Thursday, August 30, 2007

Less than half does not a concensus make

I have been disagreeing with proponents of anthropogenic global warming for a long time. Any research or facts I used to support my opinions met the same retort: "The consensus view is that human activity is warming the planet." Hah! I now can blow that out of the water as well. I have observed critics of global warming being attacked verbally and threatened. Here are a few examples:

Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project:

"I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures."[Canada Free Press]

Michael T. Eckhart, president of the environmental group the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) writing to Marlo Lewis, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI):

“It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on."[Washington Times]

Grist Magazine’s staff writer David Roberts:

"When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg.”[Grist]

Roger Pielke, Jr. of the University of Colorado's Center for Science and Technology Policy Research: (note: He is a supporter of Anthropogenic Global Warming)

“The phrase ‘climate change denier’ is meant to be evocative of the phrase ‘holocaust denier’”. U of Colorado

Earlier I promised to blow the consensus thing out of the water and it's time to deliver. From here:

"Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results."

I feel that the tide is changing in regards to global warming. The planet may be warming, but not due to human activity. Temperature monitoring stations are not properly maintained and are not complying with NOAA's own rules, and this is just in the US. Who knows what climate monitoring stations in other countries is like. For more info on climate stations, check out I plan on doing surveys of the three stations in NO, if anyone out there would like to give me a hand, I would appreciate it.

Global warming supporters use computer models to predict future weather on the planet. In no way are these accurate. To forecast the weather years in advance,when a 7 day forecast is a crap shoot, is just an educated guess. Look at how much the hurricane models differ.

One last thing to end my rant. Shouldn't global warming supporters be happy to find out that they are wrong? Rejoice that human activity will not adversely affect the planet. But they don't. Time for an analogy: You see a doctor and he says: "you have cancer". You get a second opinion: "No cancer". Do you (A) Feel better that you will not die of cancer, or (B) Tell the 2nd doctor that you do have cancer and threaten to ruin his career if he persists saying otherwise.

The reason they persist is that they have other goals than just saving the planet. The environmental movement has become the new home for the anti-capitalism crowd. They see environmental regulations as a vehicle to attack "big business". So, don't buy into their propaganda. Global warming is just a passing fad. In 10 years the media will be fretting about something else... global cooling redux?


Robin "Big Hooters" Quivers said...

Yeah, I'm with ya! All those machines must be broken or something. Let's survey them.

I think it's ironic that you have been thinking of those persistent environmentalists because I have been thinking of people who knowingly make incorrect neuron connections in the brain so they can justify their shitty pollution spewing lives.

People who talk about greenhouse gases are just trying to attack republicans? Get real. We don't give a shit about big business or whatever point you were trying to make.

Let me ask you this? Do know about CFC's and the ozone layer? Do you acknowledge humans contribute to this problem? Or was their thermal camera broken as well?

Do you know who Philip Cooney is and the documents he changed? Better ask somebody.

Do you drive? Do you think cars put out strawberry smelling farts like me? If you are so confident we have nothing to do with the earth, close up your garage, turn on your car in there, and hang out in there a while. Please. You will die. Now imagine this - The atmosphere is your garage, the millions of cars is your car. Get it?

Do you think there is any chance that maybe you are wrong? Please don't undermine the integrity of your blog and those who read it by simply throwing ideas that you don't like out the window. We know you are not an expert on everything - but you sound like a ding-dong when you think you do.

The German said...

Thank you for making my point. If you try a little harder, I'm sure you can squeeze an ad hominem attack in each paragraph.

robin "big hooters" quivers said...

Save the drama for your mama. Address some issues. Don't just use some Latin that no one understands, I went to Jesuit too guy.

Is every respone supposed to praise your ideas? Come on guy. Its a blog. On blogspot.

And if you think that Im the only one who reads your bull and gives a shit . . . then your probably right.

But just in case there is someone else out there, you owe it to them to respond validly at the least.

We all read your post from last week about your ineptitude to sort plastic from paper. Let me guess - you are fat. And fuckin lazy. And smoke cigarettes. And throw the half lit butts out your 8-cylinder SUV.

Two words. . . Global cooling redux

Anyways, take it easy man. I can see you are just a few months into blogging, but you gotta have thick skin. I'm just yankin your chain a little. I know the guy who owns the Internet so you will want to be my friend. Unless your from Kenner. Or Gretna, our countyseat.

Because I dont befriend people from Kenner or Gretna. Or anyone not from Old Metairie.

Please. Just move along. Do not respond to this. Just post on some of the other numerous topics that we agree upon.

Like vice-pres Dick Cheney.

Or the criminalization of medicinal marijuana. And fireworks in JP.

Nick said...

Didn't used to be warm enough in England to have wine vinyards back around the 1400's or 1500's?

I guess SUV's caused that global warming too.

Pistolette said...

Yeah, I agree, but it's tough to have this debate with people.

People who have already converted to to the green religion have completely closed their minds to new ideas and don't want to hear that neither their god, nor their satan is real. They want to fulfil their prophecy that humanity is evil and the earth must be cleansed of its presence. You have no idea how many greenies tell me that the earth would be a better place is millions of people would just die. How messed up is that?! Ironically, they sound just like radical Christians - people they probably despise more that anything.

The German said...

Thanks for the comment Pistolette. You are absolutely right, this is one issue that people tend to be very close-minded and antagonistic.

I once had a discussion with a creationist for the better part of an hour. Although both of us were civil, it was one of the most aggravating experiences I have ever had. That is topic #1 on my list of this to not discuss in public.