But, he was really good in Blood Diamond. That has to be at least equivalent to a masters, doesn’t it?

Left by kma on May 20th, 2007 at 3:35 pm

Do we all have to have a PhD in Meteorology to have an opinion on global warming?

You might be interested to know that the overwhelming majority of scientists believe global warming to be a real problem. You might also be interested to know that the American Meteorological Society has stated the following: “There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth’s surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change… Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases… Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems.”

You see, if you want to bury your head in the sand on global warming, that is your right, but you really shouldn’t try to act like science is on your side. It isn’t.

Left by Dan on May 20th, 2007 at 5:30 pm

Global Scamming

Left by kma on May 20th, 2007 at 6:26 pm

KMA - congrats on finding a few people who are in the miniscule minority. Do you contend that a majority of scientists do not believe in global warming? Because, if you do, you are horribly mistaken.

Left by Dan on May 20th, 2007 at 7:05 pm

Global Warming Caused By Leftard Hot Air

Left by kma on May 20th, 2007 at 7:23 pm

And, he was absolutely brilliant in “The Aviator”.

Left by dianne on May 20th, 2007 at 9:19 pm

KMA - did you read the article? Rambling, unconvincing nonsense, that never really denies that the consensus is that it’s a problem. If you have read more by the author, you’ss see that he agrees there’s warming, but denies the extent of the problem, and claims it’s too expensive to solve.

Really, people, it’s not a scientific controversy anymore. Let’s move on and discuss what we should be doing.

It’s not like this problem (unlike Iraq) is all the fault of Bush or the Republicans. We’re in this one together . . .

Left by Dan on May 20th, 2007 at 10:24 pm

Clue to Dan - the earth warms and cools in cycles. How much, if any, is due to human intervention is unproven. Whether it is actually a problem is contested. I just realized I was wrong about global warming not being caused by man. Every time you post, the temperature goes up half a degree. Really, stop with the doomsday predictions that are nothing but the politicalization of science. I’m still waiting for the return of the ice age that the moonbats of 30 years ago swore was coming and would end life as we know it.

Left by kma on May 20th, 2007 at 10:32 pm

KMA - why are you insulting me?

It seems like people tend to resort to insults when they are insecure.

I agree that the earth warms and cools in cycles, and the precise amount of human causation is not certain. The fact of human causation is scientifically established, but not the exact amount.

I haven’t made any doomsday predictions - I like to think that we can work our way out of this dilemna. But not if we choose to bury our heads and deny that the science is clear.

Left by Dan on May 20th, 2007 at 10:38 pm

You make these insulting and dismissive posts when people disagree with you and then you whine when it’s pointed out you’re an alarmist blowhard??

Left by kma on May 20th, 2007 at 11:04 pm

KMA - I wasn’t whining, though I can see how you got that impression. I was attempting to point out that your answer had no substance. Really, my desire to be your best friend ranks right around your desire to be mine. Not way up there.

But, again, I can’t help but wonder why someone who is smart enough to type cannot agree that global warming is at least a man-enhanced phenomenon, and that rising sea levels and higher temperatures will unleash some serious problems for many of us.

Left by Dan on May 21st, 2007 at 7:58 am

After Dan’s latest post, the earth’s temperature rose another half degree. Happy?

Left by kma on May 21st, 2007 at 8:12 am

The problem here is that we have several crises to deal with all at the same time so where do you prioritize and where do you put your money? Defense/Terrorism? Global Warming? Illegal Immigration Social Costs? Katrina? Aids? Darfur? Poverty?

And then there’s those small potatoes items like food, gas, housing, education, etc. for our immediate families.

DiCaprio, Gore, Bush, and all of our Senators and Congressmen don’t have to worry about the small potatoes, but we do. And when it comes right down to it, I’m gonna worry about my family and the rest of the alarmists better damn well PROVE to me why I should change my priorities.

Left by dianne on May 21st, 2007 at 9:12 am

And, one more thing, many of the things outside of my small potatoes concerns of immediate family are very important to me because they will affect my family. So, I don’t discount them. I simply look at them in the context of how they will affect my immediate family. That is a personal decision and that is the basis on which I will make my decisions on who I will vote for and what causes I will support.

Left by dianne on May 21st, 2007 at 9:32 am

Dianne-

I think you set up a false choice. Americans fed and built homes for their families yet still managed to defeat the Nazis, and Communism, and clean the air and the water, and create a minimum wage, and put a man on the moon and a million other things.

Al Gore is proposing changes that are obviously meant to save Americans billions of dollars by avoiding the potential destruction of our cities and our agriculture. Even if the predictions of scientist are wrong the government investment in cleaner fuel technologies would have the benefits of cleaner air resulting in reduced health problems for asthmatic children and the rest of us.

Dan-
I think you should take the ad hominem attacks and the snarky responses as an admission of defeat. Congratulations.

Left by Preston on May 21st, 2007 at 10:04 am

Dianne -

That’s one of the most reasonable and well-stated positions I’ve seen in opposition to action concerning global warming. For the reasons stated by Preston, I disagree with you, but I wanted to acknowledge your response.

Preston - I think he just got in over his head.

Left by Dan on May 21st, 2007 at 10:26 am

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Left by Chicken Little on May 21st, 2007 at 10:42 am

False choice? There is one choice and that’s my family. This isn’t WW II or the years after when one person could be a breadwinner of the family. It’s a time when two people are struggling to support a family and there isn’t any more to give without dang good reason. Sure, there are choices, and I think we need to be smart enough and informed enough to make them and that’s what I expect.

Left by dianne on May 21st, 2007 at 11:23 am

Thank you, Dan

Left by dianne on May 21st, 2007 at 12:40 pm

dan and preston,

my apologies for interupting your warm fuzzy fest. i think i’m in way over my head, but let me just extend my congratulations for your defeat over all of the non believers. you strategically out-whitted the conspiring right powerhouse and have now shown us all the light! i have to go convert corn into fuel now; excuse me.

Left by adam on May 21st, 2007 at 6:40 pm

I linked to God knows how many phds in climatology, meteorology and geophysics. According to you, it’s way over their heads, too. They don’t get it but Dan, Pressy, the Goricle, and Leo do. lol.

Left by kma on May 21st, 2007 at 6:41 pm

KMA - again, the fact is that the overwhelming majority of scientists, your guy included, agree that man-enhanced global warming is reality.

And, frankly, I’d put more faith in Leo than I would in some anonymous blogger.

Left by Dan on May 21st, 2007 at 7:06 pm

dan,

but to what degree do scientists believe that man-enhanced global warming is a reality? there is, at very least, a speculative debate.

the truth is nobody knows, especially you!

Left by adam on May 22nd, 2007 at 10:19 am

It’s true that the exact amount is subject to debate. It is not subject to debate, however, that it is occuring and it is not subject to intelligent debate that it is time to undertake measures to decrease the impact.

And, really, it’s not “especially” me that doesn’t know the exact amount. What would lead you to make such a statement?

Left by Dan on May 22nd, 2007 at 1:35 pm

forget “the exact amount”. you and all of your scientists can’t agree on a specific quantitative range of effects. i think people who so adamantly assert that we should act, before we no more than we do currently, tend to be predisposed to overestimating the significance of human impact on the earth. it feels good to think i’m significant but that doesn’t mean that i always am.
this is another example of leftist ideaology trying to take the moral high ground but not being informed enough to do so.
i say, “especially you” because even after noting your own limited understanding (”and the precise amount of human causation is not certain”) you vehemently argue that “I like to think that we can work our way out of this dilemna. But not if we choose to bury our heads and deny that the science is clear.” so which is it? is the science clear or not?
how is this for having it both ways? “agree that global warming is at least a man-enhanced phenomenon, and that rising sea levels and higher temperatures will unleash some serious problems for many of us….I haven’t made any doomsday predictions”
how do we hold people like you accountable for the money you waste if, like your buddy preston says, the “destruction of our cities and our agriculture” occur after we’ve taken steps to prevent it. there’s a real possibility that nature will violently change life as we know it for reasons that have nothing to do with people.
please don’t misunderstand; i’m not suggesting complacence. i am recommending a healthy skepticism while humoring pretenda-activists with credentials like watching an inconveniant truth and a referance from preston.

Left by adam on May 22nd, 2007 at 4:45 pm

This is an awfully small fig leaf: i’m not suggesting complacence for your apparent disdain for the scientific process: you and all of your scientists …

Don’t you think the scientists who attribute global warming to human activities also have a healthy skepticism. Blanket denials of their findings suggest that you are simply unwilling to accede a point that is championed by the dirty fucking hippies.

Left by Preston on May 23rd, 2007 at 6:18 am

BTW, I love when global warming denialists pull out this one: I’m still waiting for the return of the ice age that the moonbats of 30 years ago swore was coming and would end life as we know it as if we should not believe the world is round because scientists once mistakenly proposed that it was flat.

Incidentally, the ice core data of historic temperatures did suggest that we were due for another ice age (in the next thousand years or so)- that’s what makes the reality of increasing temperatures so alarming.

Left by Preston on May 23rd, 2007 at 6:26 am

What I love is that those who swore we were on the brink of another ice age a short time ago, were as insistent , as obnoxious, and as politicized as you global warming chicken littles are today.

Left by kma on May 23rd, 2007 at 8:45 am

lil’ pres,

i knew you wouldn’t be able to refrain from more babble. unfortunately, i can’t dispute what is obviously misunderstood. noting a lack of consensus within the scientific community and endorsing a need for more detailed research before implementing a plan of action signifies “disdain”? another very poor attempt at spin but don’t give up; the rainbow coalition might still call!
if the scientists who attribute much of global warming to human causes have some published research, i would love to read it.

“Don’t you think the scientists who attribute global warming to human activities also have a healthy skepticism”: if they do, it sure isn’t apparent via you pretenda-activists on this board. what blanket denial did i make? as usual, your mistaken.

while we point out the errors in the leftist logic, i want to discuss your frequant self declaration: “dirty fucking hippies”. i assume you think that this is how i view you and ole’ dan-o. as much as you may want it to be, this is no longer 1968. the contemporary hippies are now just into live music and free-market subculture. i know because i’m often on tour with em’; they comprise much of my social network. how do you think i know that most of you bleeding hearts aren’t genuine activists? do us all a favor and don’t insult hippies by associating yourself with them. instead of “dirty fucking hippies”, try:
-bleeding hearts
-socialists
-lefties
-sissies
-jelly spines
-limosine liberals
-stomachless fish
-the big-mouthed but underinformed (my favorite)

any of these are more accurate!

Left by adam on May 23rd, 2007 at 10:11 am

I usually ask that you guys limit the ad hominem attacks on each other; it’s the weakest form of debate there is. But I don’t really care much if they’re tossed in my direction; I have thick skin.

If I didn’t want to open my self up to criticism, I wouldn’t allow comments at all.

Left by Robbie on May 24th, 2007 at 8:20 am

I admire Robbie’s thick skin, and his willingness to allow free-wheeling debate. Lots of bloggers don’t.

I’ve not whined about personal attacks - I agree with Robbie that they are usually used to defend a weak position. Sometimes they represent venting when your opponent is stunningly stupid, but, even then, some backup makes for a stronger point.

Also, I’d point out to KMA that different threads represent different conversations, just as different posts do. If Robbie were to post an analytical piece addressing housing rates for the poor, complete with statistics and projections, it would be foolish to respond with a simple “Bush is bad for the economy” without accompanying analysis. When Robbie does a post making fun of a celebrity for not having a PhD, it’s a little more understandable to mock him for not demonstrating much academic savvy himself.

Similarly, when he calls John Edwards names because John Edwards is a wealthy man who advocates for the poor, a name-calling response, while not necessarily the height of intellectual conversation, is more understandable.

When Robbie does a well-researched and well-argued post, like his post about the Freshmen in Congress and their tenuous commitment to higher ethical standards, you’re not going to see me jump in with a lightweight, name-calling response. I’ll either find the time to research it on my own and, if possible, correct mistakes or misquotes or flawed logic, or I’ll STFU until I can respond in a fashion matching the post.

Logical posts tend to attract more logical comments. Dumb posts tend to attract less logical comments.

Robbie attracts a lot of both kinds of comments because he’s interesting and varied. I’d be willing to bet that he would admit, over a drink or two, that some of his posts are silly provocations, made without much thought. Others reflect deeper analysis, and challenge those of us who tend to think differently.

Left by Dan on May 24th, 2007 at 9:52 am

ahhh, insightful!

dan rides robbies jock too!

Left by adam on May 24th, 2007 at 10:38 am

I’ve never “ridden a jock” in my life, Adam. Seems to be on the forefront of your mind, though. Not that there’s anything wrong with that . . .

Left by Dan on May 24th, 2007 at 12:09 pm

please keep me out of your deviant sexual fantasies! just because you condone people giving into degenerate impulsive urges, doesn’t mean i want to be included.

Left by adam on May 25th, 2007 at 10:31 am

Why R U so mean to leo

Left by I ? Leo on July 1st, 2008 at 12:07 pm

You’re not on the point here. Leonardo never claimed to be an environmental expert or anyting the likes. He calls himself instead a “concerned citizen”. I don’t know why you’re bashing him. He only tries to help. There’s nothing gained by discrediting him.
The debate about Global Warming is over - according to most of the people who really have the knowledge. What purpose does it serve to dispute over one or another percent of human impact? Global Warming is already there, many people feel its impact all over the world. The time for discussions is over. We have to ACT on it!!!

Left by dorianhunter on July 1st, 2008 at 3:42 pm

[...] citizen”. I don’t know why you’re bashing him. He only tries to help. … Source: Comment on Leonardo DiCaprio: Climate Change Expert by dorianhunter Who Would Be A Worse Mom? Paris or Lindsey? Vote Now And Get A Free iPhone. Leonardo Dicaprio [...]

Left by Leonardo Dicaprio Celebrity Gossip | Comment on Leonardo DiCaprio: Climate Change Expert by dorianhunter on July 2nd, 2008 at 10:51 am

That is very rude, saying that Leonardo DiCaprio doesn’t know a lot about climate change,maybe he was taught about it,by someone who did study climate change, how do u know he doesn’t, so don’t go to conclusions…why don’t u go and ask him about climate change, i’ll bet he will say things that u never even heared of (but would be true)
and who cares if he doesn’t have a high school deploma, what does that have to do with anything that ur talking about.you’re just like a bully.making yourself feel good by making (perhaps untrue) storys about someone, and HOW DARE you just call him just an actor i’m sure he is a very nice (and great-looking!!) person……so don’t be mean to Leo

Left by H on August 6th, 2008 at 11:25 am

sorry about the last comment this is what i ment to say, but it wouldn’t let me change it :
That is mean, saying that Leonardo DiCaprio doesn’t know a lot about climate change,maybe he was taught about it,by someone who did study climate change, how do u know he doesn’t, so don’t go to conclusions…
and who cares if he doesn’t have a high school deploma, what does that have to do with anything that your talking about.., and how dare you just call him just an actor i’m sure he is a very nice (and great-looking!!) person……so don’t be mean to Leo

Left by H on August 6th, 2008 at 11:43 am