I think everyone here knows my views on the global warming frenzy. It's bad science combined with good propaganda and whala - we have a movement. I have presented (during our e-mail threads) mountains of evidence from credible, peer reviewed scientists and foundations that show this alarmist mentality is unwarranted and that man-made climate change is the stuff of science fiction, not science fact. I always let out a hearty "HA!" when Al Gore recites his tired line, "the scientific consensus is ..." Because science is not defined by consensus. It either is or is not provable with no room for "opinion." It is either known for sure or it is a theory - no in between. There is no "consensus" on photosynthesis, after all. At any rate, among the hundreds - and I do mean hundreds - of scientists that agree, is the man whom invented hurricane forecasting. I think that's slightly credible, don't you? Well, another big name has "outed" himself as a global warming skeptic - John Coleman. You may not be familiar with him or the PhD in meteorology he has held for 55 years, but I'm sure you've heard of what he founded - a little thing called The Weather Channel.
Hmmm ... who would seem to have more credibility on the issue of our climate? Al Gore or Coleman?
He uses one word to describe the "global warming movement." SCAM. He says it's a scam. You can link to the weather blog he outed himself on below. I came across this and had to post it. I don't know, come to think of it, how much the other two Bund founders buy into this rapidly being debunked theory of man-made climate change, so it may not even be an issue up for debate. I tend to remember Titus buying into this at one point, but perhaps that has subsided and reason has returned.
For anyone that does buy into it, I would be happy to send you my global warming e-mail that contains staggering amounts of data from credible sources contradicting this so called "consensus." But even without that, ask yourself the following questions and apply a little common sense, and see what you come up with:
1.) If it is such a provable phenomena, why is it presented as a consensus, rather than science fact?
2.) Ice ages have come and gone through out the millinea. Warming and cooling trends have come and gone throughout the million (s) year history of our planet. What caused them? SUV's and Nike factories weren't around. Perhaps they were simply a naturally occuring cyclical event, as is this one.
3.) 98% of the Co2 released in to the atmosphere comes from water evaporation. Another 1% is from other natural sources such as cow and moose flatulation and volcanic activity etc. If the 1% of human induced Co2 is causing (or will cause) all of this catastrophic environmental repercussions, why haven't the other 99% ever done so? The oceans have been evaporating since the beginning of time - and those T-Rex's MUST have cut some hellacious gas - why is it that the 99% part is not harmful, but the last 1% is? Use your best SNL/Dana Carvey church lady voice and say: "that's a mystery."
4.) The earth is something on the order of several hundred million years old, right? Are we to believe that 150 years of industrialization can effect the climate of a planet of that age?
Now, what Gore et al are doing is proselytizing. They're selling you a religion and asking you to "believe." They are NOT however, on the Today Show doing scientific experiments proving their case.
The snake oil salesman has simply traded in his wagon for a Gulf Stream jet - the pitch is the same.
FR
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/JC_comments.doc
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Granted, on the whole, I agree with the simple fact that the Al Gore-led “Global Warming Campaign” is a bunch of hyped-up crap designed to garner public attention that is anti-Administration and anti-GOP, I still see (yet another) failure in the Administration specifically and the GOP in general when it comes to addressing this issue.
What is the single greatest threat to US national interests right now? Illegal immigrants? Terrorists? Global warming?
It’s an out-of-control national addiction to cheap FOREIGN oil.
This country can’t supply even 25% of its current DAILY requirement of crude oil, and we have a national stockpile of oil and fuel that would last the GOVERNMENT alone only 14 days, if all other sources were cut off. There are estimates that 89% of ALL domestic national infrastructure completely depends on the DAILY import of 16 MILLION barrels of oil (with fewer than 5 million barrels being produced domestically). Most (if not ALL) of these estimates claim that demand will increase by factors of 100 each year for the next 50 to 75 years.
To offer massive tax incentives to corporations that produce or promote the use of “clean” or “alternative” fuels would seem like a frigging NO BRAINER, to my ignorant and uneducated eyes. It shows a concern and a dedication by the Feds that costs the government NOTHING, and any lost revenue can be recouped by increases in taxes or fines levied against “dirty” industries that balk at upgrading or cleaning up older energy technologies.
Suddenly, we face a future where BRAND NEW INDUSTRIES like coal-to-gas, bio-fuels, solar technologies, geo-thermal sites, wave-generators, wind turbines, et al are given a broad and open arena in which to develop and thrive over the course of the next 25 years. Brand new industries that will generate jobs, tax revenue and domestic prosperity in ways that could rival the success of past developments like the railroads, steel industries, electricity, and transportation companies.
Then tell me that ANY reduction in our dependence on FOREIGN energy sources isn’t a GOOD thing… I dare you. It took initially unregulated industries like electricity, telecommunications, and television less than a generation to DOMINATE their respective markets in this nation, and eventually in the world… with absolutely NO assistance or promotion from the US Federal Government whatsoever. The railroad and airline industries faced regulation only because of their wild successes and the need to ensure fair and legal business practices. And all of these industries have grown to dominate the markets to a degree that the nation and its economy have DEPENDED on them, or still do.
Every year since 2002, I have heard Bush refer to the need to reduce or eliminate our dependence on foreign energy in the SotU Addresses, but I have seen jack SQUAT in the intervening 6 years about how that is being addressed. You know what I call that?
Another Bush Administration FAILURE.
Who’s gonna answer for that?
One more thing...
Since 2000, whom do you suppose is the more credible man in the public's eye: Al Gore or George W. Bush?
I know how I would answer that, but I want to hear your response in print.
Knowing my answer, though... I then query: Whose fault is that? Why is it that Bush has little to no credibility in the American public's eye, while Al Gore has received the globally recognized Nobel Peace Prize for his post-Administration efforts?
Do we blame a biased media that flagrantly promotes anything BUSH as BAD? Do we blame an ignorant and easily influenced American public that wants all its information fed to it in 30-second bite-sized bits that never have to be pondered or considered past dinner time? Do we blame Gore as an underhanded "snake-oil" salesman that works night and day to undercut the PotUS and his policies?
I blame a short-sighted and stubborn Administration that can't seem to think past TODAY when planning and implementing policy and strategy, domestic, foreign or otherwise. I blame a GOP that wastes the opportunity to air its views and agendas to the public for the last 7 (or maybe even 18) years, and instead focuses on the failings of the opposition leadership. I blame a President that places the "people" put into key positions ahead of the positions themselves, and refuses to hold those "positions" accountable for their roles in the functioning of this Government.
If "Big Al and the Greenhouse Boys" have more clout these days than Bush... you have no one to blame but Bush himself.
Post a Comment