24 Thoughts to “Jon Stewart: What is science up to?”

  1. Elena

    Now I understand why this country is lagging in the science technology field, rubes like this republican who demean science. OY VEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  2. I thought this skit fit right in to the discussions we have been having about science.

    How come everyone accepts the announcement about the God Particle without blinking an eye and goes all wonky over global warming?

    I am just not willing to bet the future on someone’s political beliefs. It only stands to reason that man’s behavior affects the atmosphere. Throw in some data from 10s of thousands of scientists and I am going to say lets take a few precautions.

    Why would anyone want to have global warming? They don’t. Is it possible to heed some warnings without jumping off a cliff?

    How many people started looking for “proof”it didn’t exist because they didn’t like al gore? That’s a mighty stupid reason.

  3. There’s no controversy over the “God” particle because a) its not based on computer models that can’t reproduce reality b) those scientists don’t pretend to be able to predict outcomes 100 years in the future to ridiculous degrees of accuracy c) those scientists are not trying to “adjust” the world’s economy to fit their theories. Those scientists are just doing science.

    People started to look for proof, not proof that it did not exist. Gore is just the easiest target because of the lies in his film. I’m all for heeding warnings. Let’s examine the facts and then make a theory. Let’s not try to get the facts to fit a theory.

    1. There is plenty of evidence that global warming is taking place. In fact, there are thousands of studies past and future.

      The God Particle is pretty iffy in my world and as for future application, just wait.

      I really see denial of any existence of global warming as knuckle dragging. I am sorry. Common sense and personal experience count for a great deal of my opinion.

      World economy? How absurd. How about just keeping the planet free from enough polutants that it isn’t destroyed. These aren’t radical ideas.

      These are common sense ideas.

  4. marinm

    …because FoxNews told us it was ‘good’ and that the myth of “global warming” is bad. Duh!! 🙂

    I think this finding is awe-some.

    I want to be able to transport myself from one location to another in an instant – and do so on a commercial ‘pad’ and not one operated by the “government”.

  5. SlowpokeRodriguez

    Elena :
    Now I understand why this country is lagging in the science technology field, rubes like this republican who demean science. OY VEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Ahhh, there is nothing quite like the liberal’s belief in their own intellectual superiority! It has its own gravitational pull!

  6. marinm

    SlowpokeRodriguez :

    Elena :Now I understand why this country is lagging in the science technology field, rubes like this republican who demean science. OY VEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Ahhh, there is nothing quite like the liberal’s belief in their own intellectual superiority! It has its own gravitational pull!

    I call BS. I’m a denier in Liberal intellectual superiority!! I want to see a 100% consensus. Oh
    Wait.

    You said thier own belief. Carry on.

    1. I hardly think it is showing superiority to cut off binary thinking. The universe is far too complicated for yes or no answers.

      I feel an arrogance, and yes, superiority of a short is being touted when I hear denier statements much of the time. There is always that smug little chuckle that goes along with it that seems to whisper, got that, you dumb ass.

  7. marinm

    Denier or skeptic?

    I don’t think anyone has outright denied. Or am I wrong?

    I think I’m on record as saying that even if consensus shows that there is a “global warming” — who cares?

    Will it stop you from using your AC? Your iPad? Your car?

    Now, don’t get me or anyone else wrong. I don’t think we are “pro-pollution” but I don’t buy into this alarmist mentality of the greenies. The world was supposed to be on fire back in 2006 and we’re still here. Every few years you hear about the climate alarmists telling us we’re going to die in a few years. Reminds me of the Mayan Calendar people…………..

    I’d be content with free-market environmentalism.

    1. Don’t get me started on the free market environmentalism. Mankind is far too selfish. I think of huge primal trees slice down and wasted, used for ship masts and the remianer discarded. I have personally seen corporations buy up beautiful canyon lands then exclude everyone who didn’t have pockets of gold.

      That isn’t my idea of good earth stewardship.

      I believe in balance. Human beings are selfish idiots for the most part, soon as there is a penny to be made.

      I care if there is global warming and the life we know now is impossible to sustain.

      Use my air conditioner? That is binary thinking. Off or On. Hopefully if we find out something is problem, then we fix it and use different products like …oh say freon. What happens with deniers? People have a freaking fit over the mere suggestion of having to use a different kind of light bulb. I watched people resist change to the metric system ( I was probably one of them) even though the rest of the world used it and it is far easier to use interchangeably. That is just pig-headedness and resistance to change.

  8. Elena

    I cannot believe my eyes, you guys are defending that RNC spokesperson? You may want to reevaluate who you get into a “foxhole” with on this one. I think I’ll place my confidence in scientist!

  9. Elena

    Moon,
    What are you suggesting, that if we didn’t watch companies they would not pollute our waters and air for their bottoml line profit?! How dare you spew your liberal bias! Oh wait, shoot, THEY did do that! I think we have, wait for it, wait for it, oh yeah, Superfund sites!

    http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/

  10. Elena

    Here is the difference, BECAUSE I KNOW I am not intelluctually superior(unlike some around here whom I won’t name) to world renowned climatologist, I defer to them as opposed to pulling data out of my rear end and pretending like I am an expert.

  11. marinm

    “I think of huge primal trees slice down and wasted, used for ship masts and the remianer discarded.”

    Well that’s dumb. They should’ve sold the remainder. Maybe market it as driftwood or some such. Nice markup..

    “I have personally seen corporations buy up beautiful canyon lands then exclude everyone who didn’t have pockets of gold.”

    Sounds like jobs to me.

    “I care if there is global warming and the life we know now is impossible to sustain.”

    You don’t want to live in an underwater-city or a Megacity run by a Megacorp? Ever seen Wall-E? 🙂

    “Use my air conditioner? That is binary thinking. Off or On.”

    Sort of like the idea that if people don’t believe in your notion of “global warming” that we’re wrong. Right? My thinking is actually less binary than yours. Mine takes into account that it may exist but that until we have a deeper understanding of how we cause it that we won’t know how to reverse it. The “solution” may actually compound the issue – so I repeat — further study is needed.

    “People have a freaking fit over the mere suggestion of having to use a different kind of light bulb.”

    You mean the lightbulb full of mercury and we don’t have a great way to dispose of those? Or how we now are farming food for fuel instead of consuming it for food and the price of fuel and food both went up and no appreciable change to emissions?

    “I cannot believe my eyes, you guys are defending that RNC spokesperson?”

    No, I just want good science. Also I’d like for people to acknowledge that a lot of middle class people are going to be on the breadline if we start pushing this ‘agenda’.

    1. You wouldn’t know good science if it bit you on the nose. Why? Because you read or listen to too many right wing extremists with an agenda.

      As for the primal trees, when those were cut down I don’t think there was much of a market for driftwood. Check out about some timbering practices on the west coast with thiose 1000 year old trees, the coastal redwoods and sequoias.

  12. Elena

    Marinm,
    For the love of G-d, there IS good science, an overwhelming amount of it. Like I said on FB, read the Christian Science Monitor article then tell me you are still skeptical. I just think it is common sense that you can’t, en masse, pump crap into the environment and not believe, at some point, you will begin to cause serious damage. It’s like suggesting you believe you can eat anything you want and never suffer the negative consequences from it.

  13. Elena

    You are correct, ethanol from corn did not work out, but at least it was tried. Where is your American ingenuity for answers. Nothing ventured, nothing gained!

  14. Bear

    There are essentially three source that could be responsible for the global warming that scientists see: The sun, the earth’s reflectivity, and greenhouse gases. We can’t influence the first two but we can influence greenhouse gases.The atmosphere has a natural supply of “greenhouse gases.” They capture heat and keep the surface of the Earth warm enough for us to live on. Carbon dioxide, traps heat in the Earth’s atmosphere. Burning coal and oil releases carbon dioxide. This increases the heat we feel on earth(global warming).
    It’s not about using your air conditioning, it’s about glaciers melting and mixing more fresh water into the oceans destroying the balance

  15. marinm

    “For the love of G-d, there IS good science, an overwhelming amount of it.”

    Then you can tell me exactly how much pollution is required to either start or stop this “global warming”. To what extent can we pollute and still be OK? What is this magical tipping point from which we will reap a global calamity?

    Bear pointed out that 66% of this problem is outside of our control. So, for the 33% that we can control; what are the magical numbers that we as a human race cannot exceed? How will we measure our success? What are the numbers…

    I don’t disagree (I’ve said this a few times and its not registering) that pollution is bad. But, some is required for human life. Some is required for life in this ‘civilized’ age. So, the question that I have is. What is the extent that we can SAFELY pollute. What number have our best and brightest given us (and of course I would assume that they have the research to back up that number).

    What’s amusing is that I don’t even listen to the right-wing side of the aisle on this issue. Critical thinking requires that I question something until I have a diffinitive answer. How do you know that what we are doing to save the environment isn’t in fact hurting it? And, we’re not even begining to broach the economic questions…. Again, how many people starved because we grew corn for gas and not food?

    Interestingly NASCAR now heavily promotes ethenol farmers and subsudies on thier 4 mpg vehicles. 🙂

    1. Marin said

      Then you can tell me exactly how much pollution is required to either start or stop this “global warming”. To what extent can we pollute and still be OK? What is this magical tipping point from which we will reap a global calamity?

      Bear pointed out that 66% of this problem is outside of our control. So, for the 33% that we can control; what are the magical numbers that we as a human race cannot exceed? How will we measure our success? What are the numbers…

      First off, Bear didn’t assign proportions to his 3 sources. We can’t assume they have equal impact. Secondly, how much pollution must be in a river before you tell your children they can’t go swimming or play in it? How much pollution before you don’t want to eat the fish from there? Does the pollution maxing out change with the amount of rainfall? Do the concentration amounts change?

      Can we accept that pollution isn’t an exact science and that the earth “biome” is in a continual state fo flux?

      I agree some is required for civilized living. A lot of pollution is required, in fact. However, can we cut out some of it where we can? Can we reverse trends? At some point, will we not have a choice?

  16. marinm

    ….isn’t an exact science.

    Wow.

  17. First of all…
    Everyone agrees that reducing pollution is a good thing. NO ONE here has advocated that.
    Second, two things are being construed as the same thing when they have not been proven to be the same thing. “Pumping crap” is bad. But scientists are STILL DISAGREEING over the effects of CO2. THAT is not a settled science. Yes…it traps heat. How much? How much NEW infrared radiation does it absorb? Does it have any feed back input? What kind? What other reactions take place to negate or promote these effects? What about water vapor? Methane? If the planet is warming….which most here DO state is the probability, including me, will that be good or bad for humanity? What has history shown during warmer periods such as the Medieval Warming period where wheat was grown in Greenland and wine grapes in England and Newfoundland?

    Why are you guys so sure that THESE “world renowned” climate scientists are right, not only in their theories but in what will “fix” the climate? Since the data coming from the scientists has been a) confusing b) fudged, …I mean…”adjusted” c) or hidden, why are you guys so supportive of people that need to use PR firms to advance their ideas and use social scientists to figure out how to “get their message” across by using key emotional buzz words? http://www.springerlink.com/content/b0072m7777772k7r/fulltext.html

    Every time you guys talk about this you accuse us of being knuckledraggers that ignore science, but you refuse to consider ANY alternatives or, apparently, refuse to acknowledge what we write. We have continually stated that we are SKEPTICS. That while the trend of the earth IS warming, we want to see the science proven or at least, better evidence, before we hand over control of the world’s economy to politicians who will jump on this bandwagon for wealth and power. THEY won’t be inconvenienced by the economic downturns.

    And yes…global downturns. The UN wants these programs put into place across the board. That’s what the Kyoto Protocols were all about. And those policies would have restricted economic growth by the trillions. Think about the effect that would have had purely on energy and food production. Can you say freezing and starving in the dark?

    Rising sea levels? Are you really so full of hubris to think that reducing the US “carbon” footprint would stop such? How is the EPA going to stop China and India? Sea level rise is expected to continue for centuries, as it has been since the last Ice Age.

    Global warming. I predict that if we shut down human activity on this planet, it would get cleaner. And warmer.

    Instead of insulting us about being skeptical about politicized science and scientists, about being “knuckle draggers” or “McCarthyists,” maybe you guys should start looking at the websites yourselves instead of relying on only ONE side. You accuse us of using only “right wing” sites. This is not a “right wing” thing. I have no idea whether the skeptical scientists are left, right, communist, or monarchists. If I can understand, basically, what people are talking about at sites like Watt’s Up With That, and other science sites, you can too.

    You guys say things like this: “You wouldn’t know good science if it bit you on the nose. ” And it’s implied that some of us feel “intellectually superior” to climate scientists… That WE are being smug, etc…that we are calling YOU a dumb ass, even indirectly.

    I’ve seen no one here either imply or call Moon or Elena dumb through statements. I certainly haven’t done that. And I tend to be the most prolific defend of AGW skepticism here. What I have seen are challenges to orthodox statements that have been put up on this site. I have seen the insults only coming from one direction. I have seen the blind rejections and assumptions, and continued false attributions only coming from one direction.

    We’ve stated our open minded, intellectually curious, positions.
    We’ve agreed that pollution is a bad thing and it needs to be controlled.
    We’ve stated that global warming MAY be happening.
    We’ve asked for more proof, not PR statements from the “scientists.” I use quotes because many of those making the statements have no connections to any sort of climate science or science, at all. The Union for Concerned Scientists is frequently used…as in “Members of the UCS state…” All it takes is a $5 donation to become a member of that “august” body of intellect.

    Instead of denying the possibility that your climate heroes aren’t 100% right and that we’re all going to die unless we do what they promote…why don’t you take a look at the actual arguments? Mann may be a scientist. But he’s been proven to also be a propagandist. Its been proven that he politicizes science, withholds data, seems to be paranoid about data requests, will delete data rather than comply with FOIA requests.

    Is he REALLY supposed to by the “Galileo” example of the modern world?

  18. Pat Herve

    oh, the ignorance of the comments. Hard to take it without commenting.

  19. @Pat Herve
    But, look! You did! Good for you.

Comments are closed.