More on Global Warming
Tom Joseph, American Thinker contributer and proprietor of Thinking Democrat sent me this e-mail in regards to my post Global Warming and Lost Faith:
Hi Tim,
Nice retort. You included almost all the stuff I would have; especially the increase in temperatures on Mars. I've been waiting for the global warming fanatical fantasizers to find a way to blame that on our omissions and propose a solar system protocol to eliminate the effects of civilization on the solar system. Obviously, it's against the natural order of things to land on Mars, let along let those hazardous machines trample all over the pristeen environment.
If memory serves, these idiots used one of their models to project an unbelievable disaster when Sad-damn threatened to blow up Kuwait's oil wells during Gulf War One under Bush 41. I think they used an example of 50 oil wells on fire for their Linus dark cloud scientific projection. Funny thing, the number of wells on fire exceeded 15 times their number while the result didn't even begin to approach their doomsday warning.
Newsweek, which was happy to print their propaganda, didn't bother to write an article on how badly they missed the mark. Bear in mind, we are talking a culminating effect. That means the mistake was larger than the difference between 50 and 750. It was a mathematically huge mistake.
It would be nice if there was a global warming predictions site that listed all the wonderful predictions over the past 5 decades and the results to date. Some people think they are never wrong. But how can other people never be right?
tom
I had completely forgotten about that business with the oil wells. Tom is right; they were predicting the Apocalypse when Saddam torched those wells. Didn`t happen.
By the way, check out Tom`s piece on Senator Corzine at Thinking Democrat; he does a fine job of taking him to task.
Also, National Review had an
article by Iain Murray a couple of days ago which really lambasted the Evangelicals for this Global Warming nonsense.
I would like to make a final point; there are scientists who disagree with Kyoto and the Global Warming mantra-many of them. The usual response from the Left is to slander these scientists. They claim they aren`t ``really`` scientists, and that they are paid propogandists for the oil industry.
I, in turn, always point out that the scientists who believe in global Warming are paid by government grants, which are generally apportioned based on dire pontification (how much government money is a guy going to receive if he comes back with nothing spectacular?) and from grants from left-wing foundations and environmentalist-sponsored think tanks. Invariably, the GW enthusiast goes into denial mode, trying to claim that their hands are clean, but the other side is dirty with oil money.
This is often the response of the loser of an argument; as Saul Alinski advised liberals in his seminole book ``Rules for Radical`` one should attack the motives of your opponents when the facts are against you.
David Hogberg, senior analyst at the Capitol Research Center, deals with this tactic here, and here. Also, you may want to check out Greenwatch.org for more from David on this issue.
I attack both the science AND the motives of those who advocate Global Warming. I think the GW people are 1.habitual alarmists 2.utopianists who believe the Earth can be turned into some kind of mythical lost paradise 3.socialists who want to damage our free market system or 4.bandwagoners who want to be thought of as intellectuals. Global Warming is the Cause-Celeb of the modern era, and it`s hip to worry over this nonsense. There is no credible reason to panic, and there is no credible reason to institute draconian measures. The warming (a whopping 1 degree) STILL puts average temperatures below the midieval warming period (by 1.5 to 2 degrees) and is easily explained by normal solar variations.
Often defenders of Global Warming start with the end of the mini-ice age as their baseline, on the assumption that the industrial age began then. The fact is, industrialization was probably spurred on by the cold weather, but the amount of CO2 being put in the air at that time was negligible. The real reason they use that as their baseline is because it shows a dramatic increase in temperature. It is the equivalent of claiming Missouri is in a terrible drought by using the Great Flood of `93 as your starting point. OF COURSE we are in a drought compared to that!
If there is any dishonesty in this issue, it`s on their side of the Aisle.
Man made climate change is a crock. It`s too bad those Evangelicals became caught up in it.
Hi Tim,
Nice retort. You included almost all the stuff I would have; especially the increase in temperatures on Mars. I've been waiting for the global warming fanatical fantasizers to find a way to blame that on our omissions and propose a solar system protocol to eliminate the effects of civilization on the solar system. Obviously, it's against the natural order of things to land on Mars, let along let those hazardous machines trample all over the pristeen environment.
If memory serves, these idiots used one of their models to project an unbelievable disaster when Sad-damn threatened to blow up Kuwait's oil wells during Gulf War One under Bush 41. I think they used an example of 50 oil wells on fire for their Linus dark cloud scientific projection. Funny thing, the number of wells on fire exceeded 15 times their number while the result didn't even begin to approach their doomsday warning.
Newsweek, which was happy to print their propaganda, didn't bother to write an article on how badly they missed the mark. Bear in mind, we are talking a culminating effect. That means the mistake was larger than the difference between 50 and 750. It was a mathematically huge mistake.
It would be nice if there was a global warming predictions site that listed all the wonderful predictions over the past 5 decades and the results to date. Some people think they are never wrong. But how can other people never be right?
tom
I had completely forgotten about that business with the oil wells. Tom is right; they were predicting the Apocalypse when Saddam torched those wells. Didn`t happen.
By the way, check out Tom`s piece on Senator Corzine at Thinking Democrat; he does a fine job of taking him to task.
Also, National Review had an
article by Iain Murray a couple of days ago which really lambasted the Evangelicals for this Global Warming nonsense.
I would like to make a final point; there are scientists who disagree with Kyoto and the Global Warming mantra-many of them. The usual response from the Left is to slander these scientists. They claim they aren`t ``really`` scientists, and that they are paid propogandists for the oil industry.
I, in turn, always point out that the scientists who believe in global Warming are paid by government grants, which are generally apportioned based on dire pontification (how much government money is a guy going to receive if he comes back with nothing spectacular?) and from grants from left-wing foundations and environmentalist-sponsored think tanks. Invariably, the GW enthusiast goes into denial mode, trying to claim that their hands are clean, but the other side is dirty with oil money.
This is often the response of the loser of an argument; as Saul Alinski advised liberals in his seminole book ``Rules for Radical`` one should attack the motives of your opponents when the facts are against you.
David Hogberg, senior analyst at the Capitol Research Center, deals with this tactic here, and here. Also, you may want to check out Greenwatch.org for more from David on this issue.
I attack both the science AND the motives of those who advocate Global Warming. I think the GW people are 1.habitual alarmists 2.utopianists who believe the Earth can be turned into some kind of mythical lost paradise 3.socialists who want to damage our free market system or 4.bandwagoners who want to be thought of as intellectuals. Global Warming is the Cause-Celeb of the modern era, and it`s hip to worry over this nonsense. There is no credible reason to panic, and there is no credible reason to institute draconian measures. The warming (a whopping 1 degree) STILL puts average temperatures below the midieval warming period (by 1.5 to 2 degrees) and is easily explained by normal solar variations.
Often defenders of Global Warming start with the end of the mini-ice age as their baseline, on the assumption that the industrial age began then. The fact is, industrialization was probably spurred on by the cold weather, but the amount of CO2 being put in the air at that time was negligible. The real reason they use that as their baseline is because it shows a dramatic increase in temperature. It is the equivalent of claiming Missouri is in a terrible drought by using the Great Flood of `93 as your starting point. OF COURSE we are in a drought compared to that!
If there is any dishonesty in this issue, it`s on their side of the Aisle.
Man made climate change is a crock. It`s too bad those Evangelicals became caught up in it.
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 8:00 AM
2 Comments:
You are "on the button" here Tim!
The underlying motives of the researchers has driven global warming much farther than their narrowly collected and carefully manipulated data ever could. Despite the inacurracy of of their baleful predictions they all manage to find the same source for the calamity, "We Did It!"
Great post (again!)
Thanks, Tom!
Thanks to you, too, capzap, although I`m not a member of the NY Times, so I couldn`t access that article.
Post a Comment
<< Home