Comments on: “Reality-Based” Obamaian Science Advice

By: scarshapedstar

scarshapedstar — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 21:37:03 +0000

You’re going to have a really hard time convincing anyone that Obama is doing a worse job than a guy who claimed – in the 21st century – that the “jury is still out” on evolution.

A really, really, really hard time.

By: scarshapedstar

scarshapedstar — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 21:35:58 +0000

1) The earth is big. The atmosphere is not. If the earth were a typical elementary school globe, and you put a layer of saran-wrap over it, that’s how thick the atmosphere is.

2) A “1% change in it’s [sic] atmosphere”? I’m not sure what this is supposed to mean, but I’m going to assume that you didn’t study much environmental science or biology, or even math, for that matter. CO2 makes up less than one percent of the atmosphere; nobody disputes that. However, when the CO2 concentration increases by 35%, as it has since the industrial revolution, that is not “a 1% change”. That is a 35% change.

If you think my reasoning is faulty, here, I propose a simple experiment. Your water supply contains considerably less than 1% lead, I hope. Anyway, by the “1% hypothesis” you’re proposing, if you added 1% lead to your water supply, it should be perfectly drinkable. After all, it’s only 1%! Do you want to test this? Why or why not?

By: deepredpatriot

deepredpatriot — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 20:41:20 +0000

All this so called evidence for global warming, etc is obviously bogus. Any person with common sense can understand the Earth is too big to be affected by a 1% change in it’s atmosphere. I don’t buy it.

By: Alberta

Alberta — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 18:30:44 +0000

“Julian Simon’s ghost would make a better White House Science Adviser than would John Holdren.”

Is it a joke when its true?

By: momac

momac — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 15:14:10 +0000

It’s not even just being wrong, although that’s the way they’d like to play i. Like it was a bad stock pick or something.

It’s a fundamental disconnect with history, with human ingenuity, and with reality. And somehow I doubt he’s recanted his beliefs about the sustainability of civilization in general.

He’s just another static-pie, pessimistic, idealogue. Nothing scientific about him.