Links
Archives
- 01/01/2004 - 02/01/2004
- 11/01/2004 - 12/01/2004
- 12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005
- 01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005
- 02/01/2005 - 03/01/2005
- 03/01/2005 - 04/01/2005
- 04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005
- 05/01/2005 - 06/01/2005
- 06/01/2005 - 07/01/2005
- 07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005
- 08/01/2005 - 09/01/2005
- 09/01/2005 - 10/01/2005
- 10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005
- 11/01/2005 - 12/01/2005
- 12/01/2005 - 01/01/2006
- 01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006
- 02/01/2006 - 03/01/2006
- 03/01/2006 - 04/01/2006
- 04/01/2006 - 05/01/2006
- 05/01/2006 - 06/01/2006
- 06/01/2006 - 07/01/2006
- 07/01/2006 - 08/01/2006
- 08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006
- 09/01/2006 - 10/01/2006
- 10/01/2006 - 11/01/2006
- 11/01/2006 - 12/01/2006
- 12/01/2006 - 01/01/2007
- 01/01/2007 - 02/01/2007
- 02/01/2007 - 03/01/2007
- 03/01/2007 - 04/01/2007
- 04/01/2007 - 05/01/2007
- 07/01/2007 - 08/01/2007
- 08/01/2007 - 09/01/2007
- 09/01/2007 - 10/01/2007
- 10/01/2007 - 11/01/2007
- 07/01/2008 - 08/01/2008
A tribute to Condoleeza Rice and George W. Bush who, despite voluminious evidence to the contrary, said, "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile," adding that "even in retrospect" there was "nothing" to suggest that" and "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees," respectively.
Monday, June 20, 2005
George Will is a Pedantic Putz
He began yesterday on This Week, "They are almost as united today and almost as certain today that global warming is a threat as 30 years ago, they were certain global cooling was a threat." .
What he's attempting to do is discredit today's findings by relating scientific concerns of 30 years ago, and by extension, infer that today's scientific consensus must be wrong, again.
What he fails to mention:
30 additional years of environmental observation.
Advances in monitoring technologies and techniques.
30 additional years of greenhouse gas emissions.
Advanced computer modeling available today.
But mostly he fails to make the logical leap that this reversal in scientific thinking isn't because they were wrong then, but because they're right now. This "reversal" from a new ice age to concerns about global warming is actually evidence that man's activity on the planet can indeed affect the whole planet. If you adopt the premise that they were not "wrong" 30 years ago, your conclusion is completely different.
We already knew that Will is ethically challenged, now it appears he's intellectually challenged as well.
|
What he's attempting to do is discredit today's findings by relating scientific concerns of 30 years ago, and by extension, infer that today's scientific consensus must be wrong, again.
What he fails to mention:
30 additional years of environmental observation.
Advances in monitoring technologies and techniques.
30 additional years of greenhouse gas emissions.
Advanced computer modeling available today.
But mostly he fails to make the logical leap that this reversal in scientific thinking isn't because they were wrong then, but because they're right now. This "reversal" from a new ice age to concerns about global warming is actually evidence that man's activity on the planet can indeed affect the whole planet. If you adopt the premise that they were not "wrong" 30 years ago, your conclusion is completely different.
We already knew that Will is ethically challenged, now it appears he's intellectually challenged as well.
