The following statements will be my last (update: ok maybe not -- donk.) on the global warming discussion. The argument has become for the lack of a better word -- silly, and as is their mo...the left have changed the argument into something that it is not.
No reasonable person denies that the earth at this time is warming. No intelligent person denies that man has an impact on his surroundings aka "the environment". But that's not what we are currently debating. If you do not toe the leftist green line that man alone is destroying the earth and that the end is nigh...then you are a holocaust denier.
Where the f did that come from?
The left just love them that nazi pillow talk.
Its amazingly ignorant to me that the same people that cite the infallibility of the scientific community consensus resort to defining those that disagree with them as skeptics and big oil lackeys or just plain ol' idiots while at the same time denying overwhelming scientific evidence contradictory to their position.
While we're here -- let's address the scientific community. Let me show my cards for a moment. I have intimate knowledge of the scientific community, but even if I didn't -- I know scientists, and I mean that in the most common sensical of terms. I know the type -- I get their deal.
As I recall there was recent consensus amongst them that we'd all be dead or diseased by now at the hands of either a) nuclear reactor meltdowns or b) AIDS....two pet projects of the left in the past two decades. Well last time I checked I still only have ten fingers (ok smartass... eight fingers and two thumbs) and as many women as Ive slept with hatless in a drunken, reckless, and irresponsible manner.... I'm still strong like bull, or donkey if you will.
Scientists can be wrong. Remember the great aerosol scare of 1985? Yet Turbo and Ozone live on. Scientists do have an agenda (even the ones not being paid by Exxon). They want a professional purpose, they want to fit in, they want to be loved. Scientific consensuses can be incorrect and as much times as not they usually are. You see, scientists by definition are not original thinkers. They go with the grain or they lose funding and become ostracized by their peers -- its that simple. None of them want to be wrong, so they follow the herd.
Well at least the weak ones do, and the vast majority or consensus (if you will) are just that.... weak.
So it is the brave skeptic all alone that risks ridicule in the pursuit of science that we should give our admiration and not our scorn.
To do otherwise is to render scientific pursuit irrelevant and no more significant than a high school popularity contest.
There's a reason we celebrate the great scientific minds of history -- it's because they are so very rare. Few great scientific achievements were discovered by committee. Yet that's all we hear from the eco-greenies.... they claim the moral high ground by default as a result of consensus. They haven't the foggiest fuckin' ideal (platonically speaking) what the hell they are talking about nor do they have a clue how true and pure scientific discovery works (clue: its not in a frickin' Al Gore movie)
But here we are and now "scientists" have become the new Gold Star Mom... Cindy Sheehan is so last year.
Here's the long and short of it. The Warming Alarmists are full of shit!
They deny the very science that they cling to so blindly. The fact is that the earth has always warmed and it has always cooled at various times during its existence. Its what it does. Its called the at-mos-phere. Rather simple really. As my colleague has pointed out ad nauseum the same doom and gloomers today were preparing us for another Ice Age in the 70's. He was right, but that's only the most recent example. The same chicken little types of a different century were predicting Armageddon by a different maker during the "Little Ice Age" in the seventeen hundos.
I'm not here to give an astronomy lesson, but there has been one constant in all of god's green earth's climatic cycles and that is the sun. The sun is sometimes hot, sometimes its very hot, and sometimes hotter still... considering that roughly 100% (is that a consensus?) of the earth's positive temperature is directly derived from our big yellow friend in the sky (kind of like a celestial Big Bird), it just makes sense to me to perhaps just maybe look in that direction (but not directly, or you'll shoot your eye out kid) for the cause of the current warming cycle as opposed to dumping on ourselves about something that, where in the grand scheme of things, we are (even the really really big SUV's) after all, rather insignificant.
"Sadly, sadly, the sun rose; it rose upon no sadder sight than the man of good abilities and good emotions, incapable of their directed exercise, incapable of his own help and his own happiness, sensible of the blight on him, and resigning himself to let it eat him away." -- Charles Dickens
...or maybe it is just livestockian flatulence.
Once again I will concur that the earth is currently in the midst of a warming period. I will also agree that man does indeed have an effect on his surroundings and that we should be responsible and dutiful inhabitants of our home and take care of it to the best of our abilities.
No argument here.
But we should not bite off our industry to spite the stranded polar bear (they can swim ya know that right?) for a man made created paranoia at the detriment of human advancement.
The numbers just don't add up, but even if all the numbers the greens say are accurate (they're not) -- then by my calculations between normal solar patterns, regular atmospheric cycles, smelly cow farts, and over-abundant escaladian sapien endeavors we are only minimally to blame (if at all) and since I don't see the ecovangelists proposing to install a thermostat on the sun, taxing weather patterns or corking a cows cornholio....I'm gonna give mankind a pass as well.
We've done real good and I'm proud of us humans (well most of us).... so stop hating your species you goddamn hippies.
EE-Aw!!!
And now to paraphrase George Burns...
Say Baa, Sheep...
Baa Sheep!
35 comments:
Where to begin?
First, no one is saying that the scientific community is infallible. The skeptics should and have had their say, and I have conceded that is it not inconceivable that they are right, although I think the majority opinion is more likely to be correct. You on the other hand think the National Academy of Science, et al are "full of shit", a scientific term with which I am not familiar. I still do not understand how you can be so sure the skeptics are right? It is a result of your "calculations?" Also it is the skeptics who are "denying overwhelming scientific evidence contradictory to their position."
Second, I am amazed that you would cite "the great aerosol scare of 1985" as an example of scientists being wrong. The hole in the ozone layer was measurably getting larger and there was a strong scientific consensus that Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)were to blame. This position was disputed by a minority of scientists, many paid for by the industries involved,who said the relationship between CFCs and ozone depletion was not conclusively proven. Guided by the consensus, the Congress passed a law phasing out CFCs, supported and signed by a great American President, Ronald Reagan. As a result the hole in the ozone layer is now getting smaller.
I am pleased that this will be your last statement on global warming.
it wont be MY last word
Im actually embarrassed for you.
Once again you confuse policy with science.
Tsk Tsk.
Gary, i spanked you on this already and i thought you would be smart enough to just shut up already but i guess i overestimated you. Here i go again:
THE SAME ORGANIZATIONS (including the national academy of sciences) THAT TODAY ARE TELLING THE SHEEPLE (you and your ilk) THAT THE WORLD IS COMING TO AN END BECAUSE WE DRIVE SUV'S AND THE IT'S MAKING THE WORLD MELT, WERE TELLING US IN THE 70'S THAT WE WERE WELL ON OUR WAY TO ANOTHER ICE AGE!
Enough with the ad hominem attacks on the scientists that you don't agree with. They don't apply here.
I don't even know what you're arguing about? Are you in favor of kyoto? a resolution that will do NOTHING for the environment but will crush the economy? If so, WHY?
Do you know that the summary that we're all debating is a summary of a report that hasn't been written and the summary was written by politicians and lobbiest groups?
I should however add that the ozone fraud was very profitable for me as the price of black market freon went through the roof in the early 90's and I was there to capture a small portion of the market...so in full disclosure I was 100% behind any and all restrictive policies at the time.
Ozone fraud? You think it's just a coincidence that they ban CFCs and the hole in the ozone stops growing and begins to shrink, just as the scientific consensus predicted? Thank God Reagan was smarter than you.
And on the big Ice Age scare: there was nowhere near the same level of evidence or consensus. Speculation by some scientists and a few stories in magazines. You obviously do not understand science or you would not always be arguing against the theory of evolution, without offering a competing scientific theory.
Yeah thats right...FRAUD. Ill send you a copy of my nephews chemistry book if you want.
On an unrelated note...
Rhino you owe me a hundred bucks.
gary is right about the alleged "ice age scare," as i pointed out in the post that rhino did linking to the geographer who claims to be a climate scientist.
i wonder why all the articles you link to on this subject are by discredited hacks and wacko politicians. aren't there any more credible sources or studies to cite?
The article in newsweek quotes the same scientists that are now saying we are causing global warming.
If they were whacko's then, they're whacko's now.
Gary I will argue evolution with you on an evolution post. Don't try to change the subject.
The NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES was quoted in the newsweek article as were other "reputable" scientists of the time.
The evidence during the 70's was the visable INCREASE of snow/ice cover in the polar ice caps and other regions of the world and the evidence now is the visible DECREASE of the snow/ice cover of the same areas.
Donsky was saying that the scientists i quoted in a previous post were looking at the short term picture when in fact its the current crop of alarmists that are looking at the short term picture. Come back to me in 200 years and tell me what the average temperature of the earth is. If its 2 degrees higher then MAYBE we can start to worry.
Thanks for the offer of your nephew's chemistry book but I'll pass. Obviously the scientific community was proven right on CFCs and the ozone layer. You seem to be saying that almost the entire scientific community could have missed some simple fact of chemistry which completely disproves all the studies they did on CFC and ozone.That's like when the creationists say that scientists have overlooked that evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. Well, no it doesn't, it's just that the creationists don't understand it.
But then you think that evolution is bullshit, along with global warming, and the hole in the ozone layer. This called projection: you are the one full of shit.
Are you fucking kidding me? How can you possible deny that there was a widely help scientific opinion that the earth was cooling in the 70's? You argue against known fact because one guy lied on his resume...thats just not very bright of you (stupid)
How about around the year 1700 during the Maunder Minimum period of global cooling? Were those guys on Exxon's payroll too?
I may have to come to your next show just to give you a straight shot to the ovaries.
Gary once again you're running away from me. You too donsky. Here's some more for you sheep because i love you guys!
"The National Academy of Sciences came out with a report on global warming back in 2001 with a very distinguished list of such experts listed. The problem is that not one of those very distinguished scientists actually wrote the report -- or even saw it before it was published.
One of those very distinguished climate scientists -- Richard S. Lindzen of MIT -- publicly repudiated the conclusions of that report, even though his name had been among those used as window dressing on the report. But the media may not have told you that.
In short, there has been a full court press to convince the public that "everybody knows" that a catastrophic global warming looms over us, that human beings are the cause of it, and that the only solution is to turn more money and power over to the government to stop us from our dangerous ways of living." (sowell)
Wake up suckers! Or don't, it doesn't matter to me if you guys want to be sheep (or monkeys if you believe in evolution).
...and I never denied the hole in the ozone layer, I just happen to understand what the ozone is and what it isnt and that like most things atmospheric it is cyclical in nature and that the density is naturally thinner and thicker directly related to its position on earth and a variety of factors, one of which are cfc's
...but just like the current warming scare... there was no money in regulating the sun, volcanos, the rain forest or other natural occurences...so man bore sole responsibility and cost.
Stop being anti-human.
Rhino..
double or nothing that I open hand the next person to ask me where my coat is when I go for outisde for a smoke?
double or nothing that i'll slap you right in your face the next time i see you! pussy!
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=17
"Lindzen "charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC"
Imagine my surprise. You know, the Tobacco Lobby did the same thing.You say that the global warming proponents are biased because they get grant money, but the skeptics all seem to be funded by Exxon, etc.
Then you better put your hand on ice right now even thinking about it sunshine.
He's a member of the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE! You keep mentioning all these organizations without mentioning the individual scientists. I bet you EVERY ONE OF THEM gets paid! Which one of the scientists that you reference works for free? Doesn't get any grant money from the government? Or Greenpiece? Please tell me which one is doing the charity work and then explain to me why they signed on to a report that they didn't write and haven't read if not for the CASH?
Gary, all you and donsky have is ad hominem attacks. You can't challenge the science!
You try to discredit the man but cite the organization that he's a member of. You ignore the fact that the scientists didn't write the report because you can't answer that one! your friend donsky has been hiding because he can't answer it either.
you also still haven't responded to the fact that the same organizations you cite were crying about the opposite thing 30 years ago!
You say "You obviously do not understand science or you would not always be arguing against the theory of evolution, without offering a competing scientific theory."
Here's what Lindzen has to say about your attitude.
"if somebody says you should take jelly beans for cancer and you say that’s stupid, and he says, well can you suggest something else and you say, no, does that mean you have to go with jelly beans?"
Gary Im curious as to whether you would agree with the following statements...
"As early as the 19th century, scientists believed they were witnessing warming trends that some speculated could be caused by human activity. Much of the modern concern about the contribution of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to climate change began with the work of the late Charles D. Keeling, of UC-San Diego."
and...
"Global warming -- a gradual increase in planet-wide temperatures -- is now well documented and accepted by scientists as fact. A panel convened by the U.S National Research Council, the nation's premier science policy body, in June 2006 voiced a "high level of confidence" that Earth is the hottest it has been in at least 400 years, and possibly even the last 2,000 years."
~~warning its a trap~~
Id imagine you agree with both of them, yet these statements were made by an institution funded by Exxon, so by your logic they must be false.
You must see the flawed logic behind your argument?
And while were at it since when did Exxon = lying?
Lets assume for now thats the case, then I presume you ride a bicycle or maybe drive an electric car, for no self respecting person that thinks a company's product and intentions are so evil and cites them so often as a negative would surely never with clear conscience use their products and be party to such treachery...right?
No flaw in my logic at all. I'm just saying that many of the skeptics have a financial interest in denying global warming. You dance with the one that brung you. But no, that doesn't mean that every word out of their mouths is a lie.I am likewise skeptical of the scientists on Big Tobacco's payroll.
The Rhino said: "you're running away from me"
my sources tell me that's exactly what you say to the chicks, Rhinocular.
hmmm. i'm beginning to see a pattern here.
Gary at least pretend you have balls! You use the ad hominem attacks to discredit the other side and shut down debate.
Your logic IS flawed!
You bring up Big Tobacco because we know they were lying and you want to associate exxon with them. You also continue to ignore the fact that all of these scientists are funded by someone with an agenda and they dance with the one that brung them too.
I don't expect you to answer because i know you can't. I just like throwing it in your face because i'm like that.
That goes for you too donsky.
i guess my real point is what does the alleged ice age scare of the 1970s have to do with the global warming debate?(but anyway, i'd like to see a citation from a peer-reviewed scientific journal that had an article arguing the ice age was coming)
nothing!
that specific argument boils down to, "well, scientists are alarmists who turned out to be wrong in the past, so they're wrong this time, too!"
nevermind that the aforementioned ice age scare was by no means a consensus among the scientific community.
and nevermind that you're responding to a mountain of evidence with a weak inductive argument.
as stossel would say, gimme a break.
on a lighter note, PITCHERS AND CATCHERS REPORT TODAY. THANK GOD.
...but yet you take the word of those on the payroll of Ted Turner or Soros as fact.
I find your inconsistency to be lacking of integrity and quite frankly I question your sincerity.
ooooh, that goes for me, too, rhino?
Q: when did i deny that EVERY scientist has an agenda?
A: never.
thank you for your time.
The scientists actually doing research on global warming--unlike most of the skeptics--receive grant money from a variety of sources to do good science. When Exxon funds a scientist they know damn well the results they want and will get.
Even is Lindzen is sincere, I will go with the 90% who disagree with him. If 90% of weathermen told you there was a 90% chance it was going to rain tomorrow, you'd bring an umbrella.
But go ahead, call it "bullshit" or talk IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS.
Donsky i was just throwing you in there to get you riled up a bit and get you back in the game.
Now again i will answer your questions even though you don't answer mine.
Not only have we not seen the peer reviewed work on the latest global warming report, but we haven't even seen the report. It hasn't been written and the "summary" was written by politicians. Do you think they know what they want the results to say?
Is there a peer reviewed report on the ice age thing? I have no idea? I haven't even seen any reports i just took my info from the newsweek and national geographic articles. There was no internet in 1975.
Finally, i'm not arguing against a mountain of evidence. There is no evidence because if there was there would be no argument from anyone. Is the earth warming? yes.
Proof that it's man made? NONE.
Science is supposed to be about proving things. show the proof to Lindzen because he hasn't seen it yet. By the way there's thousands of scientists who agree with him.
here's a list of some of the more prominent ones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus
have fun tracking down all the connections to exxon, since that's your only argument against them.
dude... didn't you see who wrote that wiki entry?
exxon!
A note on the ozone thing. Here we have a case where a problem was identified and solved, and you are still disputing the science. Obviously no amount of evidence would be sufficient for you to change your mind.
By the way, how do you feel about the heliocentric theory. Jury still out? There is still one astronomer who disputes it. Naturally, he's a religious nut.
Once again you are making up an argument and putting words in my mouth because you can not debate on the merits.
Whats your argumet? Because everybody said so? Because the ozone is healing itself now after we got rid of the evil exxon funded cfc's
Without googling or running to wiki it...do you even know what ozone is? How its created? What factors besides the big bad man deplete it? Do you know what significant natural occurences were happening at historic levels the same time that your vaulted scientists were blaming man?
My guess is no, or at least for your sake I hope not or Id be led to believe that you only use science when its conveinent for your political ideology.
Here is where EVERYBODY got it wrong. The ozonospehre is NOT a constant. Repeat... the ozonosphere is NOT a constant. I shouldnt have to explain further....
My problem, besides the faulty science and the "cure" was the man made mass hysteria created to further a political agenda. Anita and Lily using five cans of aquanet a day had ZERO impact, but thats what we were led to believe. Freon powered AC's had ZERO impact, but yet thats what we were led to believe. Panic causes fear and fear leads to anger and then some Jedi gets betrayed or something like that.
Its the same thing over and over again.
Take AIDS for example. The chances of me, a non needle using hetersexual contracting HIV through vaginal sex is practically mathematically non-existent but if AIDS was portrayed as only a fag and junkie disease -- then there just wouldnt have been the same funding than if "scientists" scared the shit out of everybody to wear red ribbons and cut checks to AIDSAid or whatever the fuck concert they had for that issue that day.
Its junk science and its fear science and its political agenda driven science and I dont buy it.
...but now you go on calling me a skeptic and a denier or on the payroll of Exxon (technically I suppose I am). I can live with that. Certainly beats the hell out of being a blind sheep following the blind sheperd.
gary, come onnn !!! you know the answer to that one: the earth revolves around Donkeyhue !!!
case closed.
heh.
On Ozone: so all the scientists were wrong and Donkey is right. Not bloody likely. Fortunately the Congress and President Reagan listened to the scientists rather than you.
On Aids: I personally knew a heterosexual woman who died of Aids. Heterosexual men are less likely to contract HIV (thank God).
Of course there are a few scientists who dispute the HIV-AIDS link so maybe you think the science is not in yet.
I mispoke I should not have used the world ALL, but yeah thats about right. I will be holding a conference next month..details to follow (dont wanna ruin the post)
...or did the scientists listen to the politicians (aka the holders of the purse strings aka gov't grants) as they are now doing regarding anthropogenic global warming as displayed by the very non-scientific UN report just published.
Post a Comment