Instead of going point by point over Kyle's rehashing of tired arguments (we're cooling, Al Gore exaggerates, blah blah blah), I would point out that his frame of reference for a good summary is Powerline. Enough said.
But I will take a moment to point out a comment which shows why I think global warming "skeptics" should pause about whose company they keep.
It’s good to see someone at the AJC paying attention to this. AGW, as John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel put it, is the “greatest scam in history.” (Personally I believe that title belongs to Darwinian Evolution, but that’s just me.)If it walks like a creationist and talks like a creationist...it's hard to avoid the reality that the tactics of people like Lord Christopher Monckton (also lauded by Kyle) mirrors those used for the past 40 years by creationists.
And I have to take a friend to task.
As someone who remembers “dangerous global cooling” that was forced on my elementary school class in the late 70’s – and for the same reason that global warming was pushed in the 90’s – and global “change” is pushed today – I very much doubt the arguments from the left on this topic.My dear friend, Icarus. It's been covered thousands of times including several on this blog but the only way to defeat this zombiefied myth is to keep beating it back into its grave.
There was no global cooling threat. The entire myth is based on an article in a mainstream magazine. The magazine based their screed on a single paper that was explaining the cooling period in the 40s. When they saw the popular version of their research, the paper's authors were horrified and quick to point out that in no way were the predicting an imminent ice age.
Global warming on the other hand is backed by reams of peer reviewed work and the consensus of 10,000+ climatologist.
Big difference. So until the next time this little nasty pops up its head...
17 comments:
I have been looking for someone to give me an executive summary of what supposedly happened with these emails, and why one unethical group fabricating data somehow discredits the work of 10,000 people.
Well then maybe I do need to detail what is happening because there's no evidence that anyone is even fabricating data.
For lack of time, I'll simply point you to that notorious left wing site, Little Green Footballs, to explain why the whole thing is absurd.
Well, we at least agree that there was no cooling threat.
But there was significant propoganda about the non-existant threat. May have been one scientist, but he was widely quoted, and I remember having to do homework in my "Weekly Reader" about the greenhouse effect because of burning fossil fuels, and how the new ice age was upon us if we didn't burn carbon.
So forgive me if I'm willing to jump on the bandwagon this time around, when the same general folks, mostly anti-globalists, want the same cure for an exactly opposite problem.
NO! FOR FUCKS SAKE NO! It was not the same people or even one scientist. It was a single paper that was so horribly misinterpreted that the scientists involved screamed until there lungs were raw that everyone was getting it wrong. And much like today, no one listened to what the scientists were actually saying.
This is even apples and oranges. Its apples and monkey wrenches.
Well, I can only blame government schools and the fact that cable TV news wasn't invented yet, so the three channels we had plus my Weekly Reader screwed me up.
The damage is done. And these people look exactly the same, and are recommending the same things, as the nutjobs who insisted if we didn't give up cars, we would be under a glacier by the 1990's.
Forgive me, but I was impressionable, and I was "impressed".
And a wise man once told me, "If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball". Now let's just think about that for a moment.
"Now let's just think about that for a moment."
A wrench, and a dodgeball.
It makes no sense. Ladies and gentleman, it makes no sense.
I rest my case.
Why is that a South Park parody of Johnny Cochran accurately reflects the nature of this debate? It is pretty pathetic...
The Great Global Warming Swindle
Thanks Tyler.
Got any Kent Hovind videos you'd also care to share?
So is the purpose to try and spin the argument into Creationism vs. Evolution. I'd watch that video, it gives no affirmation towards creationism; doesn't even mention that debate.
I thought the point of the thread was to "bring to light" Global Cooling/Warming/Climate Change/What are we calling it now?
Actually, as I've done several times, I'm commenting on the similarity in the tactics.
grift,
I will not rehash our argument on Peach Pundit here. Read the freaking documents.
You look like an absolute fool to the point of it being embarassing for people to watch when you open your mouth on this topic.
Read the damned computer code and the comments of a data analyst/software developer tasked with a three year update at CRU.
Pretty much all of the UN IPCC climate report was based on THIS data. How can you be that obtuse to think this insignifcant.
One of the jackasses in the emails is Michael Mann who did the research of the previously defamed "Hockey Stick" graph. The one that Al Gore still carries around with him.
Also, I have to echo what Icarus said. in 5th grade, Mrs. Smith spent considerably class time telling us about how the coming ice age was going to destroy civilization. I also remember weekly reader having a story about it, although I do not recall what grade I was in.
However, the funny thing is that an Ice Age is absolutely coming at some point as the Earth is 90% of the time in that state and during that time the Earth is usually only inhabitable around the equator.
The very thing the climate alarmist cult now deny to back their current fad is likely the only accurate thing they have ever predicted, only not on their time scale.
Oh, and the reason I am up posting at 2AM is because I have spent the last several hours reading more of the documents and sorting through the CRU code and comments. Strange how you cannot spend even a few minutes before spouting off like an expert.
Here. I will make it easy for you to see what the "other side" really thinks. This link is to an article by Willis Eschenbach (with a forward by Anthony Watts) who was the man who made the FOI request that these idiots were trying to thwart.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/24/the-people-vs-the-cru-freedom-of-information-my-okole%e2%80%a6/
Doug. I have read the literature and I have read many of the emails. Think me a fool if you will. I'm not going down your rabbit hole again.
However, I will point out you're comparing peer reviewed paper to The Weekly Reader.
It's absolutely ridiculous that this has become an issue. Those who are circulating these emails are using their regular tactics of attacking an argument not on it's scientific methods, but rather attacking the people who are making the argument.
That's nothing more than an Ad Hominem fallacy.
--
http://jasonfebery.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/copenhagen-beckons/
Apparently no one saw my video I posted. It does not deal with these attacks you all claim.
Oh, and, Happy Thanksgiving!
Post a Comment