Interestingly enough, I followed a thread yesterday to this douchebag’s web-site, where he’s agitated to start a campaign to confront every prominent figure who opposes the global warming alarmists, with instructions to his minions that these opponents are to be thought of as “cranks”, not skeptics. Apparently he is the national arbiter of who is to be judged a crank, and who is pursuing the time-honored scientific tradition of questioning conventional wisdom.
Two features in this video are especially instructive:
1) He never introduces a single scientific argument - his whole position is an appeal to authority: not the strongest of rhetorical approaches, but apparently the best he’s got
2) And if anyone needs any further evidence that he’s just a true-believer liberal, his shameless use of his daughter - the totally emotional “let’s do it for the children” approach to policy - is all I need to recognize the intellectual vacuity of his position,
And oh, by the way, he’s got a book coming out - I’m sure the publicity associated with ambushing Inhofe is just a coincidence.
2) And if anyone needs any further evidence that he’s just a true-believer liberal, his shameless use of his daughter - the totally emotional “let’s do it for the children” approach to policy - is all I need to recognize the intellectual vacuity of his position,
When you think about it, nearly every newspaper article spouting off in favor of "glow-bull warming" uses the same approach. "The science is settled" and "it's for the children" are the two consistent themes that the leftards continue to use, thinking that it will always resonate with the general population.
It’s all about feelings.
inhoffe should have said “PROVE that fluctuating temperatures are due to a rise in carbon- show the scientitific link- I do NOT want guestimates, that do nothign but point out coincidences, but actual scientific data showing that rising carbon is directly affecting rising temperatures- then, when you’re done gathering the scientific data, PROVE that fluctuating temperatures ARE NOT due to cyclical trends that happen all the time. Until you can do the two thigns I asked, you have NO case, and are just blwoing hot air and conning people into thinking man has ANY influence whatsoever over the weather- and you shoudl be ashamed of yourself for deceiving mankind and costing htem trillions of dollars- hoping to saddle future generations with debt they caqn NEVER pay off”
Years ago, we were told warmign was causing worldwide draughhts, now that we’ve had a couple of flooding events, we’re told waqrmign causes ‘moisture in the atmosphere, and therefore flooding events aRE going to happen’’
We’ve suppsoedly been ‘warming’ for howl ong now? So, why hasn’t there been flooding EVERY single year if wamring ‘caused more atmospheric moisture’?
Inhoffe, shoudl have also said- “Look kiddies- the world has draughts, you kids blame man- the world has flooding, you blame man, the world sees increased hurricanes, you blame man, the world sees decreased hurricanes, you blasme man, the world sees hotspots aroud the globe, you blame man, the world sees cold spots aroudn the world, you blame man, Egypt erupts into civil unrest, you blame man-caused global wamtring. Is there ANYTHING in your minds that man is not to blame for?” WEhen you can approach me with swcientific evidnece the proves man can influence weather, lemme know, until then, all you have are inuendo and silly speculations based on far reaching coincidences that just make you look uneducated. Now go blame man for somethign else and leave the scienc e to actual scientists and those who un derstand the science.”