17 thoughts on “Bizarre: Forbes writer says Angelina Jolie’s double mastectomy can help defeat global warming skeptics”

  1. Angelina Jolie’s example may indeed prove beneficial, but not in the way Essig expects. She provides a horrible demonstration of the precautionary principle at work.

  2. Albert Einstein addressed the theory of quantum entanglement. In Dec. of 2011 this experiment was carried out:
    Quantum Entanglement Links 2 Diamonds
    Usually a finicky phenomenon limited to tiny, ultracold objects, entanglement has now been achieved for macroscopic diamonds at room temperature

    Einstein was right, neutrino researchers admit
    “The story captured the public imagination, and has given people the opportunity to see the scientific method in action.
    (Can we ever expect to see the same thing regarding AGW?)
    “An unexpected result was put up for scrutiny, thoroughly investigated and resolved in part thanks to collaboration between normally competing experiments. That’s how science moves forward.”
    “The neutrinos were timed on the journey from CERN’s giant underground lab near Geneva to the Gran Sasso Laboratory in Italy, after travelling 732 kilometres (454 miles) through the Earth’s crust.”

    Jasper Kirkby photographed inside the CLOUD chamber.

    “Svensmark: Evidence continues to build that the Sun drives climate, not CO2″

    It seems to me that if the experiments above could be devised and carried out, that one showing how carbon dioxide can cause the earth’s climate to act as you seem to want people to believe it does should have been carried out long ago.

  3. I have asked anthropogenic global warming zealots who think they have the proof of the experiment that “proves” their hypotheses about CO2. As soon as I see that, then I to will become an “alarmist”.
    They should be able to provide me with the experiment that shows that CO2 does what they maintain as far as being the driver of the earth’s climate. I do not need to be reminded of Tyndall’s ingenious 1859 lab experiments that do not prove that humanity’s CO2 emissions are warming the planet. In the real world, other factors can influence and outweigh those lab findings and that is why these experiment must deal with the real world and not computer models that do not have the ability to factor in all of the variables that effect the earth’s climate. If they can not provide a verifiable experiment regarding the present amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and how it effects the climate and creates their anthropogenic global warming, then believing that it does so is akin to believing that Santa Clause is real and you need to be good to get something left under the tree.

    It is a fact that real scientist devise experiments to either prove or disprove their hypotheses and welcome people to try to disprove them so that they can move on.

  4. The use of hallucinogenic drugs in our society is more prevalent than we feared, it has reached the top levels of society.

  5. The only certainty is that if everyone had their breasts removed, there would be no breast cancer. Same for brain cancer. I suggest that this author inspire us all by going first in eliminating brain cancer.

    — Oh! He already did. I admire him so. /s

  6. You are right, of course. I was careless with my word choice. It is actually invention for political and monetary gain rather than theory. And we can include government grants and tenured positions in that “monetary” part.

  7. Sally, please don’t elevate Catastrophic Climate Change to the level of theory.

    Theory is the word we use for something strong and proven because we are no longer so arrogant as to formulate natural Laws. However, to reach theory, it must make a prediction and have the prediction hold. The IPCC has failed on that, with the temperature line hugging the bottom of their strong-control predition and the CO2 line climing near their worst-case.

  8. Well, and they aren’t even theories – theories are “proven” though many proven theories have falled.

    What these really are are hypotheses. The terms get misused quite frequently.

  9. Angelina Jolie made a personal decision about her potential well-being based on personal data. I don’t know if the decision was sound. I’d say the only reason to go public with it is that her action was bound to come out and she might as well have more control over how it becomes public.
    The link between her thinking and her decision and societal decisions based on fraud and error seems very shaky to me.

  10. In popular culture, Angelina’s bazongas have been incredibly salient points. Tomb Raider, my gosh… But, be those maguvvies a monumental as Rushmore, I still don’t think they’re up to the task of moving ‘the climate debate’.

  11. The Pagans have always favored Blood Sacrifice…

    I HAD thought humanity was past that point, oh well…. guess not…

  12. Well Todd Essig is recommending using precautionary mastectomy before making the proper data analysis.
    The models are absolutely trash, there is no warming since 16 years, however they keep on preaching their “science” as proof. He does not want to acknowledge the fact that the science is not settled, so precausionary principle does not apply.
    Todd might do a double mastectomy to himself to prevent whatever he wants, but leave the others do proper science, and people take their own qualified decisions.

  13. How cynical can people be? Can’t these morons leave an unhappy human being alone and honor her incredibly difficult and absolutely private and personal decision by shutting up and not trying to promote their own ends using her fears and anxiety!
    Quoting Forbes: “…ongoing anti-science climate-change denial”. Nobody questions climate change. The question is to impartially and objectively analyse the possible reasons for it instead of dogmatically blame humans for it. The whole problem is that IPCC set out to prove that climate change is caused by human action, NOT to investigate the true reasons for climate change! The true anti-science is IPCC:s starting point, not we who question it.

  14. Apparently both Todd Essig and Angelina Jolie fail to grasp the idea that scientific theories are THEORIES and not facts carved in stone.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.