Blind Them With Science!

Assigned Reading: Global Warming and the Sun
(FROM: Los Angeles Times)

A great piece of writing from Jonah Goldberg. Essentially, it boils down to the same message which I’ve tried to convey–albeit not as craftily–several times here at America’s Right when it comes to global warming: it’s probably best not to make radical changes in order to solve a problem which hasn’t even been determined to be a problem yet.

Here are my favorite questions to ask global warming fanatics:

  • Considering that a single volcanic eruption releases several times the amount of carbon dioxide than the entire human race releases in an entire year, how has the world survived countless such eruptions throughout the planet’s 4.5 billion year history?
  • Termites release ten times more carbon dioxide than every single man, woman, child, factory and automobile in the entire world. How is it that mankind‘s carbon emission is the determining factor on how quickly the planet is destroyed? Shouldn’t your farcical energy bill focus on termites? After all, they also eat wood, and environmentalists absolutely love wood . . .
  • Scientists are absolutely incapable of predicting the weather a week out with any significant accuracy. Why should we believe them capable of putting together accurate models looking forward by a century, or even a decade? If Glenn “Hurricane” Schwartz here in Philadelphia says it’s going to be 86 degrees here tomorrow and it turns out to be 91 degrees, why trust a liberal idealogue masquerading as a scientist to predict global temperatures in 2050 to within six-tenths of a degree?
  • In that same line of thinking — why do existing climate models completely fail to predict the known past? In other words, if the same models used by your so-called experts don’t work to predict known conditions, why should we bank our economy on those models and experts now?
  • Staying in the past, why did the planet cool between 1940 and 1975, even though human carbon dioxide emissions were sky high? Could it be that human carbon emissions and global temperature have absolutely nothing to do with each other?
  • Why don’t we see, in core samples, actual empirical evidence over a broad span of time–not 100 year segments here or there–that carbon dioxide levels drive temperature? Why don’t we see corresponding increases in such samples at the time of major volcanic activity?
  • The planet’s climate has always changed — why are we so willing to destroy the economy (or even take the risk in doing so) in order to fight a natural cyclical process?

Still, it makes me wonder if anybody on the left actually stands up and questions their status quo? What should facts matter, anyway, if the real motivation behind the global warming mumbo-jumbo isn’t environmental in nature at all, but instead about the redistribution of wealth and the forced death of American exceptionalism?

Share

Comments

  1. Anonymous says:

    "But we live in a moment when we are told, nay lectured and harangued, that if we use the wrong toilet paper or eat the wrong cereal, we are frying the planet. But the sun? Well, that's a distraction. Don't you dare forget your reusable shopping bags, but feel free to pay no attention to that burning ball of gas in the sky — it's just the only thing that prevents the planet from being a lifeless ball of ice engulfed in total darkness. Never mind that sunspot activity doubled during the 20th century, when the bulk of global warming has taken place."
    ——————————-
    Ahhhhh there is that sweet aroma of common sense. Like walking into a cerebral starbucks.

  2. Gail B says:

    Something just dawned on me–The media is talking about Eric Holder going after Dick Cheney because Cheney is speaking against Obama/Soetoro's investigation into the "enhanced interrogation techniques."

    Are "enhanced interrogation techniques" worse than "man-made disasters?"

    Is this situation — 37 czars — worse than, or equal to, "man-made disasters" or "left wing extremist terrorists?"

    What about a man who is wrecking our government, economy, and Constitution but will not prove who he is or where he is from, while he sits at the Resolute Desk, visits Camp David, and flies around in Air Force One on our tax dollars, to apologize for America? that, to me, is an American disaster!

  3. Gail B says:

    Follow the money! There are trillions of dollars to be pocketed by leftists, campaign contributors, and internationalists.

    Global warming is a knife in our backs, draining our pockets and economy.

    verify: dagger

  4. Robert Wallace says:

    Hate to be a kill-joy, but apparently the volcanic eruption thing is wrong:

    "Finally, claims that volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities are simply not true… Measurements of CO2 levels over the past 50 years do not show any significant rises after eruptions. Total emissions from volcanoes on land are estimated to average just 0.3 Gt of CO2 each year"

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638

  5. Claudia says:

    the day that I will actuallt believe some scientist who is advocating controling the global emissions and climate by making US do things that are detrimental to our lives and comfort will have to be the day that that same scientist jumps aboard a space ship and actually lands on the SUN so as to be able to CONTROL how many sunsposts are let loose each day, week, month, year or decade; then I will believe him, them, or anyone who purports to be an expert on GLOBAL WARMING or CLIAMTE CHANGE and I propose that Al Gore be the first one to make that journey (becasue he – so far – has been the biggest mMOUTH in teh USA on this subect and also HE HAS MADE probably the most money on said CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING TAX CREDITS AND BURDENS that are to be placed on the average AMerican person…..

    Untill then I would be happy to suggest that they KEEP THEIR MOUTHS, COMPUTERS AND LIES SILENT!!!!

  6. Larry Walker Jr says:

    My thoughts exactly. And let's not forget how much carbon is being emitted in that mushroom cloud over Los Angeles. A couple of wild fires could wipe out any savings Cap & Trade policies could hope to gain over years, in just a matter of days.

  7. Anonymous says:

    …(MIT's Richard Lindzen says that "there has been no warming since 1997 and no statistically significant warming since 1995.")…

    Richard Lindzen is an American atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology… has published more than 200 books and scientific papers… (Google him, he's no crackpot).

    …Editorial: The science is in. the scare is out. Recent papers and data give a complete picture of why the UN is wrong.

    The pdf file located at the link above from the Science and Public Policy Institute has absolutely, convincingly, and irrefutably proven the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming to be completely false.

    Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT’s peer reviewed work states “we now know that the effect of CO2 on temperature is small, we know why it is small, and we know that it is having very little effect on the climate.”…

    Source and links to pdf: http://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m8d18-Carbon-Dioxide-irrelevant-in-climate-debate-says-MIT-Scientist

  8. goddessdivine says:

    These environmental wackjobs can't be bothered with petty little things like facts. They have people to oppress and money to put in their pockets.

    Great questions…..to which I'm sure they have no answers; just hot air.

  9. Ian Thorpe says:

    Using the same mathematical modelling techniques as they use in predicting the effects of climate change, scientists predicted in 2007 the economies of the developed world could keep growing indefinitely.

    Have confidence, these people have a track record.

  10. Robert Wallace says:

    You got a link to that one, Ian?

    Sounds interesting.

  11. Rix says:

    Proving to global-warming zealots that their science is flawed is about as productive (and hazardous) as discussing cartoon-drawing techniques in a mosque. They BELIEVE, period. If I show you a mathematical proof that God doesn't exist, will you believe me? Exactly. Not that I have one, of course. :)

  12. steve says:

    I was watching the Green channel or something and to try and prove how wonderful solar panels would be, the guy unintentionally argued against his beliefs. He stated if you add up all the energy ever produced by mankind in it history, it would equal 30 days of sunlight. If this doesn't show how insignificant we are, I don't know what does.

  13. loganfifty says:

    I've always been highly concerned with the environment in general, and only recently became politically involved. My opinions on environmental activism have always leaned more to the left than anything. I’ve always supported environmental conservation. Every recyclable scrap of paper, plastic or aluminum in my house gets recycled. In fact, the recycle bin we have only just barely fits the paper. We have 2 separate containers for the soda cans and all of the plastic simply because we can’t fit two weeks worth of recycling into one little bin. I’m a huge animal lover who goes out of his way to avoid unnecessary harm to any animal I come across. I am a certifiable environmentalist loony!

    That being said, I am not a vegetarian (hate most green foods) and I do not believe for a second that humanity is having the kind of impact on the global climate that all the other loons claim we are. Every verifiable scrap of info I’ve found supports a cyclical trend that we’ll just have to suffer through (though, personally, I prefer an uncomfortably sweltering heat to a physically painful chill).

    What I DO believe is that we are having a detrimental effect on other aspects of the environment; most notably, the effects of fossil fuel emissions on air quality in relation to instances of chronic bronchitis and general susceptibility to environmental allergens. I whole-heartedly believe that if we could undo the air quality damage of the industrial revolution, I wouldn’t need to carry a pack of tissues around with me everywhere I go, nor would I have to cough up a load of phlegm just to clear my throat enough to breath comfortably. And before you ask, the answer is no, none of that is, in any way, shape or form, an exaggeration.

    Thus I am lead to the conclusion that, while I readily agree that the left’s position on environmental measures meant to control man-made global warming is completely and utterly ridiculous and fantastically erroneous, I must also say that I believe that we do, in fact, need some changes to our current dependence on fossil fuels (and not simply as a means of negating our dependence on foreign oil). Change is needed, just not the left’s version of change.

    The answer I lean towards is nuclear energy, which only further alienates me from the left’s version of environmentalism. Pebble-bed reactors in particular fascinate me and strike me as the only realistic solution, when combined with new innovations in other energy sources.

    For more info on Pebble-Bed Reactors (something few people I know have even heard of), see Wired’s article here: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html.

  14. Claudia says:

    the one thing that those Climate Change people always seem to forget is that WE NEED CO2 to make Oxygen for us to breathe. The plants need CO2 to make the Oxygen and we inhale it into our body and make Carbon Dioxide from that Oxygen and exhale/breathe it OUT then the plants get it back and turn it back into Oxygen. IF we don't have CO2 in our surface AIR, then we won't have OXYGEN to breathe in to keep us alive……. BASIC 2nd grade science. WHAT THE HE*L is this world oming to when they are trying to tell us that we have to limit/eliminate the very thing that keeps all of us alive, we are not fish!!! We do not have GILLS!!!

  15. Gail B says:

    My political activist group's head just sent this:

    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/03sep_sunspots.htm?list1330451

Speak Your Mind

*