Teenage Skeptic Takes on Climate Scientists

[Puglover]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89619306



Morning Edition, April 15, 2008 · If you're a scientist trying to convince people they are making the world warmer, Kristen Byrnes is your worst nightmare. She's articulate, intelligent, she has a Web site, and one day her people will be running the world. Her people, meaning 16-year-olds.

Kristen's Web site, "Ponder the Maunder," has made her a celebrity among climate skeptics. After she posted a critique of Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth, her Web site got so many hits the family's internet service provider sent them a warning.

Her story may dismay mainstream scientists, but plenty of people are friendly to her ideas.

In one poll last year, only about 50 percent of people agreed humans were contributing to global warming. The other half either disagreed, weren't sure or didn't believe the Earth was warming in the first place.

"I don't remember how old I was when I started getting into global warming," Kristen says. "In middle school I remember everyone was like: 'Global warming! The world is going to end!' Stuff like that ... so I never really believed in it."

NPR ran this dreck this morning while I was getting ready for work. I'd love other folks take on it.

[mwb970]

1. Missed the story, but wow.

Out of the mouths of babes comes right-wing crap. I like her reason for not "believing" a scientific fact, namely that everyone else did. Who can argue with such logic?

[bunkerbuster1]

2. It's drek like this that keeps me from listening to Nice Polite Republicans so much these days.

They have this ongoing need to provide a forum for some of the most pig-ignorant, Administration-friendly junk because they're all afraid of appearing "liberal."

That said, it's still miles ahead of my on-air radio options in the morning. But I prefer podcasts of Thom, Rachel and Peter B. Collins, even if they're a day old by the time I get to hearing them.

[PATRICK]

104. Something from the other side

of empty speculation. When did the Know Nothing Party disappear? When they got into office and had to do something, namely go chameleon and learn to fit into DC careers.

My offering is not exactly research based either, but a guess also based on human nature.

I think climate change is being drastically undersold, hopelessly warped. Science itself as an establishment is funded by, dedicated to and productive for the market economy and then perhaps the civil society. Scientists themselves, though more intelligent, are incredibly cut off from the political reality that really lays the groundwork for their entire vocation, schooling, careers, funding, projects, studies are all in the large picture bent toward the dominant world bias. Like reporters they think themselves to be doing their profession mostly unhindered and free. When they stray beyond the lab, mostly dedicated to big Pharma, business, infrastructure, agriculture, etc. they are shocked to get slapped down, misquoted, misunderstood and trashed in general when something flies- not just in the face of common human frailties- but against the system they hardly realize they serve.

What we get in the aggregate is optimism, caution, reticence, retreat to the long drawn out Scientific method when the immediate heat is applied(with such methods suspended under pressure for profits versus human risk). In such a slant that afflicts all human institutions that take a buck, I think you are most likely to get a range of information and judgment ranging from total optimism to the need for serious changes. The disaster outliers almost exist as Chicken Little drama even though by the bias factor they are more likely to be on the money so long as their science(such as they can do against the feelgood mainstream). They can be heard mostly by appealing to shock value instead of balanced coverage
Afterward everything swings back to thinking 98% based on cockeyed optimism and the fact the austere scientific community is not shouting loud enough in unison- which it won't. In science optimism and pessimism of this sort is not compatible with the job. That whole measuring stick is dangerously debilitating and absurd. Minus the Chicken Little trappings it is most probable, under the usual suppressed truth about reality, that survival and disaster management is the most provident course of action. That the pendulum groans away to not even allow the "middle ground" of doomed sustainability is self revealing self fulfilling descent into the consequences of Mammon fantasy and baseless faith.

To test this theory one sits back and systematically checks out the facts as they develop- unfortunately too late to reap any good policy from. The signs one would expect are things happening worse and faster with direr consequences and projections than "anyone" had predicted before- with lots of alarm, some excuses, little correction of the main conversation at all. The alarm factor arouses the most people but the facts cement it. This bypasses the MSM feelgood norm and the authorities become alarmed, reactionary, dumber than bricks by necessity. Repression slows down the logical consequences or needed actions. The happy profit mode reestablishes itself this time by suppressing the majority with the minority because the POWER of the establishment itself is rooted in neither reality nor people whether science can sustain illusions or not. Topsy turvy the outliers(not even reputable scientists or even intelligent adults) are now the optimists but with full mainstream support and speaking in calm mainstream chuckleheadedness backed by gobs of MSM and money. We'll see what money can by and capitalist rooted science can do when our main cities are twenty feet underwater. Mostly fodder for the residual infotainment I suppose.

As the world goes to hell. Reliance at this stage on things "working out" for the mainstream who are not only misinformed but repressed on the crude reality based instincts still allowed them, I would guess, is going to produce a truly massive and varied dying out on the big blue marble. The 16 year old will, if lucky, get to see which of us is right.

[Iris]

130. Actually, it was nicely done. Any thinking person listening to the report could see how pathetic

the anti-global warming folks are that they are really excited to have a website compilation of internet "printouts" of a 15 year old supporting their idea that global-warming is non-exisistent.

And at the end of the story, Steve Inskeep gleefully told listeners they could read more of the findings of the 300+ scientists who believe that global-warming is indeed a crisis and that they have evidence showing people contribute to it at NPR.org.


The 15-year old, on the other hand, doesn't want to be an "environmentalist" because it reminds her of "hippies."

[SteinbachMB]

3. Excellent

The brainwashing of showing "A Convenient Lie", or whatever, in schools around the world needs at least some opposition.

[Richard Steele]

4. M'kay...

:eyes:

[leftchick]

6. are you for real?

perhaps you need to read this....

Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" Movie: Fact or Hype?
Stefan Lovgren
for National Geographic News
Updated May 25, 2006

The message in An Inconvenient Truth, the new movie starring former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, is clear: Humans are causing global warming, and the effects are devastating.

Most scientists agree that the Earth is heating up, due primarily to an atmospheric increase in carbon dioxide caused mainly by the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum.

But how accurate are some of the scientific claims made in the documentary?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/060524-global-warming.html

[SteinbachMB]

12. Al Gore, the great climate scientist?

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

[SidDithers]

21. THAT's your source?...

You're gonna go with the Heartland Institute? Really?

Q: What is the mission of The Heartland Institute?

Printer Friendly

A: The mission of The Heartland Institute is to discover and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Such solutions include parental choice in education, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies.

You do know that they're funded almost completely by the energy and tobacco industries, right? Oh, and don't forget the foundations, like the Scaife Foundation, that also contribute.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute

It's easy to dismiss you as a RW shill when you bring this kind of crap to the discussion.

Now, back under your bridge.

Sid

[SteinbachMB]

24. The British Court ruled on the errors.

Funded by.....

[SidDithers]

29. So, why didn't you link to the British court?...

Why did you source the Heartland Institute?

Sid

[SteinbachMB]

41. That link has more info in it.

There are other links to this, but the one I posted was the most complete listing of errors.

[SidDithers]

48. The British Court found 9 errors in An Inconvenient Truth...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7037671.stm

Your "source" lists 35. Don't use the British Court to support the industry sourced ramblings from the Heartland Institute. That's just as dishonest as the dreck you're posting as "research".

Sid

Edit: and here's what the British Government representative had to say:

Children's Minister Kevin Brennan had earlier said: "It is important to be clear that the central arguments put forward in An Inconvenient Truth, that climate change is mainly caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases and will have serious adverse consequences, are supported by the vast weight of scientific opinion.

"Nothing in the judge's comments today detract from that."

[SteinbachMB]

49. You don't have to agree with it.

And I don't have to agree with Gore about everything he says .

Verstehen?

[SidDithers]

51. You're welcome to disagree with Gore...

about whatever you want. But when you post right-wing, free-market, energy-industry-funded bullshit to support your position, as you did above, then be prepared to have your source, and their ideas, aggressively challenged.

Sid

[SteinbachMB]

56. Duly noted.

[johnaries]

118. Yes, the British Court found the film "wholy factual"

with only a few minor errors and allowed it to be shown in schools. The film won this case, don't try and twist it around to make it sound like the opposite of the truth.

[Catch22Dem]

10. Did you stumble into the wrong room?

I'm just sayin'

[SteinbachMB]

14. Did you not read the link I just posted.

Enjoy the Gore kool-aid.

[proud2BlibKansan]

19. WTF?

Do you realize where you are?

What do you want on your tombstone? :rofl:

[SteinbachMB]

23. Ya, I'm talking to a bunch of Al Gore believers

...that is the climate scientist, with a Ph.D. in science, some kind of science, who won a Nobel prize for peace, even though he did nothing for peace (even Clooney went to Darfur-and should have got the prize for at least trying, something Gore didn't do--but I digress)

You can't take a little honest debate?

WTF?

[EstimatedProphet]

27. Show us an honest debate first.

[SteinbachMB]

30. I did with my first post.

This girl is questioning Al Gore's movie, or at least the one he starred in. She's decided to debate him and I think she deserves some credit.

[EstimatedProphet]

32. No you didn't

Your posts have so far simply called Gore a liar, and you back that up by using a source funded by the oil industry. The teenage dolt in the article has based her argument on not wanting to agree with other people, not any real scientific critique. An honest debate would have her actually discussing the issues. an honest debate from you would constitute examining gore's points, rather than calling him names.

[SteinbachMB]

34. I didn't call him names.

I didn't call him a liar either.

[EstimatedProphet]

35. From your post #3

3. Excellent
The brainwashing of showing "A Convenient Lie", or whatever, in schools around the world needs at least some opposition.

[SteinbachMB]

40. That's "calling him a name?"

Showing a movie as "fact" to impressionable kids is a kind of brainwashing, isn't it?

[EstimatedProphet]

43. So you don't think that changing the movie title to imply it's a lie is calling him a liar?

Yet again, an honest debate is needed from your side. If you wanted to debate the facts of the movie, do it. Simply calling it a lie, and Gore a liar by extension, isn't an honest debate.

[SteinbachMB]

50. You don't believe in

...poetic license?

Or good natured-fun?

The original title is leading to begin with: and they gave it that name for that very reason.

Why can't I play that game? Am I not special, too?

[Richard Steele]

53. You are certainly no poet, and I don't see any "good nature" in the fun you're having here.

nm

[EstimatedProphet]

63. Please don't hide behind poetic license

You were making a criticism, and you know it. Now you're trying to claim it was a joke. No it wasn't - it was a criticism, which you haven't been able to back up when pressed. You made the statement, so own it.

[Matariki]

68. Der faule Scheissdreck

verstehen?

[LanternWaste]

106. It's only called "poetic license" when writing fiction...

It's only called "poetic license" when writing fiction.


It's called being disingenuous when calling for 'an honest intellectual debate'.

[uppityperson]

123. You are special. You are TS'd.

[didact]

70. If they don't agree with you, their a dolt? OK.

[Richard Steele]

76. No, she's a DOLT because she disagrees with FACTS.

Different.

[EstimatedProphet]

78. She's a dolt because she wants to disagree just to disagree

And then she has fooled herself into thinking that her opinion is a reasoned argument.

[SidDithers]

84. She's a dolt because she believes that...

globalwarminghoax.com is a credible source of information.

Sid

[Quantess]

102. I believe the Sun revolves around the Earth.

Can we be friends?

[didact]

117. Sure....

Dolt! ;-)

[SidDithers]

28. Sorry, I don't speak gibberish...

What are you trying to say in this post?

Sid

[LanternWaste]

105. Using phrases like

Using phrases like "Gore Kool-Aid" isn't a foundation for 'honest, intellectual debate'...

Just a heads up for you in case you decide to pepper your 'honest intellectual debate' with more ad hominem attacks, which is, as I'm sure you know, one of many Logical Fallacies that actually preclude 'honest, intellectual debate' from taking place.

[alarimer]

127. Forget about Al Gore- you are also ignoring years of climate science

The IPCC (the ones that also one the Nobel Peace PRize) is made of hundreds of well-credentialed climate scientists whose research indicates that global warming is, in fact, true. You can stick your head in the sand because of your bizarre hatred of Al Gore but the fact stands that he and his file were essentially correct.

[girl gone mad]

144. No one her wants to drink your kool-aid.

But we will drink your milkshake.

[mainegreen]

13. ?

[SteinbachMB]

15. Ha

Send that to Gore.

[mainegreen]

17. Naw, his slides are better.

More data.

[proud2BlibKansan]

18. You favor opposing the truth?

Should we also teach our kids the benefits of breaking the law?

[SteinbachMB]

25. No

..we should teach them to question, everything. Not accept the doomsday theatrics of one man: named Al Gore.

I'm all for fighting pollution; just not turning it into some kind of mania, that the world is quickly moving into the abyss of climate catastrophe.

[proud2BlibKansan]

101. Al Gore is not alone

The vast majority of climate experts support his conclusions. A few wingnuts who are funded by big oil disagree with him.

And yes, the world IS moving into an abyss of climate catastrophe. Another chunk of glacier just fell off into the Arctic Circle. There is no more snow on Kilamanjaro.

But all those Hummer and SUV drivers don't like the idea of buying a more fuel efficient vehicle. So they slam Al Gore. That's why this does need to be a mania. There is a planet to save.

[MadHound]

103. It's not just accepting the theatrics of one man

It is realizing that the science behind global warming is valid and real. Don't look at Gore, look at the hard data. The earth's temperature is rising due to the greenhouse effect. What is the number one emitter of greenhouse gases? The man made transportation sector, all those emissions coming out of the tailpipe.

One but has to do the research and look at the science to realize that yes, the world is warming, and the consequences of this are going to be sudden and catastrophic. We're already seeing major climatic changes, and as temperatures continue to rise, we're going to see more.

Furthermore, roughly 75% of the scientific community are in agreement that global climate change is occurring, and that the primary cause has been human activity over the past couple of hundred years.

Or just go up to the North Pole this summer, and see for yourself. Or rather not see for yourself, since once again there will be no North Pole this year, since the ice will virtually all melt over the summer.

Sorry, but those who deny that global climate change is occurring, and that mankind is the cause, are about as far out of it as the flat earthers.

[sentelle]

143. i believe in questioning everything

Reasearch it yourself, and decide who makes a strong arguement.

Side 1: ice cores have shown an increase in carbon dioxide. We also see higher and higher temperatures. There appears, by some evidence to be a link between carbon dioxide and higher temps. The combustion engine produces large amounts of carbon dioxide.

Side 2: al gore is a doodie-head.

Which do you think is a more reasoned arguement?

[marmar]

22. You again?

You're persistent if nothing else. ..... Enjoy your (hopefully brief) stay at DU.

[SteinbachMB]

36. What's the problem?

[marmar]

37. It just seems to me that you're here to agitate more than to contribute to the discourse....

.... and that's from observing a number of your responses in threads. And if that's not the case, I apologize.

[SteinbachMB]

39. I admit I have strong opinions

...and I'm finding my way around a bit here and there. Maybe this site's not for me: we'll see.

[ellie]

46. Opinions are great

but where are your facts? And I don't want a link to a website. Please, tell me, in your own words.

[SteinbachMB]

54. My "facts" are

...are that I don't believe Gore puts forth facts. He is stating a theory which not all scientists in the field of climatology agree with. Especially the belief that at some point certain changes to the climate that are occurring now will be irreversible.

Even the IPCC panel DID NOT definitively state that man-caused global warming WILL cause X, Y, and Z. It only stated that it MAY cause X, Y, and Z.

[JackDragna]

75. It is the consensus of the vast majority of the world's scientists..

..that global warming is occurring and humanity is its primary cause. You can make this a political crusade all you want, but things are true even if people you don't like say them.

[ellie]

146. I realize this person

has been TS'd, but this still brings up an important point when dealing with "these" people: Strongly held beliefs do not equal "Truth." This person was unable to submit any alternate findings from credible sources that disputed the facts in the movie. Which brings me to another point: Gore hate. These people hate Gore so much that if he said the sky was blue, they would all argue the opposite. Right wingers are, without a doubt, the most stubborn, stupid creatures on the planet. When faced with facts, they bring up strawmen. When challenged on their strawmen, they start with the personal attacks. Need proof? Check out the political newsgroups on usenet. They are insane.


edited for clarity and grammar

[Puglover]

59. Actually the mods took a look

and decided that the site wasn't for this poster.

[Richard Steele]

62. You guys rock, you know that? nm

[EstimatedProphet]

79. Thanks dude!

[hatrack]

81. Cue Chopin, "largo a la marcia funebre"!

[Quantess]

108. Thanks mods!

Looking back at his other posts, that was a very well deserved aufwiedersehen!
:woohoo: :party:

[EstimatedProphet]

86. One thing though, I'm not sure your work is done here

Seems this thread is a troll collection device.

[Puglover]

93. I swear to God the only reason

I started it was to ask people to help me make sense of WHY NPR thought this was newsworthy. I don't think it's really so much about the young woman. And any and all debate about global warming AFAIAC is done. I'm surprized at some of the responses.

[EstimatedProphet]

98. IMO on that:

It serves the purpose of the anti-science forces, who want to make the case that scientific opinion with specific recorded data and measured analysis, reviewed by others with the objective of finding anything wrong to dismantle any theory which could stem from it, carries no more weight than someone who believes an opinion their crazy neighbor told them in a drunken stupor.

[Zuiderelle]

38. You missed your exit.

A couple of decades back.

[Jim__]

45. Showing a movie is not brainwashing.

Sorry, but you undermine your own credibility when you make ridiculous claims like that.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

66. Movies can easily be propaganda

and propaganda can brain wash..

[LanternWaste]

136. I imagine it depends on the movie in question...

I imagine it depends on the movie in question. If we were talking about Lennie Riefenstahl's, 'Triumph of the Will', it most certainly would be propaganda as it attempts to induce a nationalistic fervor as the expense of other nations and cultures.

However, as we're talking about hard facts accepted en toto by the scientific community merely being presented to school kids as a teaching aid, I think we can safely put this one in the "Not Propaganda" file...

Edited for appropriate apostrophe placement...

[HughBeaumont]

67. DROPPPPPPEDDDDD!!!

Thank you for playing. Get smarter in your next life.

[ProfessorGAC]

77. Duh!

Are you at all familiar with the photochemical mechanism or the laws of thermodynamics that are at the root of the global warming theory?

I doubt you are, and i doubt you would even get it.
The Professor

[smiley_glad_hands]

110. How much do you get paid to deny scientific facts?

Just saying, with the economy going into the shitter I might as well fake it and get paid.

[spanone]

113. you have been 'alerted'

[Quantess]

116. Pizza party!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=217957

Fresh, hot, pizza for everyone! :party:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

141. Anyone for a second serving?

Sometimes eating pizza can be a didactic experience.

[Ian David]

5. When the ecosystem collapses, let's eat Kristen Byrnes first.

[NoPasaran]

64. Soylent Green is Kristen!

[Ian David]

65. ROFL!!!!! n/t

[Clovis Sangrail]

7. ZOMG!1

A 15 year old kid with repug parents is sure that global warming is a hoax!!!1!1!

Incredible! at 15 she knew climatology better than scientists who have phd's in the field.


can she shoot lasers with her eyes too?
maybe run faster than a steaming locomotive?

:eyes:

[Gman]

8. One more duped into carrying water for big oil

she'll probably get a grant from Shell.

[Puglover]

9. What made me LOL

was the pride that she had from receiving a letter from Jim "Batshit Crazy" Inhofe.

[Lint Head]

11. I bet she believes that Pat Robertson can turn back hurricanes,

Benny Hinn can raise the dead and Bill Frist could diagnose Terry Shiavo from a video tape. :dem:

[SidDithers]

16. She's not a skeptic, she's a denier...nt

Sid

[Puglover]

20. I just found it so interesting that

"Global warming skeptics" would flock to a site hosted by a young woman who's scientific statement is

"I don't remember how old I was when I started getting into global warming," Kristen says. "In middle school I remember everyone was like: 'Global warming! The world is going to end!' Stuff like that ... so I never really believed in it."

And why on earth did NPR think THIS was worth a story? I simply don't get it.

[elizfeelinggreat]

26. It's all they've got?

Any port in a storm?

[Iris]

131. me, too. But I thougth NPR was very slick in presenting this so that,

as I mentioned above, any thinking person could see through it.

The girl did not read a single book or do a single experiment herself. Her "evidence" is a pile of internet printouts that fill up a box that green peppers were packed in.

And at the end of the piece, Inskeep slyly suggests listeners visit the npr.org website to see the evidence of 300+ sicentists that shows global warming exists and is exacerbated by people.

I say bravo to NPR for giving the neanderthals what they think they want while providing REAL information for those of us smart enough to discern it.

[marmar]

31. "and one day her people will be running the world. Her people, meaning 16-year-olds."

Umm, and most of "her people," meaning 16-year-olds, are a lot more likely to believe the reality of global warming than this Dana Perino-in-training does. I can't believe NPR aired this dreck.
:argh:

[EstimatedProphet]

33. I love this line

Kristen's Web site, "Ponder the Maunder," has made her a celebrity among climate skeptics.

That's kind of like being a celebrity among the Flat Earth Society members, or the Answers in Genesis crowd. It's not always better to reign in Hell...

[Zodiak]

42. I find this line interesting

"If you're a scientist trying to convince people they are making the world warmer, Kristen Byrnes is your worst nightmare."

Scientists do not waste their time trying to "convince" anyone of anything. They just seek answers.

The article starts with the false premise that scientists have some kind of political agenda to "convince" people that the Earth is warming. That is not what a scientist does....first they document the change and then look for rational explanations for it. The change in temperature and the increase in carbon dioxide are documented...not rhetorical footballs to be kicked around.

I hate it when journalists demonstrate their complete lack of understanding of science.

[EstimatedProphet]

47. Hear hear

This scientist agrees

[Johonny]

73. Well scientists do try to convince

other scientists that they're research is correct. Which is why they publish in peer reviewed journals and attend conferences. There is nothing more convincing than data that is reproducible by other scientists and accurate models that explain it. There is nothing less convincing than arguing with debunked or non-peer reviewed data, that's non-reproducible and that fits no model of the natural world.

[EstimatedProphet]

91. The diference is, they let the data and analyses do the convincing

rather than finding data to fit what they want to prove instead.

[treestar]

138. And that they are threatened by a 15-year-old

:rofl:

OMG a high school sophomore opposes us! (tearing out of hair in science department of major university)

[Jim__]

44. I remember ... 'Global warming! The world is going to end!' ... so I never really believed in it."

Sorry, that's not skepticism. That's making up your mind and then looking for data to support your belief. You'll always find plenty of data.

To get to the truth, you have to look at the data and digest it, then make up your mind.

And, of course, very few people claim that global warming is going to bring the world to an end.

[Richard Steele]

52. And that's what gets described as "articulate and intelligent" in the Warming Denial crowd...

:eyes:

[Echo In Light]

57. Accurately captures the Crusading Anti-Conspiracy crowd's position...

...re a host of subjects.

[Iris]

132. I also remember going to middle school with religious nuts who thought the same thing

and we're all still here. But I'm sure she'd never use that line of reasoning to try to discredit Christianity.

[Junkdrawer]

55. NPR's Motto: "Some see the world as flat and, if our sponsors want, we'll give them a megaphone"

A National Treasure.

[Orsino]

58. NPR: clouding the debate any way they can.

The Petroleum Broadcasting System will drag their feet any way they can, to the point of citing teenaged climate experts and beyond.

[Johonny]

60. intelligent??

Not if they deny global warming. As a scientist those two thought streams don't mix. The evidence is so overwhelming... why bother arguing with a moron. Science is debated at conferences and peer reviewed journals. If this person really thinks they have the goods to over throw the evidence publish it not on a website but where science happens... or shut the hell up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Echo In Light]

61. The same "intelligence" which frowns upon dissent/civil disobedience/liberals, etc

Such types merely want to continue on, business as usual, and those "crazy conspiracy theories" get in the way of that preference. Hence, the attacks...

[The Straight Story]

69. I am not sure they deny it is warming - but what the cause of it is (and it is a good debate)

one we need to have.

[Johonny]

71. the debate

is pretty much over in the scientific literature. It's not like 30ish years ago when global warming was first really investigated that wasn't a key question. It's not like the last 30 years of science publishing didn't happen. I don't have to pretend I don't know the answer because someone else doesn't like what the data keeps saying over and over...

[nam78_two]

83. Exactly.nt

[Fox Mulder]

72. She must not be that smart if she thinks global warming isn't real.

It's people like her that public schools are churning out these days.

Gods help us all.

[Quantess]

119. The girl obviously has talents. She's not stupid.

But she clearly has been listening to ignorant people (probably her parents), and maybe RW talk radio. FAUX news probably is hoping that this teen dynamo will come work for them when she's out of high school.

[Iris]

133. sigh. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

[hatrack]

74. When will she publish in Nature, Science or Geophysical Research Letters?

Or perhaps she already has? Wow!

If so, let's see the results of her original peer-reviewed scientific work, shall we?

[Tyler Durden]

80. You said it so I didn't have to.

[ProfessorGAC]

85. Never. Never. And, After Never

Hope that clears it up.
The Professor

[nam78_two]

89. Nature-whatsat? Some sort of hippy journal?

:silly:

No seriously, Glen Beck said that on CNN-you know "Nature"-some unreliable, unknown, hippy journal -the name tells you all you need to know right :eyes:. His exact words were something like "I am sure the Whitehouse is a little more credible than this "Nature" or whatever"...

[Puglover]

90. I guess I think the real rub here isn't the young

woman, it's that NPR thought it was worthy of a story. I still can't put my finger on that.

[Quantess]

122. Maybe they want to encourage young people to pursue their ambitions?

Here they are, spotlighting a teen who has done something that requires more brain cells than getting drunk and topless on Spring Break.
...

:think:
But when I think of all the other teenagers out there who are achieving things, pursuing their ambitions, doing good deeds, I wonder why they weren't showcased by NPR.
...

:shrug:
Puglover, I see your dilemma.

[Iris]

140. Actually, they kind of let her run her mouth for a while and in the end, directed listeners to their

website where they could view evidence and research by 300+ scientists showing global-warming does indeed exist and is caused by people.

NPR - not so dumb after all.

[Johonny]

126. didn't I say that a few posts up:)

I wish a website like http://www.realclimate.org/ got a little PR once and a while. I guess the fact it's not run by 16 year olds means it's not worthy of reading:)

[NoGOPZone]

82. So a climate scientist's worst nightmare is a sixteen year old with no

scientific or academic credentials? I never knew being intelligent, articulate and having a Web site qualified one as an authority.

[ProfessorGAC]

87. Must Depend Upon The Topic

If your topic is an apologia for being a luddite, then it makes you an authority.

If your topic requires actual science, not so much.
The Professor

[BlooInBloo]

88. Americans LOVE being stupid more than anything else.

[Blue_Tires]

92. i was surprised npr gave her a platform

rather than say, an actual scientist or something (maybe someone who has graduated from HS?)

[Puglover]

95. BINGO!

That is the point of my thread. I was LOL while dressing for work at how ridiculous this was.

[Strelnikov_]

94. Dreck pretty much sums it up. Smug little Reichbot n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

96. Here's her website.

http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunderg/index.html

The kid's a doofus.

[NoGOPZone]

99. It seems she's an expert on emergency response, too

Her take on Katrina

Finally, the human toll was a result of people who did not evacuate when they were supposed to and poor planning by individuals who were responsible for evacuating people under their care.

That's the great thing about websites as opposed to scientific journals. You don't have to offer citations.

Maybe if I can convince my intelligent, articulate fifteen year old cousin to put up a two page website in support of global warming NPR will do a story on him.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

100. Or just a racist.

:shrug:

[EstimatedProphet]

124. Kinda hard to evacuate when the National Guard is pointing guns at you, kiddo

Of course, if you ever left the safety of your whitebread suburb and saw the world, you might figure that out.

[Iris]

134. You know, now that I think about it, the report said her mother did all the typing.

Perhaps she did all the "thinking" as well?

So like the right wing to package their bullshit and sell it as the "common sense" of the "unspoiled" mind of a 15 year old!

[Fox Mulder]

107. She's freaking nuts.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

97. I don't really care that much whether or not global warming is an incontrovertible fact or not

What I DO care about is that we take care of environment because everything we do to it has the potential to dramatically impact our own quality of life not to mention the continued ability of this planet to sustain our very existence. Whether or not there is incontrovertible evidence of an overall global warming trend or whether severe weather may be tied to it is ultimately not as important to me as whether or not we have clean air that we can safely breathe, oil-less and wildlife-filled oceans that we can swim and fish in safely, and environments that enable us to continue growing the food we need to sustain ourselves with. A lot of the global warming controversy seems to me, at least among most of the skeptics (many of whom are financed by major corporations no less), to be about businesses wanting to be free(r) from what they see as irksome and "profit-killing" federal regulations that were put into place to help ensure the overall integrity of our environment by holding businesses responsible for cleaning up the excessive pollution and other messes that result from their daily operations. If we can't all agree on whether or not global warming exists, can't we all at least agree that damaging our environment is a bad thing and could have disastrous consequences for the continued existence of our species if not now then in the future? Maybe the apocalypse is not nigh but is that any reason to fail to protect our very own ecosystem NOW? Why would protecting the continued integrity of our environment be so controversial, particularly since we all live in it? Where else are we going to live if we completely trash this planet?

[Iris]

135. well, she hates environmentalists because they make her "think of hippies"

so she really wouldn't care what you ahve to say here.


(But I do!)

[Proud Liberal Dem]

137. Thanks for your comments!

But I wonder what she would think if there was a (preventable) cataclysmic environmental "event" that rendered our planet inhospitable and she, along with the rest of us, was simply forced to die a slow and excruciatingly painful death with the full knowledge that her efforts actually kept people from addressing the problems that led to it? Or maybe thinking like that would also remind her too much of hippies?

*ugh*

Sounds like another "Wingnut In Training" (or WIT for short).

And when you think about people like that one day running things...............

:scared:

[Iris]

139. WIT - I love it!

Don't worry, she'll probalby get knocked up in college so she'll just be running her family budget or something like that!

[RedCappedBandit]

109. So I should value the unfounded opinion of a 15 year old

with absolutely no professional training in any field of science over that of a collective group of professional researchers? Laugh.

Environmentalism makes her think of hippies. Good to know what kind of person we're dealing with here.

[spanone]

111. i heard this shit on the radio this am...this is why i DID NOT donate to npr this year

total unbelievable HORSESHIT

[DS1]

112. Both sides prop up teenagers with websites

and sits back while their egos inflate to planetary proportions, this one just happens to be wrong :)

[EstimatedProphet]

125. HA! Well put!

[Individualist]

114. She's probably also convinced herself the moon landing was staged in Nevada

[Norrin Radd]

115. Running a "Road Warrior" world in the future, more like.

Better start working on that mohawk now, Kristen -- oh! and hoarding plenty of sunscreen.

[stanwyck]

120. The modern version of the Sun revolves around the Earth

and we'll kill anyone who disagrees. She'd be right at home laughing at Columbus or Galileo. Instead, in 2008, she'll ridicule Al Gore. Her purpose is to help us better understand the people who always find a way to attack the people who think, invent, create, and inspire.

[jpak]

121. Yes Kristen, let's "Ponder the Maunder"

Other's have and you are wrong...

Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature

Proceedings of the Royal Society

Volume 463, Number 2086 / October 08, 2007
Pages 2447-2460
DOI 10.1098/rspa.2007.1880

Mike Lockwood and Claus Fröhlich

1Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Oxfordshire OX11 0QX, UK
2Space Environment Physics Group, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK
3Physikalisch–Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos, World Radiation Center, 7260 Davos Dorf, Switzerland

Abstract

There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth's pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.

<end>

[alarimer]

128. Global warming "skeptics" are not true skeptics.

In fact the data support the hypothesis that climate change is occurring and has been for years. We knew about this in the 1960's.

[Brewman_Jax]

129. I heard it, too

and was shocked that NPR would highlight the unreviewed work of an obviously unqualified individual.

[Iris]

145. It's also the #1 emailed story from their site today.

[xchrom]

142. if they're depending on HER to make the case against global warming --

then they will be sorely disappointed. again.