If you click on the title of this piece you'll be taken to a link which will talk about this day in history. On May 11, 1934 the East Coast of America was subjected to a blizzard - but instead of snow, it was the dust from the Great Plains. One of the interesting lines in the video explains how when the storm finally hit Washington D.C., our beloved government finally became concerned about the Dust Bowl.
Let's take that event forward in time to today. Can you imagine the maniacal outburst from Al Gore-bees everywhere around the world? Global warming would be the cause and the Chicken Little's of the world would be dizzier than Al himself from running around in circles and screaming that the sky was falling.
Instead of adopting the pretentious belief that we can actually control the climate of the earth, I would suggest that the Gore-bees change their tactics and focus on alternative energy sources because it's a matter of national defense and independence from the whims of the Iran's and Venezuala's of the world.
I'm all for greening-up by planting trees and flowers. I'm all for alternative fuel sources that eliminate the need for noxious gasoline. But the Gore-bees of the world only make me want to go out and buy a Hummer just to keep them agitated.
The sky is not falling and the global warming hoax is just one more example of lunatic liberals working more off of emotion that substantiated scientific facts. When we can control tornadoes and hurricanes, when we can harness lightning to provide our energy needs, then come and talk to me about global warming and I might start to believe you.
24 comments:
"The sky is not falling and the global warming hoax is just one more example of lunatic liberals working more off of emotion that substantiated scientific facts. When we can control tornadoes and hurricanes, when we can harness lightning to provide our energy needs, then come and talk to me about global warming and I might start to believe you."
And your climatology degree is from where?
Anyone with an ounce of intelligence doesn't dismiss the overwhelming scientific evidence and majority of major scientific organizations that have shown the evidence over and over again, regardless of what you and your right-wingnut job buddies think.
My friend - and I use the term loosely since it's doubtful your angry-ass has too many friends - go back to high school and learn about the scientific method of hypothesis and theory based on repeated observation.
Give up on the right-wing web sites and start thinking for yourself.
I won't argue with you Watson.
I'll just point one thing out:
You won't suffer the worst of global warming, but your kids and thier kids will.
I'm not saying you personally can do much about it, but you shouldn't take Rush the Pig's word for it. Study-up on it and come back with some real arguments.
Thanks for your feedback - but let me point out that I'm not angry about the global warming fantasy. There may or may not be global warming; all you have to do is Google the subject and get varying opinions as to whether or not it exists. A climatology degree is not required to search and read on the subject - which I have spent some time doing.
The overwhelming majority of scientific evidence and all the organizations that support that "evidence" were also around to have Copernicus excommunicated from the Catholic Church because he was stupid enough to say that the universe doesn't revolve around the earth. The examples of this type of scientific certainty are well documented throughout history.
There are many scientists who reject the global warming supposition, but of course they are ignored or demeaned by the mainstream media because their views don't support the liberal agenda - it has nothing to do with scientific fact.
The bottom line is this: the issue has been politicized, thus insuring that any truth will be a long time in coming, either way.
My liberal friends, I have visited sites that represent both points of view, and because I can't rule out the possibility that carbon emissions are playing a part in our environment, I'm all for alternative energy sources - I refer you to "My Inaugural Address", but I'm not ready to be a lemming and follow Al Gore over the cliff. Nor do I take everything that Rush or any other conservative says as gospel on any subject.
Thanks for the suggestion that I return to high school and come back with some original arguments -save a seat for me at the lunch table.
I think you'd better do some more studying Watson - Copernicus was never excommunicated, in fact he was buried in the Cathedral of Frauenburg.
I believe, your Google searches turned up some wrong info (again) it was Galileo, almost 100 years later, that was convicted of heresy and sentenced to house arrest for life. His conviction was based on the fact that he did not believe what the church believed NOT that he did not believe a "scientific certainty."
Most actual observation based scholars knew since Ptolemy (c. 150 AD) that the earth revolved around the sun - it was the conservatives in the church, believers in religion not science, who said it wasn't so. That's exactly what's happening now.
When I have a plumbing problem, I ask a plumber. When I want to know about history, I ask a historian.
I suggest that when you want to know about climate change, you ask a climatologist, not Google, and not your right-wing pundits.
I await the recognition of your errors on history, and your evidence of repeated observations of "the global warming hoax."
We're all adults here Watson, you can't (like Rush, O'Reilly, et al) just repeat whatever claims you find on the internet without - as we used to say back in the Nav, "being called on the carpet."
Global warming is a hoax simply because liberals accept that it is happening? I would love to see one of Watson's scientific websites that dispute global warming. "Belief" should have nothing to do with science. You look at the evidence and either accept it or reject it. Many of those 400 non-believer scientist believe the earth is warming, they just don't accept that global warming is caused by man. A good conservative cannot believe that climate change may be caused by man because fixing that situation would be bad for bidness. This isn't surprising since scientists have been pretty much ignored the last 8 years. If it doesn't fit the party line - ignore it or suppress it. It's time to take politics out of science.
Dog pile on the Rabit!
BTW Watson,
Calling your opponents in an argument "lunatic Liberals working off of emotion" doesn't enhanse your position, unless you are on the Bully O'Reily Show.
At the tender age of 56 I find that my memory is not what it used to be. My thanks to AE for pointing out my historical inaccuracies - I relied upon my memory instead of varifying my facts. It's no wonder I can't find my damn cell phone.
I must also agree with NCL - using the phrase like "lunatic liberal" should not be applied to an entire group of people. I don't like being categorized just because of my politics, and I have to remember to extend that courtesy to those with opposing views.
Mea Culpa.
http://www.heartland.org/article.cfm?artId=22835
If you cut and paste the above address you'll be taken to a site where you can download the .PDF file "Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate". This document was the result of a recent meeting in NYC of prominent scientists who assert that man is not the cause of any global warming. The article is edited by Fred Singer, Professor Emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia.
If the professionals are in disagreement, then how do we non-scientific types make a logical conclusion? Because the whole subject has become politicized, both sides are guilty of a lack of repsect for the opinions of their opposition. I am as guilty of this as everyone else - I acknowledge this and will try to keep this in mind in the future.
With regards to the "bidness", shouldn't we be considering that on a worldwide basis? China and India will soon surpass us in carbon emissions - how do we plan on telling the Chinese to stop growing and improving the lives of their citizens? What of the third world countries? Do we relegate them to permanent third world status by limiting their carbon emissions?
Maybe it's just in my contrarian nature, but the rush to global alarmism just sets off all kinds of warnings to me.
When I make a mistake, I acknowledge it and try to learn from it. Questioning global warming, it's causes and effects is not a mistake.
Ignoring the need for alternative energy sources, regardless of the reason, is a mistake we cannot afford to make.
The article you site is from 84-year-old (PhD in 1948) Fred Singer.
According to Wikipedia (which cites it's various sources):
A 2007 Newsweek cover story on climate change denial reported that: "In April 1998 a dozen people from the denial machine — including the Marshall Institute, Fred Singer's group and Exxon — met at the American Petroleum Institutes' Washington headquarters. They proposed a $5 million campaign, according to a leaked eight-page memo, to convince the public that the science of global warming is riddled with controversy and uncertainty." The plan was reportedly aimed at "raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom'" on climate change. According to Newsweek, the plan was leaked to the press and therefore was never implemented.
In 2007, the nonprofit advocacy group Union of Concerned Scientists called Singer a "climate contrarian." ABC News also reported that Singer received an unsolicited $10,000 from Exxon.
He also does not believe that CFCs are connected to ozone depletion ("Both theory and measurements suggests that hydrogen-containing molecules, not chlorine, are the main destruction agent for ozone in the lower stratosphere") and thinks that second hand smoke and lung cancer are not connected.
He also believes that there is "no clear relation" between exposure to the sun and melanoma.
According to http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer
"In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association."
He was also doing research under the pay of tobacco lobby.
I guess "paid industry shill" would be a better description than the nice media soft phrase "climate contrarian."
You see this is the problem. Doubters give no evidence, rely on studies paid for by oil companies and the like and then spread it around as though it were gospel. The media pretends that when someone makes a claim it needs to be heard for balance - no matter how wring headed (or in this case corrupt) it is.
HIV doesn't cause AIDS either and the theory of evolution is a liberal plot.
Heartland Institute has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998. Wonderful citation Watson. Maybe you can give us a Fox News citation to go along with it.
OK, you don't believe in global warming, how about climate change?
The same Newsweek magazine that feverishly warned all of us about the new ice age back in the 70's?
Climate change - of course - life would be pretty boring without it.
84 years old? Getting ready to beat up John McCain too?
Paid shill? Of course, all of the people who question global warming are in the pockets of big oil. I'd give the web links to the sites that track where the money comes from and goes to on your side, but since it comes from the opposition, it's only right wing bias of course.
Of course the HIV virus causes AIDS, and as Rev. Wright says, I'm sure the government, just the conservative side of it, has had a secret program for years to just infect black people.
I guess Michelle Obama must be right, for the last 300 years there's nothing to be proud about when you refer to the USA. But now she's proud because the most liberal person in the Senate, her husband, will be the Dem nominee for President.
I must be one of those poor, ignorant people who only cling to ..."guns or religion or antipathy, or anti-immigrant sentiment." If the would-be President somehow gets elected, I'm sure that will show up as a category in the next census.
I see no one wanted to address the issue of the rest of the world - not surprisng.
Want to compare our "carbon prints" against Herr Gore's?
Are you really gullible enough to buy carbon credits to assuage your conscience? If so, I am inserting a blog from April of last year regarding my program for purchasing carbon credits:
In my sincere effort to promote greenness, especially in terms of my bank account, I am today announcing my new program: Watson in the Adirondack's Carbon Credits for Krazy You = WACCKY
Now you can get the Hummer you've always wanted and you don't have to worry about what you're shooting into the air.
Now you can fly anywhere to collect your Hollywood awards without having to do those silly things like riding in a bio-fueled car after all of your cross-continent, private jet trips.
Simply send any amount of money commensurate with your guilt, and I'll assuage your eco-conscience by doing the following:
* 0 - $100: You're not feeling enough guilt yet, so I'm only going to meditate on your behalf, sending all my positive energy to you. This will help save the planet anyway, because all the time I spend meditating is that much less time I'll be spending driving my 8 cylinder chariot.
* $101 - $500: You're starting to feel a little guilty, but you're not Hollywood material yet. At this level of credit, I have made arrangements with the local 4H clubs to purchase CFF's in bulk quantities, so we have enough to meet the anticipated demand. CFF's - Cow Fart Filters, are not as effective as the old BB's (Bovine Bungs), but Elsie says the ladies prefer the CFF's - less intrusive. Our crack Research & Development folks are working on a new project that shows great promise: BBB's, or Big Bear Bungs. Although not as plentiful as other species, we are pursuing this effort for informational purposes as well. In the future we'll be presenting a detailed, scientific report that finally answers that age old question: Does a bear s*** in the woods? We're still working on the insertion procedure.
* $501 - $1,000: At this level, you're probably dealing with other guilt issues in conjunction with your eco-mania. Not only will we plant a Weeping Willow in your honor, but we'll send you, at no additional cost, including those sneaky "shipping and handling charges", a copy of Hillary Clinton's "It Takes A Village", and whatever book Dr. Phil currently has on the market. Don't forget to take your meds.
* $1,001 - $10,000: Sending this kind of money assures us that you don't shop at WalMart like the rest of us do. We'll plant 5 Weeping Willows, 4 White Pines, 3 Norwegian Maples, 2 Great Oaks and 1 Lilac Bush, and then we'll buy Sprawl-Mart lawn signs and give them away at Sheryl Caw-Caw Crow concerts, along with an autographed, single sheet of toilet paper.
$10,001 - Infinity: You're my kind of folks. You'll get the meditation, the CFF's, the BBB's, all the flora and fauna you can fathom, the books, the Sprawl Mart signs, the Sheryl Caw-Caw Crow autographed sheet of toilet paper (quilted is extra), and a special feature that will set you apart from your neighbors. WACCKY will pay all of the legal fees associated with your name change, so that you can become an Al-Gore too, or three, or four - the sooner you sign up, the lower your number. Just imagine being introduced in the future: "Ladies and gentlemen, it's my pleasure to introduce Al-Gore MMVII!" (Roman numerals are extra) Without opening your mouth, people will automatically know who you are and what you stand for. As a added bonus, the first 500 Al-Gore's will get a special CD that includes Linda Ronstadt's newest single, "The Lemming Lullaby".
Make your contribution to a better world today and send ungodly amounts of money to me at:
WWACKY
Attn: Johnny Daniels
1 Bourbon Lane
Watson NY OICU812
Have it your way boys, I'm going to go fire up the Hummer.
Watson,
Think.
You are summarizing the entire life and careers of Rev. Wright and Obama, Gore, by a few 20 second sound bites that The Pig and The Bully puke into the microphone.
Think.
On the other hand, what Bush has a whole lifetime of failures in the oil biz, baseball, college, and the Presidency.
Go to: http://www.netrootsmass.net/Hugh/Bush_list.html
Now please turn off that radio, take you meds, and think about what you are writing.
Wrong again about the 70's Watson. I suggest you read "The Myth of the 1970's Global Cooling Scientific Consensus by Peterson, Thomas and Connolley published by the American Meteorological Society. (http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf)
First, there was no field of climatology back then as we know it today. Second, about 10% of those who dabbled in climate change studies predicted coming cooler temperatures. They were wrong (kind of like the 10% of todays climatologist saying it is not going to get warmer). 90% of the scientist back in the 70's agreed that it was going to get warmer, not colder. You really need to put some work into your research, especially when you are going to take the contrarian view on a scientific topic. How about that evolution topic? Just a theory isn't it?
Oh yeah, as far as the rest of the world...most countries have signed on to the Kyoto protocol. China has not yet decided. The only country to say hell no is the good ol USA. I'm guessing China would be more willing to talk if the USA were willing too.
Was I wrong about the Newsweek article? No - I didn't say they were right, I only mentioned the article because it reflects the type of hysteria the media can produce. The media of the 70's being unbiased of course, just like today. I guess the scientists back then who were making a big deal out of it just didn't happen to be right, based of course, upon the best scientific info available.
Personally, I'm glad the Kyoto Treaty was not signed. Not because I necessarily disagree everything they were trying to do, but because we are a soverign nation and we don't need the rest of the world messing with our economy.
20 second sound bites - I wonder how many of them we'll hear in Obama's TV ads. They are a representation of issues directly related to the character of the man. You obviously aren't questioning his "liberalness", because his voting record says it all. I think I'd rather have Hamas scared that I would be elected then to have Hamas tell the whole world that they want me to be elected. You don't negotiate with terrorists - that's standard operating practice for everyone but Jimah Cahteh.
As far as George Bush is concerned, so many people believe he's evil incarnate that simple things like facts make no difference. They prefer to stick with Dan Rather and the New York Times. I personally think he could have done a much better job than he has-it's too bad he doesn't have the glib tongue of Sen. Obama.
I am a Catholic, thus I believe in God. If the missing link is ever found, what's to preclude that God didn't have a hand in the transition? Science and religion need not be mutually exclusive, and I don't believe that anyone should be judged by their religion or their lack of it.
Based upon some of the comments that have been posted by my liberal brethren, the possibility exists that we may have found the missing link.
Damn, there goes that sarcasm again.
Unfortunately, this discussion has turned the way many conservatives like to argue - avoid addressing the issues, launch attacks on a variety of only marginally related fronts, and appeal to "common sense" and/or god.
Luckily, I think that the intellectual rigorous in America are many.
Unfortunately, a large part of the public will believe whatever the boob-tube or talk radio tells them.
I wish you would be more serious in your approach to the issues Watson.
“Personally, I'm glad the Kyoto Treaty was not signed. Not because I necessarily disagree everything they were trying to do, but because we are a soverign nation and we don't need the rest of the world messing with our economy.”
You need to look at: http://www2.nysun.com/arts/after-america-fareed-zakarias-post-american-world/
Not only is America in decline (thanks a lot Bush) but the rest of the world is on the rise. How are we going to tell China not to “mess with our economy” when we owe them 3 trillion dollars?
From Fareed’s book:
"Where not long ago the grandest human undertakings were predominantly American, today the world's tallest buildings stand in Taipei and Dubai, the world's richest man was Mexican until this spring, when Warren Buffet passed him, the world's largest factories are in China, the world's biggest movie industry is in India, and nine out of 10 of the world's biggest shopping malls are not in America."
Wake up, Watson.
All the American flag pins in the world will not change the slipping status of the US.
Prayer won't help either.
You're gonna believe stuff written by a guy named Fareed Zakaria? He's obviously a terrorist with a name like that.
Gentlemen:
"Also refuting the “consensus view”, and almost never mentioned in the popular news media, was a petition signed by over 17,000 scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, against the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was sponsored by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Here is part of what these scientists signed their names to:
'There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.'
This was not an anonymous survey, these scientists put their reputations on the line and put their name beside their opinion. You can read more about this at the Global Warming Petition. One needs to keep in mind the following regarding this petition:
over 2/3rds of the signatories had advanced degrees,
2,660 were physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists
5,017 were scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences
Hardly a bunch of “flat earth” types as the global warming mass hysteria crowd likes to call anyone that dares to challenge their scientifically weak viewpoint that man is destroying the planet by causing global warming.
So the next time you hear the media throw out the terms “consensus view” or “scientific consensus” regarding man-made global warming (or CO2 causing global warming) you'll know they either haven't done their homework or they've drank the Al Gore Kool-Aid and don't want to report the truth."
Just a small sampling from books such as "Chicken Little Agenda", "The Deniers", "Global Warming - Myth or Reality", and "Global Warming and other Eco Myths".
I don't expect any of those who have posted here to read any of these books because it doesn't fit their political agenda. The listing is for those who'd like to get the other side of the story. You should be prepared to have your liberal friends tell you to think for yourself - that's what they love to tell anyone who doesn't agree with their point of view.
After we're all done calling each other lemmings and rightwing nut jobs, the fact still remains that we need alternative sources of energy that don't pollute - whether or not there is global warming or climate change. Instead of getting caught up in schemes to buy carbon credits (by the way, just check out related industries in which AlGore has a financial stake), the money should be going to hydrogen research, longer lasting battery cells, solar heating, wind turbines (I see them every day on the skyline of Tug Hill)and any other programs that look to free us from the noose that OPEC has around our collective necks.
Isn't that something we can all agree on? Isn't the objective of the global warming crowd to reduce our emissions?
I invite you to check and see just how Europe is doing meeting their Kyoto goals - they know they won't hit their goals and are looking for legislation to extend the deadline.
Do you think there's a possibility that once we've finished choking off our industries that China will become the world's leader in steel production and other heavy industry?
I have yet to receive a reply as to how all the third world countries are supposed to achieve a standard of living that even comes close to ours without some sort of industry.
Arguing whether there is or is not global warming is a waste of time. What we should be discussing is how we protect our country from the whims of the oil potentates. If you believe that global warming is a fact, isn't your primary objective to reduce carbon emission?
Instead of supporting efforts that will limit the mobility of our citizens and stifle industrial growth, how about focusing on a new power source that can meet your goals, while making it easier for third world nations to improve the lives of their citizens.
I do apologize for using the word "hoax", as there are dedicated scientists who believe what they're saying, just as there are dedicated scientists who believe that any warming is strictly cyclical.
One final political note: McCain or Obama - no difference as regards Global Warming, which should make my liberal friends happy.
Frederick Seitz, a former tobacco company scientist and former National Academy of Sciences president, writes and circulates a letter asking scientists to sign a petition calling upon the US government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was authored by an obscure group by the name of “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.” [Seitz, 1998] Seitz includes in his letter a report arguing that carbon dioxide emissions do not pose a threat to the global climate. The report—which is not peer reviewed—is formatted to look like an article from the esteemed Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). The organizers of the petition will claim that some 17,000 scientists signed the petition. But it is subsequently discovered that few credentialed climate scientists added their signature to the list. Moreover, the petition contains the names of several fictional characters. The magazine Scientific American analyzes a random sampling of the signers and concludes that only about one percent of the petition signatories claiming to have a Ph.D. in a climate-related field actually do. And in a highly unusual move, the National Academy of Sciences issues a statement disavowing Seitz’s petition and disassociating the academy from the PNAS-formatted paper.
Well, Watson, now you know what happens when you poke the liberal badger. In their world there is Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, GWB, Cheney, the Big Oil Companies and then there is everyone else.
sir charles, you forgot Oregon Institute of science and medicine
After all that, and you're still missing the point - we need energy independence a hell of a lot more than a new swindle operation run by the government for carbon credits. If you really want to put the economy in the dumper, follow Warner & Boxer all the way to the unemployment line - think you'll be able to breathe easier?
Post a Comment