Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Dumbest quote

It's only March, but it is hard to imagine much will top this from Dan McGee about global warming science as the dumbest quote of the year:
“This is all flawed and it’s based on flawed everything. This is a lie. Call it what it is.”

Obviously, all science is open to debate, more or less, and people who wish to dispute the evidence ought to have at it. But to argue that every bit of global warming evidence is either flawed or a lie or both is pretty doggone wacky.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

David, I agree. But Dan has never been the sharpest tool in the box. In any event, common sense tells one that 6+ billion people with all of our factories, waste, pollution has got to have some effect.

Vince said...

Sue Dickenson's comment about the stork is priceless.

Dave Rye said...

Dan McGee has a degree in geology. He probably knows more about the subject than did anyone else in the room at the EQC meeting.

How easy it is to throw out slurs such as "never been the sharpest tool in the box" under the cloak of anonymity. The truth is that Dan McGee is very smart indeed, so I suspect it is Dan's consistent, principled, and articulate conservatism that grates on anonymous.

Chuck Rightmire said...

Actually, Dave, he may have had a degree in geology, but apparently he hasn't practiced in a long time. And he's also behind the Republican times because even the head ignoramus has finally admitted that humans are causing global warming. And a geologist is not truly a scientist unless he practices science instead of just finding rocks. He's at best a form of engineer and engineers make science work, but they don't do science.

6 Generations said...

I don't know Dan McGee, but I do know that a degree in geology does not establish one's expertise on global warming.

Mr. McGee's records indicate that he graduated from Louisiana State University in 1969 with a bachelor of science degree. Other than that, he's taken some post-graduate courses in hydrology. How does that record stack up against University of Montana professor Steven Running, who shares the Nobel Prize on the topic, has a Ph.d in foresty ecophysiology and who has conducted research on global warming? Or the thousands of other scientists who have studied global warming directly, have conducted research, and have had their findings reviewed, critiqued, examined and discussed by their peers?

When such a large number of scientists around the globe believe that global warming is a problem and that the problem is exacerbated, or even caused, by human behavior, smart people--no matter what their background, education, or political persuasion--ought to sit up and listen. A "very smart. . . consistent, principled, and articulate" conservative would surely have something more profound to say than that global warming is "a lie."

Anonymous said...

To Dave Rye: A quote I once read seems applicable here. "While each of us is entitled to our own opinion, we are not entitled to our own set of facts." Thus, for example, one could still say, "in my opinion, the earth is flat." As to this topic, the fact is that there are 6+ billion people on this earth and we do "create" a could deal of waste, such as plastic bottles, CO2, chemicals. The question is: does man and all of his byproducts have a positive effect on the environment? absolutely "zero" effect? or some negative effect? I don't see how a rational person could conclude we have a positive effect and a "zero" effect would seem highly unlikely. The conclusion is that it has to be a negative effect. Now the question is "how negative"?

Anonymous said...

Rye, I sent the last post too fast. I should also add that I don't know how logic can be considered politically conservative, middle of the road or liberal. Maybe you can explain??

Dave Rye said...

Follow Chuck Rightmire's good example on this subject, and in my arguments with him on several others: be courageous enough to sign your name to your post, and civil enough to address me by my first name instead of my last, and I will.

Anonymous said...

Dan McGee and has a degree in geology and Roy Brown has a degree in Petroleum Engineering and neither are working in the oil business.

Draw your won conclusions.

Mark T said...

Intelligence is overrated, but lack of curiosity is a fatal flaw. Bush lacks curiosity, and apparently so does McGee. He obviously knows nothing about the subject, and is sputtering about what he apparently believes to be a conspiracy involving thousands of people spanning continents and disciplines.

I know some very smart people who think the earth is 6,000 years old.

Chuck Rightmire said...

Mark: I think that you've just made an oxymoron. Anyone who thinks the world is only 6,000 years old is not very smart.

Anonymous said...

I believe the planet has warmed a bit over the last century, and man has contributed to that warming. But I don't know the extent of man's contribution.

I wonder if those here who know the science -- and there seem to be many -- could tell me the scientific consensus on how much man is contributing to global warming. Is it 100 percent? 80 percent? 60 percent? 40 percent? Or some other number?

I've never seen a number, and it would seem to be important to get an answer before coming up with solutions. For example, hypothetically speaking, say we learn that sunspots are responsible for 30 percent of global warming; wildfires, 30 percent; man (burning fossil fuels), 20 percent; and other causes, including methane from livestock, 20 percent. Under that scenario, we might want to put a great effort into suppressing wildfires and dealing with livestock, instead of putting all our effort into reducing the burning of fossil fuels.

Anyway, I'd appreciate knowing the percentage. There must be a pretty good ballpark figure, at least, with all the research that's been done and all the "consensusing" that's taken place. And I assume many of you here know the answer since you have obviously followed this issue closely.

Anonymous said...

I'm still hoping to learn how much of global warming is caused by man. Anyone?

Anonymous said...

I was hoping someone would know the answer to my question. I figured that, with so many folks who "know" that Republicans are wrong about the science of global warming, they must know what science says about how much man is contributing to the problem.

Of course, maybe folks are just bored by the question or have moved on, but I'll still toss out the question again because I'm genuinely interested. It seems like an important question to answer, before we run off to implement solutions. How can you fix a problem before you know what the problem is?

David said...

Anonymous 10:11,
I don't think anyone knows the answer to your question, although I am sure there are people who would be happy to give you a ballpark figure. But the fact is, climate is extraordinarily complex and the different factors that make it up interact in complicated and not fully understood ways.

My quarrel is not with anyone who raises doubts about the significance of human-caused global warning. My quarrel is with those who dismiss all of the science backing up global warming as a pack of lies.

That's crazy and irresponsible.

Anonymous said...

Thanks.

My feeling is that there's so many harsh things being said at both ends of the spectrum that it makes it almost impossible to have a reasonable conversation.

I'll agree that it doesn't do much good to say that the science on global warming is all a pack of lies (although we do have to be open to the possibility that some of it is flawed).

Likewise, I don't think advocates such as Al Gore or Robert Kennedy help when they suggest global-warming critics are Nazis, or when the Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki advocates jailing political leaders who resist efforts to fight global warming.