5 ms·

I gave up after the 3rd paragraph. So much anger. It just sets the reader up to expect that the rest of the article will be biased. Why write an article this

I gave up after the 3rd paragraph. So much anger. It just sets the reader up to expect that the rest of the article will be biased. Why write an article this way? If the data is really on your side, just present it.

j_baker 17y ago
I think that saying that the author will be biased towards a view of man-made global warming is a bit like saying someone will be biased against the world being flat or that the sun rotates around the earth.
- krschultz 17y ago
  Except that the world has been experimentally (and later observed to be) proven to be round, and we have experimentally (and later observed to be) rotating around the sun. There are no experiments proving global warming, and no observations that match the predictive models well. So it is just a theory. Theories have been wrong many times before. It may be right, but comparing it to rock solid facts like those is simply ignorant of the state of the science. It is probably right, but we don't know that for sure.
  - jamesbritt 17y ago
    "So it is just a theory." As in Theory of Evolution, or Theory of Gravity? I think you meant "hypothesis" or "conjecture". I don't want to put words in your mouth; I'm frustrated by the widely varying possible meanings of the word "theory" that makes some discussion more confusing than need be.
    - viggity 17y ago
      I don't call it the theory of gravity, I call it the Law of Gravity. Or the Newtonian Laws of Physics. A theory, in the general sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of observations. A Law is a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature Laws are predicated on reproducible experiments. An idea is a theory before the experimental evidence is amassed and confirmed.
quoderat 17y ago
I think it's pretty natural to be angry when so many people are so cluelessly inveighing against something both so harmful and so scientifically obvious.
- jasonkester 17y ago
  Be careful not to let emotion enter in to issues like this. And be especially careful before using terms like "scientifically obvious". Scary things lie at the end of that road: http://www.crichton-official.com/essay-stateoffear-whypoliticizedscienceisdangerous.html http://www.crichton-official.com/essay-stateoffear-whypoliti...
  - quoderat 17y ago
    I would give that thought a lot more credence if you'd linked to a scientist, rather than Michael Crichton in the height of disingenuousness (on his part). Scary things lie at the end of that road if they are unsupported by the evidence. Unfortunately, all the evidence points to anthropogenic climate change.
mynameishere 17y ago
And the anger is always against the same culprits: Westerners who don't want their standard of living destroyed. Why not get angry at China, India, and Africa, all of whose people aren't going to spend 5 seconds worrying about "global warming" when it means never becoming modernized? The answer is straightforward: China, India, and Africa are not political opponents of global warming fetishists.

j_baker 17y ago

I think that saying that the author will be biased towards a view of man-made global warming is a bit like saying someone will be biased against the world being flat or that the sun rotates around the earth.

krschultz 17y ago
Except that the world has been experimentally (and later observed to be) proven to be round, and we have experimentally (and later observed to be) rotating around the sun. There are no experiments proving global warming, and no observations that match the predictive models well. So it is just a theory. Theories have been wrong many times before. It may be right, but comparing it to rock solid facts like those is simply ignorant of the state of the science. It is probably right, but we don't know that for sure.
- jamesbritt 17y ago
  "So it is just a theory." As in Theory of Evolution, or Theory of Gravity? I think you meant "hypothesis" or "conjecture". I don't want to put words in your mouth; I'm frustrated by the widely varying possible meanings of the word "theory" that makes some discussion more confusing than need be.
  - viggity 17y ago
    I don't call it the theory of gravity, I call it the Law of Gravity. Or the Newtonian Laws of Physics. A theory, in the general sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of observations. A Law is a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature Laws are predicated on reproducible experiments. An idea is a theory before the experimental evidence is amassed and confirmed.

quoderat 17y ago

I think it's pretty natural to be angry when so many people are so cluelessly inveighing against something both so harmful and so scientifically obvious.

jasonkester 17y ago
Be careful not to let emotion enter in to issues like this. And be especially careful before using terms like "scientifically obvious". Scary things lie at the end of that road: http://www.crichton-official.com/essay-stateoffear-whypoliticizedscienceisdangerous.html http://www.crichton-official.com/essay-stateoffear-whypoliti...
- quoderat 17y ago
  I would give that thought a lot more credence if you'd linked to a scientist, rather than Michael Crichton in the height of disingenuousness (on his part). Scary things lie at the end of that road if they are unsupported by the evidence. Unfortunately, all the evidence points to anthropogenic climate change.

mynameishere 17y ago

And the anger is always against the same culprits: Westerners who don't want their standard of living destroyed. Why not get angry at China, India, and Africa, all of whose people aren't going to spend 5 seconds worrying about "global warming" when it means never becoming modernized? The answer is straightforward: China, India, and Africa are not political opponents of global warming fetishists.