Snow or yesterday's weather in Peoria are clues about global
warming's existence like 22" rims are a clue about my income's
existence. Unrelated. It only needs to be 31-degrees to snow, and precipitation means what? Further, The planet is x Billion years old, and we're relaying anecdotes about last week?
You don't need anecdotes to figure out that GW is at the very least questionable, and at the most, somewhat hoaxy becuase of two things. One, that we do not know enough about the planet's history to accuraely predict where we've been, where we're going, and our ability to influence it. Two, that there is so much money to be made in GW's promotion that it deserves cultural re-evaluation.
Also, I'd urge us not to throw out the great things about environmentalism that we know are right (like better waste management, not ingesting pollutants, recycling, etc.). GW is a very separate issue from conservation and environmentalism, though many would insist that you clump them.
Denmark Vesey said ...
Excellent post JH. Thank you for elevating the discourse.Yes, anecdotes are unnecessary to cast doubt about the existence of anthropomorphic global warming. However anecdotes are very useful in pointing out that the pseudo-science of "Climate Change" is predicated upon nothing more than anecdotes and suspect computer modeling. (Think 'Melting Ice Caps' and 'Disappearing Polar Bear' myths)
For example, could you imagine the Warmist hyperbole to which we would be subject if it were 68 degrees in NYC today instead of 18 degrees and the country was being ravaged by hurricanes instead of blizzards?
The fact that we are experiencing 100 year record breaking low temperatures in Florida while we are supposedly on the brink of Extinction Level planetary warming is enough to snap even the most contrite Plantation Negro consumer of globalist memes out of his hypnotic obedience to establishment dogma.
"Climate Change" is a secular religion that requires faith in man.
Cats like DMG, despite the lip service about the scientific method, defend "Global Warming" because they are faithful to the system which produced them.
17 comments:
Because I like it doesn't mean I agree with it. I enjoy well reasoned arguement on both sides of the fight.
What do you think of this?
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/0129/its-cold-does-that-debunk-global-warming
Hello Anonymous.
"In other words, you can't tell much about the climate or where it's headed by focusing on a particularly frigid day, or season, or year, even."
Cool.
No problem.
I can believe that.
But that assertion plays both ways.
On what facts is the THEORY of Man Made Global Warming built?
Meaning.
Why must we prove a Negative?
1) If there is evidence of Global Warming.
Where is it?
(None of that "VAST MAJORITY OF SCIENTISTS SAY SO" faggotry)
Where is the evidence.
2) OK. So if there is some empirical evidence that suggests the Climate is getting warmer ... Where is the evidence that this global warming is caused by humans?
How do we know it's not the ... um ... um ... SUN?!
Evidence for your question 1 is easily found here at the NASA website, with references at the bottom.
Causes for your question 2 is also easily found at the NASA website.
It's not hidden you know. Took me all of 90 seconds to find, type and click "Publish Your Comment"
Funny, answered this a few hours ago and now it's strangely disappeared.
No problem:
Answer to Question 1: Evidence from NASA
Answer to Question 2: Causes of climate change also from NASA
How many times do you plan on deleting the answer to your questions?
NASA website answers these two questions rather succinctly.
Evidence
<a href="http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/>Causes</a>
Causes
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
Quote by Al Gore, former vice president: “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.”
Quote by Stephen Schneider, Stanford Univ., environmentalist: “That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”
Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Quote by Timoth Wirth, U.S./UN functionary, former elected Democrat: “We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
Quote by Richard Benedik, former U.S./UN bureaucrat: “A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect.”
Do you have the context of those quotes?
“That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.” What more context do you need?
How about the full text of each of these statements for starters...
In your example what is "That"?
Please, don't try to pull the out of context snippet ploy. That's so...pedestrian. You can do better than that. I have faith in you.
Be better.
I understand your point, but I just can't get down with fighting bs with bs....even if it is to shake some "plantation negro" out of a stupor. Someone's point about the polar bears, combated by a counter point about a blizzard is lunacy.
Pointing out the hypocricy of the carbon-crowd should be enough...Questioning the wisdom of efforts to reduce my personal carbon output to decrease the planet's temp one degree should cover it....how about evaluating the financial and physical costs we currently incur to combat GW? To call out a hot or a cold day, or even snow, diminishes anyone's argument.
I understand your point JH.
In a perfectly rational environment what you propose would work fine.
But the environment that hosts the discourse regarding AGW is not rational.
Understand that I am not simply engaged in an "argument".
I'm deprogramming people brainwashed by a tsunami of Global Warming propaganda.
Freezing temperatures in Florida and collapsing Metrodomes in Minnesota are extremely useful antidotes to the memetic poison of melting glaciers and lone polar bears clinging to blocks of ice in the middle of the ocean.
Look around this blog.
Right next to the images of blizzards and frozen cars are examinations of the "Greenhouse Effect" myth and treaties on the attempt to use "Climate Change" as a pretext to replace national democracy with global governance.
Yeah, I feel you.
Could this be the real deal?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dKoUwttE0BA
More solar activity = stronger magnetic field = less cosmic rays = less clouds = less heat reflecting back into space = more warmth on Earth.
Therefore the reverse is also true.
Post a Comment