The Old Environmentalist Soft Shoe
Once again, hysterical environmentalism has carried the day. In this case, by forcing Roger Pielke Sr. to resign from the panel which is preparing a report for President Bush on changes in atmospheric temperatures.
Dr. Pielke is a Climatologist at Colorado State University who disagrees with the panel`s belief that human activities is causing global climate change. At issue is the question of why surface measurements disagree with satellite observations. Surface (especially oceanic) measurements suggest the Earth is heating, while satellite observations show a slight cooling. Perhaps they should read my article from last year in the American Thinker to find the answer.
Environmentalism is more about faith than science, and anyone who disagrees with the consensus is branded a heretic and expelled. Dr. Pielke was the only member of this panel who broke ranks, and so now he`s gone. The question one must ask is why was he the only doubter in the group? There are thousands of scientists who disagree with the concept of manmade climate change. Over 15000 scientists have signed a petition against Kyoto and the Global Warming myth, and yet only ONE of them was allowed on this panel! Where was S. Fred Singer?
We are often told that Darwinism is science while the growing field of Intelligent Design is philosophy. Yet ID sits on far more solid ground than does most Environmentalism. The Global Warming crowd wants us to accept their views based on shaky computer models and weak data. They often fudge statistics, using abnormal periods as the norm to ``prove`` their case. (They usually use the end of the Maunder Minimum and the Mini Ice-Age as their baseline to prove the Earth is growing warm-Duh!)
If Environmentalism is solid science and can be taught to every school kid, then I demand that Darwin move over for Intelligent Design!
Dr. Pielke is a Climatologist at Colorado State University who disagrees with the panel`s belief that human activities is causing global climate change. At issue is the question of why surface measurements disagree with satellite observations. Surface (especially oceanic) measurements suggest the Earth is heating, while satellite observations show a slight cooling. Perhaps they should read my article from last year in the American Thinker to find the answer.
Environmentalism is more about faith than science, and anyone who disagrees with the consensus is branded a heretic and expelled. Dr. Pielke was the only member of this panel who broke ranks, and so now he`s gone. The question one must ask is why was he the only doubter in the group? There are thousands of scientists who disagree with the concept of manmade climate change. Over 15000 scientists have signed a petition against Kyoto and the Global Warming myth, and yet only ONE of them was allowed on this panel! Where was S. Fred Singer?
We are often told that Darwinism is science while the growing field of Intelligent Design is philosophy. Yet ID sits on far more solid ground than does most Environmentalism. The Global Warming crowd wants us to accept their views based on shaky computer models and weak data. They often fudge statistics, using abnormal periods as the norm to ``prove`` their case. (They usually use the end of the Maunder Minimum and the Mini Ice-Age as their baseline to prove the Earth is growing warm-Duh!)
If Environmentalism is solid science and can be taught to every school kid, then I demand that Darwin move over for Intelligent Design!
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 3:22 PM
1 Comments:
Your pseudo-scientific meanderings on this subject are transparent and do nothing other than call into question your integrity. There is NO debate over whether warming is occuring (that said, there will always be a few people who disagree with a consensus, I'm sure you can find and name them all). Until only recently, the typical 'Conservative' response to global warming was "They can't even agree if it is getting warmer". Now they can't use this mantra, they move on to "They can't 'prove' we are the cause". Let me put this as succinctly as possible. The ONLY scientific debate on this topic is HOW MUCH WE ARE AFFECTING CLIMATE CHANGE! Not whether we are, not whether it might also be partly a normal increase, not whether it is happening, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, not about what the long term consequences are. Now I'm sure you can jump all over the inexact nature of the science, but as a scientist, I can tell you all science is inexact. You work with what you have and build a consensus around it. Burying your head in the sand because in your personal world view the billionaires of this nation should be allowed to pillage theplanet's resources for every last penny of short term profit regardless of the consequences is far more infantile, idiotic, and devoid of reason and logic than the scientific conclusions of the environmental lobby that are the target of your thinly veiled sarcasm. Of course, hypocrit and conservative usually go hand in hand so why should anyone be surprised?
Post a Comment
<< Home