During period of global warming, increased biological action might elevate CO2.

Also, it is my understanding that warming of the oceans would result in the release of more dissolved CO2.

Warning: I am a geologist straying into biology and chemistry.

Posted by: joe-6-pack at May 31, 2007 10:04 PM

Well, some of you can't read, I see. In two comments now, i have made it clear that I do not support Al Gore nor his "environmentalist" movement, yet I continue to be attacked as one...Please, already!

Of course, I cannot disprove the existence of God. As I stated the existence of anything cannot be disproven. This is an impossible task. No one can dissprove my theory that purple elephants rule the world from a circus tent in the sky. However, there is not a shred of scientifically examined evidence to support my claim, nor the claim of a god as described in the old and new testaments. This is thankfully a good thing in that the God of the old testament is the most hateful, spiteful, paranoid, misogynistic, racist, genocidal maniac, homophobic, mean spirited, character ever created in literature.

Because there is no evidence to support the existence of the type of God described in the Bible, I believe this is enough for me not to believe it. Of course, this does not dispprove god's existence, but I'm not the one who claims to live my life based on some arbirtraily arrived at "code" that I got from a book written thousands of years ago by men who have translated, revised, edited and altered it time and time again. People who believe in concpets or things simply because they are told to, because they cannot dissprove it, or in most cases, because they are indoctrinated from a very young age, must suspend rationality and reason, and therefore refuse to think. This is a conscious decision. The idea that you would believe in something because no one can dissprove it is seriously flawed logic, and frankly, a sign of madness.

Again it is the theist who has the burden of proof. Most arguments with theists end with something like:"You just have to believe". Faith is the polar opposite of reason. Look up the two words, and you will see..The church has fought every scientific devlopment tooth and nail,and has always rejected advances that challenge faith.(which is almost every one) The true theist recognizes, as Martin Luther did, that people cannot have true faith and reason at the same time. The true scientist also recognizes that religion and God cannot be considered scientific explanations and are insufficient in a rational world. Those of you who claim to be theistic scientists are phony, and what you call science is merely religion masquerading as science. An old trick of the church.

Here's another great MArtin Luther quote:

"Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God."

Luther was a true madman. This is what your religion requires of you. Madness.

religion encourages intolerance, ignorance, and divisiveness. In fact, it depends on it. religion cannot exist in a rational world, and it is this reason religion, whether it be Islam or Christianity, has fought so hard against reason and science since it's inception.

Posted by: westerberg at June 1, 2007 1:15 AM

religion cannot exist in a rational world

Really? So about 90% of Americans are insane? Well, thank (insert deity of preference here) that we have YOU as one of the "enlightened 10%" to show us the error of our ways!

Someone's got delusions of grandeur here, and it ain't me.

Posted by: Crush Liberalism at June 1, 2007 7:09 AM

No not insane, but ninety percent of Americans have rejected rationality and are not thinking clearly, if your figures are correct.

However, i do not believe that you can truly demonstrate that to be the case. Given the fact that claiming not to believe in God is one of the biggest taboos in American culture, I believe that there is a far greater than 10 percent population who do not believe in the existence of a omnipotent, omniscient, supernatural God but are afraid to publicly announce it. That's like asking people if they were gay fifty years ago.

There are far more non-believers than you think, and they are becoming more brave, and tired of being pushed around by the religious right, and even by their equivalent on the left who use religious dogma to propogate their personal agendas.

Posted by: westerberg at June 1, 2007 7:30 AM

westerberg (and others),

well then, we agree to disagree.

I believe there is a God, and you believe there is no God.

End of conversation?

Posted by: MoleOnABull at June 1, 2007 8:58 AM

"Arguable whether this is true"

Are you hearing reports that encourage you to eat *more* contaminated fish? How is my statement untrue? Or are you saying that the current mecury levels are nothing to worry about?

"(but irrelevant in any case, because it's an unconnected issue)"

It's related to your apparent fatalism towards any changes we might be making to our world that could be detrimental to us. Your view is: a) It's not our fault and b) it isn't true in any case and c) even if it were true (which it isn't!) we can't do anything about it anyways.

I guess I can start dumping my nuclear waste in your backyard. You seem to be lead- and mecury-proof, so a little radiation wont harm you! Hey, earlier in this century nurses didn't wear lead aprons when doing X-rays, so why are we worrying about radiation? I mean, those few particles in comparison to the enourmous mass of your body - what damage could they possibly do? They are only .000000000000000000000000004% of my body mass - no one is going to tell me that they can cause cancer!!!

"(For example, 35 years ago, before unleaded gas, the average person's blood level of Pb was 30 micrograms/dL; at 10 micrograms/dL today you'd be hospitalized.)"

And 35 years ago those people with elevated lead levels had increased chances of neurological defects, heart disease, stroke - just like today. The only difference is that people did not know about it!

40 years ago people were told that smoking was perfectly safe. So why not continue smoking?

Are you determined to live in the past?

"If one includes water vapor, CO2's total relative contribution drops to less than 4%. "

Not correct.

"This, of course, assumes that insolation remains constant, for which there is zero evidence, and in fact evidence to the contrary."

No, it assumes that you are proposing that CO2 has no significance as a green-house gas. Science says otherwise. What is your model that explains our warming planet via the Guevera Water Vapor theory? And also provide the data please.

"First, minor variations in the sun's activity could easily change the earth's climate. Second, solar activity clearly changes over time, as evidenced by sunspots."

Solar activity is one factor of many. Is anyone denying that? So are volcanoes. Those, and other factors, are accounted for. It takes a lot of arrogance for someone to come into a scientific field they are not familiar with and declare that all those working in it have overlooked this glaring error that you have just uncovered. I guess chemists must be a lot smarter than other scientists. Or just a lot more arrogant.

"Here's the news: no one really believes in global warming. No one. Laurie David claims to believes in it, but jets around the country. Would she do that if she really thought it was dooming her and everyone else? If she thought jet travel caused breast cancer, would she indulge in that regardless of the risk? Of course not. Conclusion: she doesn't really believe it either."

That is your scientific evidence? That people trying to get their message across use the available means of transportation? Isn't that the same argument as the one about rich people not being allowed to care about the poor unless they give all their money away?

So what you are saying is that until you give up all means of effecting change, you should not be allowed to speak about the issue? I think that says volumes about why you are on this board.

"Global warming advocacy is an opportunity for galloping narcissists to attract attention by striking a fashionable pose, a new wrinkle on the Hollywood award shows. Nothing more. ("I'm not an overindulged superannuated adolescent! I'm a concerned human being! Look at me, emulate me, adulate me, I'm cool! Really! All the cool people say so!")"

And therefore you end up on a board defending the opinions of those that equate Hitler with Liberals, don't believe in evolution, find atheist to be soulless lumps of flesh worthy only of destruction?

"Anthropogenic global warming is an exercise in psychology, not science."

I hate to tell you, but other than the Society of Petroleum Geologists (surprise, surprise) all major Scientific Associations are suggesting that global warming is real and that mankinds activities play a major role in it. You have no data, no hypothesis, no theory to suggest otherwise. You seem to oppose it purely based on your dislike of all things modern and liberal.

"I'm old enough to remember when global cooling"

Do you also remember when that global cooling was proposed to occur? Right, it was in the distant future. That, by the way, still is a very real possibility.

"If a climatologist makes a public prediction that's substantially wrong, he should be fired and banned from getting federal funding."

Yes, let's apply that to all branches of science, because that would truly encourage people to seek out unexplored approaches. Brilliant idea - fits in perfectly with the spirit of this website! So you claim you trained scientists, eh?

"vote for liberals, or we're all doomed, doomed I tell you!"

But you seem to be fine with the "vote for republicans, or a nuclear mushroom is in your future"?

"Y2k"

Do you think the trillions spent on fixing code could have helped? The fact that a small minority believed in doomsday scenarios was not what caused businesses to fix the issues, it was a real threat to their bottom line. And it certainly was no joke to them.

"heterosexual AIDS"

Yes that is a punchline of a joke, especially for most of Africa. They are rolling in dust with laughter, you racist prick.

Posted by: V the M at June 1, 2007 9:30 AM

"Wow. I've only seen that "weather and climate" talking point 150,000 times.

Not much independent thought on the left. Just robots reciting talking points."

No, just your peers making glaring mistakes over and over again.

Posted by: V the M at June 1, 2007 9:37 AM

You're too emotional to make further debate productive.

But one thing I can't let pass: global cooling was not predicted to make its impact in the distant future.

Newsweek, April 28, 1975:

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now.

[…]

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. […] But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

Sound familiar? BTW, one proposal then was to pour soot on the Arctic ice cap, to help it melt. Good thing the grownups didn't follow that advice, yes?

Remember: bell bottoms. Ten years from now you'll cough nervously, shuffle your feet, and change the subject when someone brings up global warming, and everyone laughs. But you'll know: you bought hook, line, and sinker.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 1, 2007 10:12 AM

Yes Jay, I remember that very well. A lot of people I knew were convinced we were just about to have a world-wide famine because of global cooling. My mother wanted to buy a farm so that we could grow our own food because there were going to be huge food riots and starvation. People really believed that. It was going to happen soon. And thank goodness the government didn't act on this rubbish and change "our central organizing principle" as Al Gore would say, to one of sacrificing humanity to the environment.

I think the important lesson that history can teach us is that, as a "central organizing principle," human freedom and liberty come first. If people believe in something, like anthropogenic global warming, then they are free to act on that belief by doing things in their own lives that they think are right. But for the government to use the force of legislation to force people to act on these beliefs is counter to freedom and liberty and could easily destroy it.

Posted by: kevin at June 1, 2007 11:43 AM

"You're too emotional to make further debate productive."

You mean after your productive input of "AIDS is a joke"?

Posted by: V the M at June 1, 2007 12:08 PM

"Sound familiar? BTW, one proposal then was to pour soot on the Arctic ice cap, to help it melt. Good thing the grownups didn't follow that advice, yes? "

Yes, since it was a single Newsweek article (for which Newsweek has apologized) which got it wrong. Please show me the scientific papers that predicted a near term coming ice age.

"Ten years from now you'll cough nervously, shuffle your feet, and change the subject when someone brings up global warming, and everyone laughs."

I doubt it. You guys, however, are already getting nervous when anyone mentions your former hero, George W. 10 years from now, when the true amount damage done by his presidency will become evident, you will be pretending that you never voted for him.

Posted by: V the M at June 1, 2007 12:40 PM

"Sound familiar? BTW, one proposal then was to pour soot on the Arctic ice cap, to help it melt. Good thing the grownups didn't follow that advice, yes? "

Yes, since it was a single Newsweek article (for which Newsweek has apologized) which got it wrong. Please show me the scientific papers that predicted a near term coming ice age.

"Ten years from now you'll cough nervously, shuffle your feet, and change the subject when someone brings up global warming, and everyone laughs."

I doubt it. You guys, however, are already getting nervous when anyone mentions your former hero, George W. 10 years from now, when the true amount damage done by his presidency will become evident, you will be pretending that you never voted for him.

Posted by: V the M at June 1, 2007 12:40 PM

Apparently V the M is a little too anxious to have his cunning rebuttals posted, since he seems to have clicked twice on the "Post" buttom.

Posted by: Alex at June 1, 2007 12:59 PM

Yes, since it was a single Newsweek article (for which Newsweek has apologized) which got it wrong.

Right. And disco was only in a single club, and that for just a weekend. You're obviously of a later generation. It was a cause celebre of its time, much like global warming is today. It was the cover story of Time magazine on 6/24/1974, and in fact many media outlets featured the same nonsense. I don't read the climatology literature, but Newsweek and Time were reporting on the views of scientists. They didn't make this up themselves. (As an aside: would scientists use the media to try to make their work look more important as grant renewal time rolls around? Nah. I've never done that (he says, looking over his shoulder for a lightning bolt.))

Newsweek apologized for its silliness. A model for us all - some more than others (glancing significantly over to V the M). Some day you will be embarrassed to have believed this nonsense, and/or deny you ever did. Believe me. You will.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at June 1, 2007 7:18 PM