Education level of Celebs who believe in man made Global Warming

[fossten]

Alanis Morissette, High School Diploma
Alicia Keys, College Dropout
Alicia Silverstone, High School Dropout
Art Bell, College Dropout
Ben Affleck, College Dropout
Ben Stiller, College Dropout
Bill Maher, B.A. English (no science degree)
Billy Jean King, College Dropout
Bono (Paul Hewson), High School Diploma
Brad Pitt, College Dropout
Cameron Diaz, High School Dropout
Dana Elaine Owens (Queen Latifah), College Dropout
Daryl Hanna, B.F.A. Theater (no science degree)
Diane Keaton, College Dropout
Drew Barrymore, High School Dropout
Ed Begley Jr., High School Diploma
George Clooney, College Dropout
Gwyneth Paltrow, College Dropout
Jackson Browne, High School Diploma
Jason Biggs, College Dropout
John Travolta, High School Dropout
Jon Bon Jovi (John Bongiovi), High School Diploma
Joshua Jackson, High School Dropout
Julia Louis-Dreyfus, College Dropout
Julia Roberts, College Dropout
Keanu Reeves, High School Dropout
Kevin Bacon, High School Dropout
Kiefer Sutherland, High School Dropout
Leonardo DiCaprio, High School Dropout
Madonna (Madonna Ciccone), College Dropout
Matt Damon, College Dropout
Michael Moore, College Dropout
Nicole Richie, College Dropout
Olivia Newton-John, High School Dropout
Oprah Winfrey, B.A. Speech and Drama (no science degree)
Orlando Bloom, High School Dropout, B.A. Drama (no science degree)
Paris Hilton, High School Dropout
Pierce Brosnan. High School Dropout
Richard Branson, High School Dropout
Robert Redford, College Dropout
Sarah Silverman, College Dropout
Sean Penn, College Dropout
Sheryl Crow, B.A. Music Education (no science degree)
Sienna Miller, High School Diploma
Willie Nelson, High School Dropout + College Dropout

 

[Calabrio]

It's a valid point, but I've always hated lists like this. I say this because some of the absolute stupidest people I have ever met, I met while I was in college.

 

[Iszi]

(Disclaimer: I do not believe in "man made Global Warming", nor am I arguing on that side of the debate, here.)

I hate lists like this, because there's a strong likelihood that whomever came up with it picked those particular people specifically because of their lack of science education. I'm sure you could compile a list of equal size, choosing celebrities on the other side of the issue. You just have to know who to look at.

Also, I think it's worth noting that most celebrities in our culture (and I'm pretty sure all of the ones on that particular list) are in the entertainment industry. So, it's really pretty stupid and ridiculous to expect any of them to have any sort of formal education in science, regardless of what they may be professing. (Unless they're actually claiming to have such a degree.)

Where does Al Gore fit on here, by the way?

 

[fossten]

What are you guys, a tag team? :shifty:

It's ammo for the next time one of those on the list decides to pontificate about something scientific.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

What are you guys, a tag team? :shifty:

It's ammo for the next time one of those on the list decides to pontificate about something scientific.

And exactly how many science and/or engineering degrees have you wasted becoming "Resume Man"?? :bowrofl:

 

[Marcus]

As Iszi said, any fool can pick and choose who to include on any list.

Besides, who exactly is trying to represent these people as authorities on the subject? I don't get my information and news from Kiefer Sutherland, so why should I give a damn if he "believes" in global warming or not? These people are entertainers. Only the Right (deceivingly) attempts to prop them up as the "elite" spokepeople of the liberal establishment. They are not.

On the other hand, there is a vast portion of the country who get their information and news from entertainers Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Both are college dropouts. Can anybody in your list compare to the influence these guys have?

In short, your list is irrelevant.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

On the other hand, there is a vast portion of the country who get their information and news from entertainers Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Both are college dropouts. Can anybody in your list compare to the influence these guys have?

In short, your list is irrelevant.

Shepherds leading their sheeple. And you know what shepherds like to do to their sheep when nobody is looking! :shifty:

 

[MAC1]

On the other hand, there is a vast portion of the country who get their information and news from entertainers Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Both are college dropouts. Can anybody in your list compare to the influence these guys have?

In short, your list is irrelevant.

Limbaugh is right over 95% of the time--So he says. Even his critics are rarely able to rebut what he says on a factual basis. Similarly, Hannity's critics are hard pressed to dispute what he says. I'm sure both know a lot more than you do and they are a lot more cedible than the likes of Bill Clinton who is suppose to be Mr. Intelligent--That is, when he's thinking with his brain.

 

[Calabrio]

 

[shagdrum]

'nuff said.

 

[shagdrum]

As Iszi said, any fool can pick and choose who to include on any list.

Besides, who exactly is trying to represent these people as authorities on the subject? I don't get my information and news from Kiefer Sutherland, so why should I give a damn if he "believes" in global warming or not? These people are entertainers. Only the Right (deceivingly) attempts to prop them up as the "elite" spokepeople of the liberal establishment. They are not.

On the other hand, there is a vast portion of the country who get their information and news from entertainers Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Both are college dropouts. Can anybody in your list compare to the influence these guys have?

In short, your list is irrelevant.

There is also a difference with Limbaugh, at least...
His brother is a practicing attourney (no intellectual slouch), and Rush's namesake (his father was Rush Limbaugh jr.) was a rather famous lawyer in his time. There is even a federal building in either Missouri or Oklahoma that was recently named after Limbaugh jr.

The point is, Limbaugh comes from an educated background. College, just wasn't a good fit for him.
You can't honestly think that he is in any way a slow intellect. If nothing else, his success in his chosen carreer is proof against that.

On the other hand, the same can't usually be said for those in the entertainment industry. Fine Arts, in general are all about appealling to emotion. People who are accomplished in these areas are usually very emotional people, but they don't need intelligence to be accomplished. These people are often led by their emotions in forming their opinions, not their brain.

Some of the biggest fools I have met, are in college. In fact, among these people, the further they have taken their education, the more foolish they are. Basically, their ego grows with there education, but their wisdom seems to shrink.

 

[MonsterMark]

Some of the biggest fools I have met, are in college. In fact, among these people, the further they have taken their education, the more foolish they are. Basically, their ego grows with there education, but their wisdom seems to shrink.

Bingo!

I'll take 'street-smart' over 'book-smart' anyday of the week and twice on Sunday.

 

[TheDude]

What is the current stance from the anti-Global Warming crowd? "Man" is affecting the environment, but not enough?

 

[Marcus]

I wasn't the one who tried to imply that education level is the determining factor in intellect. That was Fossten, with his original post. So we're basically in agreement on that point.

 

[Iszi]

What is the current stance from the anti-Global Warming crowd? "Man" is affecting the environment, but not enough?

Man is affecting the environment, but not nearly as significantly as the GW crowd claims. And yeah, most would say not enough for it to be a valid concern in the foreseeable future.

 

[Calabrio]

What is the current stance from the anti-Global Warming crowd? "Man" is affecting the environment, but not enough?

Breaking: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory
August 29, 2007

Posted by Matthew_Dempsey@epw.senate.gov (4:45pm ET)

Last week in his blog post, New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears, on the Inhofe EPW Press Blog, Marc Morano cited a July 2007 review of 539 abstracts in peer-reviewed scientific journals from 2004 through 2007 that found that climate science continues to shift toward the views of global warming skeptics.

Today, Michael Asher provides more details about this new survey in his blog post, Survey: Less Than Half Of All Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory. Asher writes that the study has been submitted for publication in the journal Energy and Environment.


DAILYTECH

SURVEY: LESS THAN HALF OF ALL PUBLISHED SCIENTISTS ENDORSE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY; COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY OF PUBLISHED CLIMATE RESEARCH REVEALS CHANGING VIEWPOINTS

Michael Asher
August 29, 2007 11:07 AM
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.

By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world.

###

 

[fossten]

I wasn't the one who tried to imply that education level is the determining factor in intellect. That was Fossten, with his original post. So we're basically in agreement on that point.

Wrong as usual. My post does nothing of the sort. It never mentions intellect. What my post does is show how these celebrities who are constantly telling us how we should be afraid for the end of the world are unquestionably unqualified to do so.

Nice try, but no straw man for you.

Oh, and re: Calabrio's last post - look at the wall of scientific "consensus" crumbling around these religious Gaia worshipers.

 

[daves2000ls]

Just for a minute lets say that global warming is false and we waste a little money and time studying it, following through with further experiments to test the theory? Oh well, we wasted a little time and money.

Now let's say that it is correct and we don't follow through with experiments to further test the theory. In that situation we'd be screwed, liberal and conservative alike.

It is in the best interest of humanity to study global warming and run test after test after test. Just to ensure we are ready for it. Is it not in the best interest of our nation to stand guard against a possible threat against us?

 

[shagdrum]

at what point in running tests do you decide that the threat is not credible?
If your justification is that the threat might be real, so we should conduct tests, then you can justify spending for anything, as long as it is backed through threat.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

If your justification is that the threat might be real, so we should conduct tests, then you can justify spending for anything, as long as it is backed through threat.

Hey, that logic worked for the BuSh administration!

 

[fossten]

Just for a minute lets say that global warming is false and we waste a little money and time studying it, following through with further experiments to test the theory? Oh well, we wasted a little time and money.

Now let's say that it is correct and we don't follow through with experiments to further test the theory. In that situation we'd be screwed, liberal and conservative alike.

It is in the best interest of humanity to study global warming and run test after test after test. Just to ensure we are ready for it. Is it not in the best interest of our nation to stand guard against a possible threat against us?

You call 1.34 Trillion Dollars "a little money?"

Lay off the toke, dude. I've got news for you: The left doesn't want to "study" the problem. They want money DUMPED on it as though it's already a fait accompli.

People like you should not be allowed to decide that people like me should have to pay for such nonsense. That's exactly what you're advocating.

 

[MonsterMark]

People like you should not be allowed to decide that people like me should have to pay for such nonsense. That's exactly what you're advocating.

AMEN brother Fossten!

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

You call 1.34 Trillion Dollars "a little money?"

Lay off the toke, dude. I've got news for you: The left doesn't want to "study" the problem. They want money DUMPED on it as though it's already a fait accompli.

People like you should not be allowed to decide that people like me should have to pay for such nonsense. That's exactly what you're advocating.

Typical knee-jerk reaction, always choosing the worst case "prediction" to counter an argument. Following your link............

http://reason.com/news/show/121926.html

The Cost of Cooling the Climate
A non-alarmist guide for policymakers

Ronald Bailey | August 14, 2007

United Nations General Secretary Ban Ki Moon is convening a high level meeting on global warming at the U.N. headquarters on September 24. The idea is to jump-start the climate change negotiations for the 13th Conference of the Parties (COP-13) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). COP-13 is scheduled for December 3-14 in Bali, Indonesia.

President George W. Bush is also inviting representatives from the major industrial countries and large developing countries to come to Washington, DC to discuss climate change on September 27-28. The goal of both meetings is figure out what to do about reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, after 2012 when the Kyoto Protocol expires. Under the Kyoto Protocol most industrialized nations—with exception of the United States and Australia—have agreed to cut their greenhouse gas emissions by 5 percent below what their 1990 levels.

What is the optimal climate change policy—the one that sets future emissions reductions to maximize the economic welfare of humans? Yale University economist William Nordhaus,perhaps the world's leading expert on the economics of climate change, has just released a new study, The Challenge of Global Warming: Economic Models and Environmental Policy,which estimates the costs of various proposed trajectories for limiting carbon dioxide over the next couple of centuries.

Nordhaus and his colleagues have developed a small but comprehensive model that combines interactions between the economy and climate called DICE-2007, short for Dynamic Integrated model of Climate and the Economy. Nordhaus first computes a baseline that assumes that humanity does essentially nothing to limit its output of carbon dioxide. By 2100 CO2 atmospheric concentrations would rise from the pre-industrial level 280 parts per million (ppm), to 380 ppm today, to 685 ppm in 2100. Global average temperature would rise by 2.4 degrees Celsius by 2100. In this baseline scenario, the DICE-2007 model estimates that the present value of climatic damages is $22.6 trillion. DICE-2007 includes damage to major sectors such as agriculture, sea-level rise, health, and non-market damages.

Nordhaus then uses his model to assess the ambitious CO2 reduction proposals made by British economist Nicholas Stern and former Vice President Al Gore. Nordhaus calculates that the Stern and Gore proposals for steep immediate emissions reductions produce very similar cost/benefit results. Nordhaus also evaluates explicit temperature and concentration goals, e.g., limiting average temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius above current levels or greenhouse gas concentrations to no more than 1.5-times pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric concentrations.

So what did Nordhaus find? First, the Stern proposal for rapid deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions would reduce the future damage from global warming by $13 trillion, but at a cost of $27 trillion dollars. That's not a good deal. For an even worse deal, the DICE-2007 model estimates that the Gore proposal would reduce climate change damages by $12 trillion, but at a cost of nearly $34 trillion. As Nordhaus notes, both proposals imply carbon taxes rising to around $300 per ton carbon in the next two decades, and to the $600-$800 per ton range by 2050. A $700 carbon tax would increase the price of coal-fired electricity in the U.S. by about 150 percent, and would impose a tax bill of $1.2 trillion on the U.S. economy.

In addition, scenarios which attempt to keep the future average temperature increase below 1.5 degrees Celsius and concentrations below 1.5-times pre-industrial atmospheric concentrations are also not cost-effective. The DICE-2007 model calculates that both would cost more than $27 trillion in abatement costs and provide only about $13 trillion in reduced damages.

The optimal policy? Nordhaus reckons that the optimal policy would impose a carbon tax of $34 per metric ton carbon in 2010, with the tax increases gradually reaching $42 per ton in 2015, $90 per ton in 2050, and $207 per ton of carbon in 2100. A $20 per metric ton carbon tax will raise coal prices by $10 per ton, which is about a 40 percent increase over the current price of $25 per ton. A $10 per ton carbon tax translates into a 4 cent per gallon increase in gasoline. A $300 per ton carbon tax would raise gasoline prices by $1.20 per gallon.

Following this optimal trajectory would cost $2.2 trillion and reduce climate change damage by $5.2 trillion over the next century. "The net present-value global benefit of the optimal policy is $3.4 trillion relative to no controls," writes Nordhaus. "While this is a large number absolutely, it is a small fraction, about 0.17 percent, of the discounted value of total future income." Keep in mind that in this optimal scenario climate change damages would still accumulate to $17 trillion (lower than $22.6 trillion in the baseline case), but they are not abated because to do so would cost more than the benefits obtained.

A more optimistic scenario envisions the invention of a low cost zero-carbon technology. Such a technology would have a net value of around $17 trillion in present value. As Nordhaus notes, "The net benefits of zero-carbon substitutes are so high as to warrant very intensive research." Setting a price on carbon through a rising tax will encourage the development of such technologies. Another good way to hurry the process along would be to offer a substantial prize to the inventor of a cheap low carbon energy technology, e.g., perhaps a better battery, or paint-on solar cells.

Nordhaus cogently argues that neither doing nothing nor trying to halt global warming immediately are sensible policy targets. Nordhaus's study is certainly not the final word on climate change policy, but it would be a excellent starting point for climate change negotiators when they gather in New York, Washington and Bali this fall.

Ronald Bailey is Reason's science correspondent. His book Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution is now available from Prometheus Books.

So here we have GW skeptic showing that, with the proper GW policy in place, costs of reducing GW can be leveraged such that it SAVES the economy money. The ROI is 136%!! Additionally, this article is all but an admission that GW is real AND humans CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!

So do david and brian and all the other GW deniers STILL think we should do absolutely nothing about GW and flush an opportunity for economic growth down the toilet??

 

[Joeychgo]

It's a valid point, but I've always hated lists like this. I say this because some of the absolute stupidest people I have ever met, I met while I was in college.

Think about how stupid the average person is....

Then realize...

Half of them are dumber then that.

 

[Joeychgo]

Just for a minute lets say that global warming is false and we waste a little money and time studying it, following through with further experiments to test the theory? Oh well, we wasted a little time and money.

Now let's say that it is correct and we don't follow through with experiments to further test the theory. In that situation we'd be screwed, liberal and conservative alike.

It is in the best interest of humanity to study global warming and run test after test after test. Just to ensure we are ready for it. Is it not in the best interest of our nation to stand guard against a possible threat against us?

Basically, I agree.

Except, I dont care as much about testing as I do about changing. My thinking is that it cant hurt for us to be more enviromentally responsible. Lowering the usage of things like Oil and Coal and replacing that with things such as nuclear, wind and solar power can only help us. It will reduce our dependance on foreign oil, the profits of which are used to fund terror against us and our allies. It will also help clean the air up a bit, which certainly cant hurt us.

Ultimately, we'll save money in the long run.

The politics is just that, politics.