“I listened to about 2/3 of the podcast. Though I disagreed with several of Mark Schermer’s points, I let them pass. I don’t agree with anyone 100% of the time. I was a little concerned when they went after the Catholic Church during the Dark Ages. Yes, things weren’t great and the Church certainly made mistakes, some serious. However, the Catholic monks actually recorded much of what was known, so that it could be accessed later.
The worst part was the discussion on global warming. I guess the fact that there has not been any warming in the last 18+ years wasn’t important. I guess the fact that NONE of the models has come anywhere close to predicting reality wasn’t important. I guess he never saw Jurassic Park or, at least did not understand what the lawyer meant when he said ‘a butterfly flaps its wings in Hong Kong and rains in San Francisco’ - he has demonstrated a complete lack of understand of the science of Chaos (see Chaos by James Gleick). I guess it doesn’t bother him that CO2 comprises 0.04% of the total gases in the atoms, much less than the 4% water vapor (another greenhouse gas) in the troposphere. It doesn’t bother him that attributing all of the temperature rise to CO2 is about the same as saying ‘you must be Norse since you have blue eyes’; there are hundreds or thousands of variables that contribute to temperature of which ONE is CO2.
How can I believe anything he said if he gets the climate science wrong? And he’s skeptical? Uh, no.”
N_led_1 via Apple Podcasts ·
United States of America ·
02/02/15