Gore Betters Lockbox Remark

Because, as we all know, scientists never say anything is certain, right?

"The degree of certainty, which was already very high, is now as close to certain as scientists are ever willing to say something is certain," Gore — also a member of the board at Apple — said in an address to Silicon Valley business and community leaders in San Jose, California. link

In, ahem, unrelated news, the price of oil is jumping due, no doubt, to Global Warming.

above $59 a barrel as the coldest weather of the U.S. winter was expected to draw down distillate stocks.

Here is a link to at least one handbook being used to remove the concept of scientific certainly as an obstruction to environmentalist's concerns. Heck, why not tinker with the world economy on a good hunch?

For years, the environmental and public health movements have been struggling to find ways to protect health and the environment in the face of scientific uncertainty about cause and effect. The public has typically carried the burden of proving that a particular activity or substance is dangerous, while those undertaking potentially dangerous activities and the products of those activities are considered innocent until proven guilty. Chemicals, dangerous practices, and companies often seem to have more rights than citizens and the environment.

This burden of scientific proof has posed a monumental barrier in the campaign to protect health and the environment. Actions to prevent harm are usually taken only after significant proof of harm is established, at which point it may be too late. Hazards are generally addressed by industry and government agencies one at a time, in terms of a single pesticide or chemical, rather than as broader issues such as the need to promote organic agriculture and nontoxic products or to phase out whole classes of dangerous chemicals. When citizen groups base their calls for a stop to a particular activity on experience, observation, or anything less than stringent scientific proof, they are accused of being emotional and hysterical.

...

Science is best defined as a careful, disciplined, logical search for knowledge about any and all aspects of the universe, obtained by examination of the best available evidence and always subject to correction and improvement upon discovery of better evidence. What's left is magic. And it doesn't work. -- James Randi

Comments

[scarshapedstar]

"Because, as we all know, scientists never say anything is certain, right?"

You're not a learned man, are you? Do I have to start rattling off statistical analysis problems from my genetics textbook?

[scarshapedstar]

For the record, the relevant link that you probably meant to post would be this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chi-square

[seekeronos]

Scientists certainly have a knack for being only as close to certain about thier facts as they certainly can, with just that right _smidge_ of ambiguity to cover themselves IF their hypotheses get disproven later down the road.

That way, the odour of the Bull Poopies wafts away gently under the watchful motherly eye of the Scientific Method™ when new evidence is found to overturn what was previously certain.

Global Warming™ may not be isolated to a few odd months of sub-zero temperatures... and I am not sure I believe Al-Gore's spin on things...

... but as I look at my monthly heat bill in triple digits yet again* - I'm inclined to do a double take when some moonbats think the planet is turning into Venus.

* (and mind you, I'm a guy who runs the thermostat at 67°F in the winter and turns off the water when soaping up, and nags my wife to do the same - yup, I am that kind of cheapskate when heating fuel is north of $2 per gal.)

[Kite]

I don't know about the rest of you but i'm pretty sick of seeing Al Gore's mug in the news. After that propoganda project "An Inconvenient Truth" he has become the savior of the leftist party and has pretty much picked up where Michael Moore left off.

I mean....when did Gore become such an enviromentalist anyways? He wasn't a big global warming buff until AFTER 2003 and i'm pretty sure this all preceeded the news stories of them showing him overweight, unshaven, and pretty much reclusive after his defeat back in 2000. Then all of a sudden BAM!! here he comes to save the world!

[Kite]

Sorry about that folks. I meant to say "followed the news stories..." instead of preceeded.

[Dan Riehl]

statistical analysis problems from my genetics textbook?

I'm well aware of statistics, thanks. WHile there are degrees of certainty, you and Al Gore are living in the realm of the soft so-called sciences, as opposed to the real world of hard science. More Liberal tripe from academia. These kids aren't smart enough to become doctors, let's invent sociology and rpetend it's science, etc.
What a bunch of blather that all is.

[Kite]

Well said Dan.

It is quite evident in many major universities that the professors and scientists who teach there gear all of their students towards this liberal soft-science. My own college experiences left me jaded trying to provide alternate viewpoints against many of the liberal biased sciences that many kids are being crammed down their throats.

Feminism, global warming, capitalism vs. socialism, social deviants and the like. I've tried to argue them all, and have won many arguements, but after being threatened with bad grades for objective viewpoints I had to play nice. However, it is exactly like you said...just a bunch of blather.

[templar knight]

Dan,

I wondered who all these circle-jerk boys of the Left were, and how they could be posting here at all hours of the day and night, and now I have a hint. Little boys off at college spending momma and daddy's money, acting as if they have lived in the real World. I should have known.

Little scar has a genetic textbook, and he knows it all. A know-it-all liberal college boy. Shocker!

[TheSpartan]

When you don't have an argument you go straight to the insults right templar?

[Artie]

Uh oh. The rednecks are getting angry about 'college boys'. Here's a tip, get back to work - ditches don't dig themselves.

[templar knight]

Just responding in kind, Spartan. And you have a lot of nerve confronting someone about insults. You and your ilk have done nothing but insult from the time I discovered this blog. So remove the mote from your own eye before pointing out the splinter in mine.

[templar knight]

You're a real tolerant guy, aren't you, Artie. The kind the Democrats are so proud to showcase. You're a real inspiration, Artie. And if I dug ditches, and I'm not too good to, as long as I did the best job I could digging ditches, then I would be proud of my work. I see you are a real champion for the working man. Does your hypocrisy ever bother you, Artie? Just checking.

[templar knight]

Now, I'm off to work, so you boys hold off till I get back.

[Artie]

Glad to see that you have a job. It reaffirms my belief in the greatness of America to know that even idiots like Templar Knight can find employment.

[Kite]

Ditches don't dig themselves?

My my...sounds like someone has thrown the gauntlet in class warfare. Obviously another tactic by the leftist party to try and place themselves upon a pedestal. A statement such as that claims that the "rednecks" of this country are only good for manual labor....tsk tsk. That's the party of compassion for you...putting you in your place so they let you know you NEED them to survive.

[Artie]

Rednecks are also adept at stopping bullets. Please do not trivialize my position. Thank you.

[Dan Riehl]

"ditches don't dig themselves"

Get back to work, Artie - there's a spill in aisle seven and your services are in demand.

[TheSpartan]

"ditches don't dig themselves"

Get back to work, Artie - there's a spill in aisle seven and your services are in demand.

Dan, were you in the slow class at insult school?

[Artie]

Haha. That WAS pretty weak, huh? He must have been out looking for Natalee Holloway instead of attending insult school. Hahaha.

[TheSpartan]

He might as well have said "No, you are!"

[Kite]

Don't trivialize your position? Awww, why not?

Besides, that last comment was even more vitriolic than your previous one. All I did was explain that your trying to encite class warfare with hateful rhetoric. Your still spouting out hateful and asinine comments.

[Artie]

You need to lighten up. Cmon, tell us more about how you were persecuted by the big, bad liberals in college. It's inspirational to the flat-earth cons and pretty funny for the rest of us. A win-win you might say. Proceed.

[scarshapedstar]

"WHile there are degrees of certainty, you and Al Gore are living in the realm of the soft so-called sciences, as opposed to the real world of hard science."

How on earth is genetics soft science? If you're claiming that cell biology is non-deterministic, you really ought to look into the current state of the art, it may surprise you. We can determine the exact structure of any organic molecule. Protein folding and protein-protein interactions are mind-bogglingly complex but modern computing has begun to unravel their secrets. It's going to be the fastest-growing field in science within a decade. And, no, Templar, I don't feel any need to apologize for my field of study.

[Kite]

Persecuted? no no...other than the occasional "This kind of thinking may find you failing a class" I was never persecuted by the left. Bombarded by nice catchy titles like "flat-earther, neo-con, fundamentalist (fundies as they preferred.) , and among others. However, I would hardly call that persecution...I call it fear.

Fear?! Fear I say? Of course! It's the same arguement that many anti-religious groups against anyone that professes a belief in God. I provided an objective viewpoint with a reasonable amount of evidence to support my ideals and instead of a good healthy debate it was met with type of hateful retaliation that would make a jihadist blush.

Feminism contributing to the destruction of generations of men, political correctness crippling the first amendment, Global warming a natural cause, Capitalism/free-enterprise as the economical base of choice.

I presented all these arguements to my professors and my fellow students in civilized ways and it was met with these conclusions. Men suck, We're killing the planet, Don't say that it'll offend someone, and were to stupid to run our own society.

Those kinds of liberal conclusions being taught to children and would-be leaders of this country is nothing short of a disaster waiting to happen. You may call me a flat-earther all you wish (It's still round), but it still doesn't change the fact these objective views hold merit and should be considered instead of stamped out like a small flame by the left.

Now, I've corrected your statements and given you enough fodder to create a suitable retort. I await your reply to insult me again. Please, begin your next volley. :P

[TheSpartan]

It's not round, it's spherical.

[katie]

Quoting James Randi demomonstrates how desperate you are. And why does
everyone go screaming into the night over what causes global warming?!
Its hilarious. Anytime a non-republican has something significant to
say you right wingers act like a bunch of morons. Why does it matter
to you so much what caused global warming??? The fact is it exists and
the earth is changing because of it. You conservatives remind me of the home schoolers who teach there was no such thing as dinosaurs because
teaching otherwise goes against what they want to believe. So stupid!!

[Kite]

My apologies. "Spherical" is what I should have said, but that's as close to grasping at straws as you can get man. The sun isn't "exactly" round either but that doesnt stop people from SAYING it's round. For future info it's flat on the top and the bottom (the sun that is).

Still..that's it? A grammatical error? I used the wrong adjective and that is supposed to demean my actual post? Hardly! Insulting my mediocre grammer skills isn't gaining you any points.

[seekeronos]

Artie the Leftardie:

We are more than happy to trivialize your position, because you don't have one worth even talking about.

All we hear from you on this blog is the same old vilifying crap "28% sheep, flat-earth, red-neck, blah blah blah blah blah"...

You're a broken record. And a hypocrite to boot. If you were such a good little liberal, you'd never have come out with these cracks about the working class being good for nothing but digging ditches and stopping bullets.

Yah, you sound like quite the elitist little snot who deserved every beating you ever got by the jocks and even the A/V geeks. And not much better than your idols like Hillary who talk out of both sides of thier mouths, but care only for fattening thier wallets and bank accounts.

At least Big Business Republican Greed is forthright and open about thier "greed"; scumbags like you lie to the people and treat them like mushrooms: feed them crap and keep them in the dark.

Really though: if you haven't anything constructive to add other than your typical 28% flat-earth trolling, do us a favour and shut yer yap.

Or better still, do Mother Earth a favour and slit your wrists lengthwise (remember: knife down the road, not accross the street) and free up some air for those of us who are actually producing something.

[Artie]

Ever notice that it's the loser guys who are afraid of feminism? How exactly has it destroyed generations (no less) of men? Unreal. I can see why they laughed you out of college.

[seekeronos]

Wait, Kite... you better say that the Earth is an "oblate spheroid" or the geometric nazis here will take you away in a cattle car. :P

[Kite]

No dinosaurs? In all my years of life on this "spherical" planet I have never heard ANYONE claim that dinosaurs didn't exist. Anyways, moving on! The arguement on what is causing a global warming trend IS a valid arguement and I can easily explain why. Here are a few reasons:

1)The consensus crowd claims that our lavish lifestyles in the west are the major contributors to global warming. SUV's, electricity, air conditioning, big big airplanes, and the other conveniences of our lives are under attack by a group of people who demand that we stop living how we are living. This reason alone demands objective arguements.

2)The scientists and the organizations behind such studies have been found, and proudly mind you, to be socialist groups and some even fall back in to the communist era. Instead of a scientific approach to the arguement the IPCC has made this a political issue. Yet another reason it demands scrutiny.

3)Hypocrisy. The same people who claim that man is behind the warming trend refuse to practice what they preach. How much jet fuel do they burn in to the atmosphere flying to their international meetings and junkits?

4)Because their is supporting evidence that shows that warming is natural and fluctuates with cosmic radiation and sun output. The earth has cooled many times in the past and has warmed up many times in the past. Medieval cooling period, Ice age, Climate shifts have been apparent in the past, but all came from natural means.

There's just a few reasons why there should be an arguement. It's not only a scientific debacle but it's an assualt on capitalism. If someone REALLY wanted to clean up the enviroment they should start recycling instead of burying their trash or replanting trees after they are cut down. THAT is real conservation....not complaining about greenhouse gases.

[Artie]

I think that it's constructive to remind you 28%ers of just what an isolated bunch of kooks you are. Look at how much it bothers you. The suicide comment is interesting - wonder what made you think of that? You cons are complex little sheep, aren't you? Anyway, take care, stay the course and complete the mission.

[Dan Riehl]

"afraid of feminism"

Afraid? I don't think so. But it is funny how guys without balls tend to suck up to it.

[TheSpartan]

My apologies. "Spherical" is what I should have said, but that's as close to grasping at straws as you can get man. The sun isn't "exactly" round either but that doesnt stop people from SAYING it's round. For future info it's flat on the top and the bottom (the sun that is).

Still..that's it? A grammatical error? I used the wrong adjective and that is supposed to demean my actual post? Hardly! Insulting my mediocre grammer skills isn't gaining you any points.

Actually I wasn't really trying to insult you and what I corrected had nothing to do with grammar. Besides "round" isn't typically a 3d description it is generally used to describe a 2d shade, "shperical" adds the 3rd dimension as "cube" does to "square" etc.

[Carl]

It's ARGUMENT, not ARGUEMENT. Where did you go, a bible college?? What a dumbass!

[TheSpartan]

Trust me Dan, I have plenty of "balls" and I have zero problem with feminism. If that equates to "sucking up" in your world, so be it.

[TheSpartan]

And it's "grammar", but whatever.

[Artie]

Dan's just insecure because he wears a rug. Who can blame him.

[Kite]

I'm not a loser guy. I have my personal failings..sure..who doesn't, but because I notice that feminism has had some negative effects doesn't mean i'm a "loser guy".

Sure, women have come a loooong way and rightfully so, but the change was so dire and immediate that while it liberated one gender it began to shackle the other. Men have been reduced to "useless beasts" by todays standards and I have the data to support my claims.

In today's world the woman can do anything she wants. CEO? done. Machinist? done. Ditch digger? if she wants too..she can do it. Even in procreation a man has been reduced to the "tool" status. All we have to do is donate and women don't even have to have sex anymore! Is this a sob story? not quite. I still work my back-end off to try and support my family like a good husband but in the end thats as far as my usefulness goes.

Onec upon a time the woman was at home taking care of children. She didn't HAVE to work because the man did that so she didn't have too. Was that such an oppresive lifestyle? the way some women scream today you would think it was hell on earth but I can hardly agree that not-working and still being fed and loved is hell or oppression. However, the shoe can't go on the other foot. Men can't begin to fulfill the mother role without being seen as weak or feeling as such. Women prefer strong men, but on the other hand they wan't their men subordinate....those two don't mix. ever.

Was feminism a bad idea? No...it gave women a voice but the movement became so militant and rushed that it turned men from the strong caregivers that we had always believed we were supposed to be to a directionless gender that has been reduced to nothing more than a tool for procreation.

[bill g]

Yeah, just because almost every scentist thinks something, does that make it science?

I think people like rush limbaugh know more about global climate change than most nobel winning global climate scientists. Just because the smartest guys who've spent thier lives studying this phenomenon have come to agee on something, why should that change the minds of those who -- by the way -- happen to prfit from the scientists being wrong?

[LOL]

what if scientists were getting money beforehand for their global warming research? what if the people giving them checks wanted a certain result?

http://www.playfuls.com/news_09_2955-Exxon-tied-to-payoff-to-rap-global-warming.html

What if a big powerful organization was censoring views on global warming too?

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-11/1170221934213820.xml&coll=1

Isn't it funny how the right's talking points of
1. scientists only doing the research for the money
2. people censoring scientific views they don't like

are true for them? But will there be an outrage over this? Not likely

[seekeronos]

Funny thing that is... scientists taking hush money or doing research in support of thier employers' goals for a paycheck. And here I thought scientists could simply stand around and photosynthesize thier own food supply.

And folks censoring news and views they don't like? Well, that is probably older than the Hittite Empire.

Power and money are great motivators, whether you are on the right or left.

As for me, I'll side with the right since for the time being, their way of taking care of business happens to mesh quite nicely with my notions of freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. :)

[charles]

LOL

both of those articles are crap

i watched waxmans hearings the other day and my impressions don't quite mesh with the statements in that article

try again

[scarshapedstar]

"The consensus crowd claims that our lavish lifestyles in the west are the major contributors to global warming. SUV's, electricity, air conditioning, big big airplanes, and the other conveniences of our lives are under attack by a group of people who demand that we stop living how we are living."

Straw man. We could have all of these conveniences and more, forever, if we could just get off of fossil fuels.

Honestly, I just don't understand what you guys think is going to happen when the oil runs out. Nobody's coming to save us. 200 years may sound like a long time but the clock IS ticking and things will get ugly well before then. Every day that goes by without a Manhattan Project level initiative for perpetual renewable energy... it's just irresponsible and insane. With any luck the European fusion reactor will have some success, but if not, we've got to start thinking about what combination of solar, wind, and water based energy will keep things running.

When I was a kid, we said this country could do anything. When did that change and why?

[charles]

"When I was a kid, we said this country could do anything. When did that change and why?"

it changed when peoples feelings became more important than actual thought or rational debate

as to the why, i can't answer that - why don't you give it a go

[LOL]

so the articles are crap because you say so charles? care to elaborate--i doubt you can

[charles]

why thanks for asking LOL

it cuts to the quick that you doubt me - i don't know how i could live with myself if i didn't reply

thus,,,,,,

read the first article again while keeping this quote in the forefront of your thoughts

"The memo asked scientists to "highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC process, especially as it bears on potential policy responses to climate change," CNN said."

crap or not crap

you decide

maybe we'll deal with the hearing article next

anxiously awaiting your oh so polite reply

[Kite]

You know Scar...I'll agree with you there.

We DO need an initiative to help reduce our dependance on oil based products. I'm all for the fusion reactor and nuclear power...it's abundant and it powers ALOT of devices at a time. However, the current ideas of alternate energy is nothing short of a pipe dream.

Ethanol is a doomed project. The crop industry will suffer greatly from it and to produce enough of it to fuel all of the automobiles in the US, and possibly the world, it will take a massive crop surge like none has ever seen, but what if there was a drought? or perhaps locusts came and ate everything? or what if there was a planet disease that killed off our supply? You think gas prices are high now....you just wait.

Besides....Ethanol robs another source to replace a source which only has one purpose. Corn is already used as food and other things where Oil is used for what? lubricants and fuels. Thats about it aside from smaller projects.

You make water a fuel? awesome...im all over it. Although I refuse to put a mini-reactor in my car to power it....could you imagine the fender benders from that one? you hit a power pole and the only thing that survives is cockroaches and twinkies. :P

But seriously, my true point is that the enviromentalist crowd doesnt really care how convenient our lives are...they wish to change us at any cost without thinking of the economic consequences. You put the oil business out of business and how many people lose their jobs? how much inflow of cash to the american economy do we lose? billions. We can't just turn this boat on a dime people....we NEED oil and will always need it. Perhaps we can reduce out dependance on it by switching some processes to alternate fuels, but if the enviromentalists think that we can just STOP using oil they are wrong.

Besides...the clock is only ticking for those -known- oil reserves. There are oil shells and crude oil deposits all over the world that im sure no one has even come close to finding. We have plenty of it....we just cant go get it right now.

[LOL]

well it seems someone is unable to do their own research on the internet...

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1876538,00.html
http://snowe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=9acba744-802a-23ad-47be-2683985c724e
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2004230,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=11

are you this helpless in your day to day life?

[templar knight]

Uh, Spartan, your buddies jumped me the other day for misspelling a word. Get that mote out, you can't see a damn thing. Including the hypocrisy of the Left.

Oh, yeah, I'm back from my ditch digging, and does it ever pay. Or I suppose it does, cause I like these digs. Actually, I do dig ditches, in a way. I work for an oil company, and we have been digging, digging, digging for the past 18 months now. We have doubled our proven reserves, and just drilled the best well we've ever had. (400bopd through a 7/16 choke for you uninitiated) Now that's a dandy.