We who didn't buy it were called all sorts of things by the sophisticated adherents. We were rubes who didn't understand science. And of course, those professionals who also denied were criticized as being less than theirs, not really qualified, or worse, paid to deny by corporations who stood to profit by our destruction.
But now we see a blizzard of evidence indicating that it is the adherents who have been less than honest. We have a rising tide, as it were, of contrary info that shows that the adherents were less than selfless in their research.
This Selwyn Duke article lists a litany of abuses and questionable practices by those who have championed the AGW sham upon the world. There are many such sources available now showing how tax money was stolen for the sake of this nonsense. Imagine if the Copenhagen talks went better for the warmists! Imagine if Bush had signed on to Kyoto! The money that would have been wasted would have been more than criminal, it would have been demonic. And we still have politicians in this country that are looking at cap & tax policies, looking to force stricter regulations that can cripple job growth.
What it comes down to is that we just missed a financial catastrophy and wiping our brows and gasping, "Whew! That was close!" is about right. But as Duke suggests, it ain't quite over and we must push those who intended to foist upon us this crapola and bring them all out into the light of our warming sun and determine if criminal charges are in order for any of them.
In the meantime, we can now enjoy those who cling to the lie and laugh as they have little left but to try and pretend we don't know the difference between weather and climate because we use recent snowstorms to mock the warmists. Their overinflated sense of superiority is always good for a few chuckles.
P.S. It should be re-stated, because many on the left will always seek to try to pretend we don't care, that the state of our environment is always a righteous concern for all. Though the weather is beyond our ability to improve or destroy, we can muck up the earth if we aren't careful. Let's not be pigs and let's punish those who are.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
You're aware that colder air holds less snow, right? Right?
Buffoon.
Marshall,
I don't know if you've checked out Hillbuzz, but they've got a great post questioning what should happen to Algore.
If you haven't been there, they are a group of gay Hillary supporters who have an interesting take on a lot of issues.
http://hillbuzz.org/
"You're aware that colder air holds less snow, right?"
Again with the news flashes, eh Skippy? And this info proves AGW how exactly? I've lived through winters with higher than average snowfall for my area as well as winters with less than average snowfall. What's your likely stupid point?
Craig,
I am familiar with these guys through Neil's blog. He features their articles often. They're typicaly pretty sensible about issues without their homosexuality clouding everything. I'll be sure to check out their AlGore piece.
I thought you might be.
Are you employed yet?
I'm in the middle of the hiring process for a part-time gig as a school bus driver. This will hold me while awaiting results of a few other leads. It will also allow me to interview for full time positions should those leads fall through. And I can earn a little which will let me be a bit more selective in taking what little is available. If it goes on too long, I may go ahead and take an over-the-road gig for the better bucks, but I would prefer not to.
I'm glad to hear that you have some options, God bless your search.
I can't prove global warming. Scientists can't prove global warming. Science can't prove anything. Shows what you know about the Nature of Science.
Science collects observable evidence, calculates measurements of such evidence, and, when the data point strongly or preponderantly in certain directions, makes theoretical conclusions of what's happening and predicts what will happen.
This is how the "solar system" is still a prevailing theory, Marshall. No one has stayed outside our system long enough to record the earth going around the sun. It was fashioned from logical reasoning from sets of observables related to different things, brought together in calculations which appear, for some time now, to predict what happens.
You're in a position of trusting that those who carry out these calculations know what they are talking about: the earth goes around the sun. The church did not like this at all once upon a time. They killed for not liking it. But you trust them, right?
Even though the sun rises in the East and goes over through the sky and sets in the West?
You're a liberal on that score, I guess.
Point being: regarding that stuff piling up around your home that you have to shovel: it ain't snow!!!
There has been no statistically significant warming in global temperatures in 15 years; the earth has actually been cooling over the last couple years, though not to a degree that is statistically significant.
Are we supposed to believe that massive amounts of snowfall is evidence of global warming? I wonder what the hell would qualify as evidence against the theory.
If there's smoke, there's fire, but are we to accept that a lack of smoke is proof that the fire is very well hidden?
If anthropogenic global warming is a theory that isn't falsifiable, then it's not a scientific theory. It's dogma that is as rigid as any religious belief.
Science is a grand thing, but over the last few months it's become clear that there's been a helluva lot of fraud on the part of climate scientists, from the deliberate efforts in East Anglia to hide and skew the data, to the UN's IPCC report relying on sheer speculation from special interest groups.
It's simply not the case that global warming is as proven as the fact that the earth revolves around the sun, and to the contrary, it's the Al Gore's of the world who are acting like the rigid dogmatists who declared that a Copernican cosmology is heresy. Their position is increasingly undermined by the evidence of systematic fraud, but they're the ones who act as if evidence doesn't matter if the evidence isn't convenient.
Bubba...
Are we supposed to believe that massive amounts of snowfall is evidence of global warming?
I'm sorry for commenting here, but I just have to ask: You all DO realize that the theory is about global climate change? And that aggregate global warming is one bit of evidence for this? And that the fact that it still snows is not an indicator that there are no changes in global climate?
"seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995."
..."Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere ...
There is no scientific debate on this point.
Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr-1 since 2000. The global concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years of 180 to 300 ppmv. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration)."
Read more actual data from, you know, scientists...
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
The theory is NOW about climate change now that "warming" is seen to be BS.
" According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES)..."
It is also the IPCC that is being questioned regarding the value and honesty of their data. And of course also in question, and this is the real heart of the matter, is how much mankind has to do with any variations in climate. The answer thus far is still, not enough to burden business and the economy over.
Feodor,
The point is that the AGW crowd thinks the rest of us believe snowfall disproves their claims about climate change. That isn't the case at all. It's only mockery and people like you are too inane and have your lips pressed too firmly against AlGore's ass to understand that.
What fascinates me is the venom with which some people approach a supposedly scientific question.
I'm also interested in the people that the church killed for heliocentrism. I wouldn't defend such an action, but I wasn't aware that they did that. I know they tried Galileo for heresy and that they "imprisoned" him for failing to keep his word about not teaching heliocentrism. ("Imprisoned" may be the popular idea, but he lived out his life in a large villa with servants and comfort, visiting with church officials and even his daughter.) He wasn't executed (unless one can be deemed "executed" by dying of natural causes). I know of Giordano Bruno who was executed by the Church, but his execution was for heresy. He wasn't a scientist, but was a pantheist. He had a long list of genuine heretical views. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, when Bruno was burned at the stake as a heretic, it had nothing to do with his writings in support of Copernican cosmology. So I'm wondering who the church killed for their heliocentrism.
Marshall,
I've been reading your comments on other sites, but just now getting on to read some of your stuff.
I have not spent the time to become knowledgable on the specific arguments of global warming/climate change etc. My concern is more with what the propositions are for addressing the problem, if even it is conceded that all the reports are true based on previously positioned worldview and what the entailments might be.
Not enough space here to elaborate, but i'd love to read your thoughts on what i've been thinking on the matter. Link is below. I look forward to visiting again.
http://jeremydtroxler.blogspot.com
Found this pretty amusing as the high priest of the church of AGW gets heckled.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIhaiZuoqYs
http://www.thefoxnation.com/al-gore/2010/02/26/gore-heckled-apple-shareholder-meeting
I am absolutely confused by Stan, whose link concretely mentions Bruno's career as mathematician and astronomer. The most recent biographies, utilizing new research, by Yates and, superior, Ingrid Rowland lay out his scientific work following Copernicus in which he demonstrates not only a heliocentric case, but also that stars are the same as our sun and may well have life around them as we live around our sun. This is called a "plurality of worlds" view which is included on the list of things for which Bruno was burned at the stake. Also, he advocated infinity of the universe - more fuel to his fire in the eyes of the church.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/al_latest_global_warming_whopper_TolFbG2ccT5XPtKtXoOx0L
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=522575
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=522575
http://www.therightscoop.com/michele-bachmann-calls-for-independent-investigation-into-white-house/
I know these aren't about the pope of AGW, but it's just more fun with P-BO.
Post a Comment