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?