The measures being proposed to meet what President Obama last week called the need to "roll back the spectre of a warming planet" threaten to land us with the most colossal bill mankind has ever faced. It might therefore seem peculiarly important that we can trust the science on which all the alarm over global warming is based, But nothing has been more disconcerting in this respect than the methods used by promoters of the warming cause over the years to plug some of the glaring holes in their scientific argument.
Another example last week was the much-publicised claim, contradicting all previous evidence, that Antarctica, the world's coldest continent, is in fact warming up, Antarctica has long been a major embarrassment to the warmists. Al Gore and co may have wanted to scare us that the continent which contains 90 per cent of all the ice on the planet is heating up, because that would be the source of all the meltwater which they claim will raise sea levels by 20 feet.
However, to provide all their pictures of ice-shelves "the size of Texas" calving off into the sea, they have had to draw on one tiny region of the continent, the Antarctic Peninsula – the only part that has been warming. The vast mass of Antarctica, all satellite evidence has shown, has been getting colder over the past 30 years. Last year's sea-ice cover was 30 per cent above average.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Are They Lying, Or Just Wrong?
The Global Warming faithful are at it again/still, and need to be corrected.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Darren,
To answer your question, "Are they lying or just wrong?"
The correct answer is "yes."
The Stock Mark Report
http://drmarkstock.com
Darren
I don’t get it…next you’ll be implying ALGORE is just pushing this global warming crap because he will make hundreds of millions of dollars as a results of mandated conservation and use of more expensive fuels when we have billions of barrels of oil off the coast ready to get drilled.
I am shocked!
Ironic Darren. I just linked this story to my new Fox blog. How can we continue to believe these clowns when it is obvious they are cooking the books? What are they, failed Wall Street bank examiners?
It's been pretty damn cold here on the Kentucky/Ohio border too.
Check out the comic Prickly City for today (01/26/2009) for a picture that represents your post well. Picture worth a 1000 words and all that...
http://www.gocomics.com/pricklycity/
Well, just in time to bail themselves out, you get this article on not just "climate change" but irreversible climate change. I find this paragraph entertaining...
"People have imagined that if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide the climate would go back to normal in 100 years, 200 years; that's not true," climate researcher Susan Solomon said in a teleconference.
So what exactly is back to "normal"? Is that like Lake Wobegon or something? Probably not since everyone is "above average" there.
I find it interesting how some turn theories to fact when they are short on the proof. In this economy we cannot afford to be spending money on things that are not proven.
That still doesn't explain the Dust Bowl in Oklahoma during a period in history when few had cars.
Proof doesn't matter, because it isn't about the planet, and never has been, no more than "overpopulation will kill us off by 1980!" was about people. It's about control, pure and simple. That's it. They want to control what we do, what we buy, and how we live our lives.
That's all this environmentalist horse manure ever has been.
Though I'm not a fanatic about it - global warming is incredibly low on my list of priorities - I still don't see what the problem is with trying to limit the burning of fossil fuels/carbon emissions. (As an asthmatic, I have a different perspective.) The economic argument doesn't seem valid enough to invoke such vociferous reaction from people opposed to making changes based on the possibility of man-influenced climate change.
My question is - what if you're wrong? If they're wrong, then we have simply cleaned up our pollution, decreased the significance of Saudi Arabia, and the climate still changes. How can that be bad? A cleaner environment and an economy not controlled by a commodity such as Middle East oil can't be a bad thing.
When Democrats opposed the Iraqi war, I remember Sean Hannity always asking, "but what if you're wrong?" I'd love for him to answer the same question on environmental reform. What if we could change the game and positively affect the environment, but we didn't? What if you're wrong?
What I want to know is this: What is wrong with climate change? Isn't it supposed to change? What would happen if it were static? What would the implications of that be for the weather, geology, agriculture, etc.? Color me curious.
Mazenko, you've moved the goalposts. No one opposes limiting pollution. However, we already have a mature technology that's capable of producing tons of electricity, and the fuel source is readily available in the US and Canada. When the enviro-nuts sign on to nuclear power--as has Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace--*then* we can talk as if this issue is really about cutting particulate matter in the atmosphere.
Until then, I agree with RightWingProf--this is about control, not pollution.
"Mazenko, you've moved the goalposts."
That, and ignored reality. What if we're wrong? Well, considering that the chicken little environmentalists have been screaming "the sky is falling!" since the first Earth Day, and every single time, they have been wrong, the odds of our being wrong are very, very low. But let's say that we are wrong, and that the sky is indeed falling. What then?
Well, we won't have destroyed our liberty and economy just to satisfy a bunch of hysterical control freaks, that's what.
And I fail to see what being an asthmatic has to do with anything. Do you feel that because you have asthma, you have a right to demand things of others, that you have some kind of special right to violate others' liberty?
I'd like it to be a bit warmer; I'm freezing in DC right now! Warmer weather means a longer growing season for us. Regarding the question about what's wrong with believing in global warming, my thought is that we don't tackle issues related to pollution and oil independence with a lie or seriously flawed theory. Even if there is manmade warming, the claims that it is only going to bring tragedy is absurd as well. It's a lot easier to grow food when it's warm for goodness sake! Also, carbon dioxide is NOT pollution. It is a natural by-product of respiration (breathing). Plants rely on it to grow and make the food that we all rely on. As a conservation biologist (I currently work as an environmental educator - the one of two in the world that isn't a wacko environmental activist), I believe that in the US we need to focus on water quality issues and reducing storm water run-off problems. Restoration of wetlands and reducing storm water run-off protects water quality and reduces problems with flooding. Much of this involves the use of the best things for absorbing carbon dioxide and water - plants! If you want to "save the planet", plant trees and deal with rain water on your own property. This will do more for America and your specific town than carbon credits, caps, taxes - whatever scheme socialist control freaks are coming up with at the moment.
And in a pleasant bit of serendipity, I just came across this:
*****
These individuals (Obama advisors) are not old-style conservationists focused on cleaning up the air and water or protecting and expanding natural areas. They represent a more authoritarian and apocalyptic strain of true believers who see in environmental issues – mainly, global warming – a license to push a radical agenda irrespective of its effects on our economy, our society or even our dependence on foreign energy.
*****
http://www.newgeography.com/content/00550-obama-fight-the-green-agenda
Post a Comment