Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Bill Dundas
5 years 3 months ago

I think Maher’s comments are the best retort I’ve ever seen to the anti-science blather of global warming deniers. I suspect that it won’t be too long before people will be embarrassed to admit that they ever disputed the obvious reality of global climate change.

Cornelius Froese
5 years 10 months ago

Two separate points here:

1) the media coverage of the original climategate furor was huge. The media coverage of the eventual inquiry and its findings that there really was no scandal, no factual distortion of science was much, much smaller.

2) There cannot be am assumption that there is a direct dynamic between population and the production of greenhouse gases. The highly affluent North American who eats steaks, has a house and a cottage, one car and one SUV, one speedboat and one powered snow sled is producing massively more greenhouse gases than the North African farmer producing a small crop of sorghum.

Lorraine
5 years 10 months ago

If I were to base my opinion not on what scientists say or the public says about Global Warming, I would conclude that climate change is a definite possibility. Based on the fact that in the past we went through an ice age without exact proof as to why, it is entirely possible that we may go through another extreme weather change at some point. Just as humans have evolved and changed, the earth has also evolved and changed. We will continue to evolve and so will the earth. Whether it is man made or man has sped up the change, bears no point on the fact that the earth will undergo change. If it is entirely man made, perhaps we can negate some of the ill effects. The number one reasonable thing to do would be to stop procreating. I believe this is the true reason why people will turn a blind eye to the idea that climate change is occurring.

Mike
5 years 10 months ago

Hey Ian,

I was referring specifically to your headlined quote. However, as a scientist, I don’t think it does our side much good to reinforce science’s aura of ivory tower objectivity. The aura of objectivity, itself, delegitimizes equally valid forms of social knowledge (which, removed from what is acceptable to bourgeois academia, might be seen as scientific, small ‘s’). What makes global warming valid as a theory is not the imprimatur of the man (usually) in the lab coat, but that it is true. And, that truth is just as tangible and testable and repeatable to the Pakistani peasant as it is to the man (usually) in the lab coat (beyond issues of scale). therefore, why (but for the class function of academia) should “science” be seen as more valid than the observations (“votes”) of those Pakistani peasant?

5 years 11 months ago

I think the pointy end of the argument is directed at the deniers, not the victims. It’s true science is not ruled by consensus or majority vote or whatever: it’s determined by method and observation.

Mike
5 years 11 months ago

Sorry Ian, but Maher is an Obamite liberal and the statement you quoted reflects his elitism of the liberal intelligentsia. What about the Pakistani flood victims? They don’t get a vote in the climate debate?

wpDiscuz