Man is too weak to permanently affect nature
Warming and cooling will go on forever
People who think we can change entire climates with our behavior think way to highly of human beings.
More and more people are coming out and speaking a little common sense against the fear-filled environmentalist whackos
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
More common sense in the global warming hysteria
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
22 comments:
God knows Camille Paglia is an expert on global warming.
"People who think we can change entire climates with our behavior think way to highly of human beings."
It's not a matter of thinking "highly". It's a matter of reason and observation. Do you not think that deforestation has any effect on the climate of a region? Do you not think that tons of pollutants emitted into the atmosphere could have any effect on the climate of a region? Have you ever heard of the concept of "nuclear winter?"
To think that humans can have no effect on the climate of regions or even the entire globe seems counter-intuitive to me.
Is this some kind of Biblical thing with you? Only by God's direct intervention can global climate be changed?
Jim--
What is at issue is the link between CO2 emissions and global temperature. I think an atmospheric physicist like MIT's Richard Lindzen, to take a notable skeptic of the anthropogenic warming thesis, has more expertise than a moron activist like Al Gore, or an intellectual giant like Leonardo DiCaprio.
Events like the receding ice caps on Mars, for example, are rarely explained by earth-worshiping hippies. This suggests that the sun, and not capitalist enemies of The People, may require a greater explanatory role for events on our own planet.
Lindzen may be well qualified on the subject and have something to contribute to the debate. There are MANY qualified people who disagree with him.
I find it extremely difficult to take seriously anybody who calls Al Gore a "moron." It completely lays bare all your bias on the subject. You are trying to wrap all the global warming debate into one package named Al Gore and then demonizing him with names.
Why would ANYBODY take you seriously?
Jim
When those on the right refer to Gore as a moron, we’re just showing our contempt for a snake oil salesman and those who would believe him. Its not like he did any of the studies himself. He merely, selectively gleaned the info that he felt would further his position of power and ran with
it. Much like the UN.
I can't help but notice you didn't address any of Lindzen's points. Just like the "many qualified people that disagree with him". Oh I don't doubt, given time, they will vote on and come up with an "official" response, lets wait and see how much substance it has.
Accepting that humans can have an effect on climates of regions does not necessarily prove that humans can have an effect on global climates.
I'm not saying a non-measurable effect - given our ability to measure millinannomicroscopicly. But lets say it doesn’t prove it has a material effect.
If my house burns down, it will affect the climates of my and my neighbors property, but it won’t material affect the climate of the county or neighborhood for that matter.
Jim--
Science is not a democracy. Theories should stand or fall by the evidence. Many well respected theories, such as the Phlogiston Theory of Combustion or the Caloric Theory of Heat, have been thrown out because they did not square well with the evidence, and a better theory did. Anybody who talks about scientific consensus is trying to shake down a government grant for a shaky theory. We never talk about the scientific consensus on gravity, oxidation, or evolution, to name a few examples.
Though I do have a degree in Physics, which makes me more qualified than journalists and politicians, I am not asking you to take *me* seriously. Science is not about personalities and feelings. I am asking you to take evidence seriously. For example, you didn't even respond to why both polar ice caps on Mars are melting, and probably won't address why sunspots on our sun are at a 1000 year high. Nor do I expect to you to respond to why the troposphere is not warming, which, without any additional auxiliary hypotheses, is a direct refutation of the greenhouse theory.
Evidence, shmevidence. Radical activists hate corporate "greed," so that is all of the justification they need for their revolutionary beliefs. Bah.
Quotes from Jason:
"Science is not a democracy." Nobody said it was. But what makes Lindzen right and most everybody else wrong? Does he have some sort of super-duper credential? Some degree nobody else in the world has? Some insight inspired by God that we must believe him and ignore others?
Great that you have a degree in physics. I tried and decided on another course of study.
I take evidence very seriously. And there is a lot of evidence to support global warming by human causes. A lot. Why should that be blown off because a few people present evidence that doesn't support it?
"For example, you didn't even respond to why both polar ice caps on Mars are melting". Why should I? There are no humans on Mars.
"and probably won't address why sunspots on our sun are at a 1000 year high. Nor do I expect to you to respond to why the troposphere is not warming, which, without any additional auxiliary hypotheses, is a direct refutation of the greenhouse theory." Why in the WORLD would I respond to any of that? I have no expertise on the subject. I know of a lot of people who do and I'll leave the responses to them.
"Evidence, shmevidence. Radical activists hate corporate "greed," so that is all of the justification they need for their revolutionary beliefs. Bah."
You keep throwing out the "theory" that this is all about the left's supposed hate of corporate greed. I don't see it that way. In fact, I think that most people who are looking to slow the rate of global warming, who are looking for alternative energy sources, who are looking for cleaner air and a better environment for our children and grandchildren are looking for corporations to take the lead in solving these issues.
Do you think there are no profits in alternative energy sources, in discovering and marketing products and processes that will make the future a better place?
Do you think that anyone who is passionate about these issues is a moron?
Jim wrote:
"...Why should I? There are no humans on Mars..."
BWAAAHAAAHAAA, you have got to be kidding! What a perfect illustration of lefty hysterics.
go back and read your response slowly. After the "red" has left your face, put down the beer, drink a cup of coffee, and try it again.
Jim--
Passion is not the arbiter of truth.
First of all, I don't see what your care for children and the environment has to do with the truth of the CO2 issue. I care for children too, and am a big advocate of conservation and our national parks, but that in itself does not serve as a truthmaker for my beliefs.
Those who act passionately without taking the time to understand what they are passionate about, are indeed morons.
Given environmentalists don't like to think critically about their activism, why does the CO2-global warming issue make them so passionate? The basic issue is the persisting legacy of 19th century Romanticism, which has always been a rebellion against the Enlightenment. Look at yourself-- you're asking me to believe you based on the authenticity of your commitment. I am asking you to believe me based on facts that square with the solar theory, rather than the CO2 theory.
Some people are very uncomfortable with modernity-- they see markets and capitalism as not only debasing man-- the see industry as the rapist of nature. Without that assumption, all you are left with is argumentum ad verecundiam.
Jason,
Strip them of their commitment and what are you leaving them with? Nothing, absolutely nothing, which is the whole point isn't it?
A well reasoned argument which will go nowhere I fear.
Jim,
You are an idiot and prove it regularly. God, I pray Jim is not allowed around children.
Jim, let me make it understandable to you. You are the scientific consensus that declared the Earth flad and the center of the Universe in the face of Galileo and Copernicus saying and proving your consensus wrong.
US generals urge climate action:
"In a report, they say global warming poses a serious threat to national security, as the US could be drawn into wars over water and other conflicts."
What a bunch of liberal, capitalist-hating, morons!
"What a bunch of liberal, capitalist-hating, morons!"
Well, you got the last one right. Look, if these guys are really saying something that agrees with the Goreites, they are idiots. Notice that they are ex-military. But this country has reduces emmissions to a greater degree than many, if not all, of the Kyoto signers. We're already doing our part without all the hysteria. Ex-generals have every right to be stupid, too. And BTW, do think that every soldier is pro-Bush? I think as you get to the upper ranks is where you'll find those who don't support him, particularly if they were replaced, or if their ideas were dismissed.
"But this country has reduces emmissions to a greater degree than many, if not all, of the Kyoto signers." Where can I read about this?
I don't think all soldiers are pro-Bush. I think more and more are becomming anti-Bush.
I'm assuming that our senior military officers are quite bright, very experienced, and can provide excellent counsel. I'm sure that many of them were loyal enough not to criticize the CINC while on active duty. I'm sure that they are pretty disappointed to see what an incompetent CINC has done to the military, America's standing in the world, and its strategic security. I'm sure they feel it is their duty to inform the country that the CINC has put it in jeopardy while ignoring their experienced counsel. I'm sure they'd like this country to have a competent president as soon as possible.
I'm sure you live in a parallel universe where all you fantasies come true. Here in the real world, things are a lot different. It works for you to believe that military bigwigs cowtow to Bush and that Bush ignores their counsel. It works for you to assume that those who no longer serve don't because of Bush. But it flies in the face of logic to make assumptions about those who are some of the most patriotic. If they are the patriots you say they are, they wouldn't resign, even if they were replaced by Bush. But the problem is knowing which are the patriots and which have morphed into political animals now that retirement is near. This is not unheard of in the least. Some generals resent civilian leaders. They serve for twenty years at least and then have to take orders from someone in office for eight years at the most. Makes sense that some would balk, especially if the prez has strongly held principles. I take such reports from these former generals with a grain of salt upon first reading them. They have agendas, too.
You know, you're right. The generals are all low-life cowards and George W. Bush is a genius. I have seen the light. Anybody who disagrees with Bush is a self serving, liberal scumbag with unpatriotic ulterior motives.
Did I say that? Of course I didn't Jimmy-boy. My point, and gosh I hope for the day when I won't have to rephrase a simple point, is that YOU don't know what the motivations are. You are too quick to believe that when they DO disagree with Bush, that Bush must be wrong. And that's just fine. You're going to believe whatever you want anyhow. Just know that when you present your links and articles, they won't be swallowed as easily as by us as it apparently is for you, since we don't suffer from BDS.
Marshall-my boy, I don't care what their motivations are. It's not the point. The point is that people with some experience and expertise on the subject disagree with Bush. All people who disagree with Bush do not necessarily have some ulterior motive. The fact that a significant number of these people have expressed a point suggests that it isn't simply one crack-pot Bush hater.
There are honest, intelligent, patriotic, loyal, experienced, wise people who think that Bush is wrong. Why must they have a deep-seated dark psychosis that makes them a Bush hater?
Furthermore, I would place my trust in a person with 20-30 years of experience and study on a subject and/or a region over that of a person with no experience, no curiosity, who has surrounded himself with incompetents who have yet to get much of anything right.
Jim,
There has only been what seems to be a significant number of detractors because the MSM only highlights those. Thank goodness for the internet and conservative pundits who allow us to hear what the MSM willfully downplays. It's pretty telling when they only present the "other side" when begin with the conservative or pro-Bush side. Not so much when they begin with the lib or anti-Bush side.
In any case, it's certain that YOU only highlight the anti-Bush side. And as in this case, you assume that there is no one of equal expertise that agrees with Bush, simply because the piece focusses on the anti-Bush guy. And there are plenty out there who do not see the doom and gloom future of the GW believers. Thus, Bush has plenty of experts from which he can draw his conclusions.
Maybe, but so far all of Bush's experts have been wrong. Go figure!
That's a bold statement. I'll wager you can't back it up.
Cheney: The conflict will last weeks, rather than months. (2003)
Cheney: We are seeing the last throes of the insurgency. (May 2005)
Cheney: "pretty well confirmed, that [Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack. (Dec 2001)
L. Paul Bremer: Disbanded the Iraqi army.
Rice: no one could have imagined airplanes being deliberately flown into buildings. (There were long-standings security warnings about that.)
Rice: aluminum tubes could only be used for nuclear centrifuges. (US Dept of Energy said the tubes were unfit for that use)
Wolfowitz: “There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” (2003)
Post a Comment