Posted on 02/03/2007 6:04:45 AM PST by Libloather
Maha Rushie bump.
Global warming is the new peoples templeand Al Gore is their Jim Jones. Unfortunately they aren't satisfied with drinking the koolaide alone. They want to force everyone to take a swig.
Bttt.
Can you tell me where I can find the article? I went to American Thinker and found an article by Dunn, "Resisting Global Warming Panic," but it doesn't seem to have the same content Rush was reading. I'd like to keep it on file. Thanks.
This 'global warming' crap is the newest way to lift more money from the little people, until we little people can be led to the gas chambers. The little people humans are to blame, so the little people humans must be destroyed. This is the agenda these scientist have bought into and echo with their government funded grants. It is a back-door to bring a reason to the table to eliminate humans from the planet. Hitler and all of his minions would be very proud of whoever thought up this plan. It is nearly fool proof, because fools and useful idiots are the only ones foolish enough to believe the 'global warming' lies.
Reference ping for Gaia-ism.
[..but to actually affect the systems that keep the earth here, in whatever form, even if there are nuclear detonations left and right, life somewhere, somehow, will survive, and the whole process will begin again. We may not, cockroaches will. That means some liberals will.
We may not, cockroaches will. That means some liberals will.]
Ha,ha ha ha ha ha ha.
“Dear Rush, you're quite right when you say there can be no consensus in science, but the reasons are far more basic than the ones that you've been giving.”
“To be called science,” writes Mr. Niezabitowski, “things must stand up under a process called ‘The Scientific Method.’ Three steps are involved:
One, observe a phenomenon.
Two, devise a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon.
Three, devise a test to prove or disprove the hypothesis.
If the third step proves it, you have a scientific truth.
Every global warming item I have read stops at step 2 or uses an argument like ‘It started at the industrial age, therefore the industrial age caused it.’ This is a common fallacy in logic known as ‘Post Hoc ergo Propter Hoc’ (After it, therefore caused by it) which is utterly invalid as far as the scientific method goes.
Flat earth theories were not abandoned because of a shift in consensus. They were disproven by step 3 of the scientific method, and our current globe earth science stands up to the method. Most pro-global warming people think the hypothesis must be true so it is true. Even when a disproving step 3 happens (there will be more violent and numerous hurricanes this year because of global warming).”
“When Einstein’s theory of relativity was thought to be insane,” E=MC2, “Einstein provided a step 3 method of testing it involving an eclipse and how light would behave. Things happened like he said they would, and we now accept the theory of relativity as science.
The point is, if global warming theories were scientific fact, no scientist would be able to dispute it,”
...and yet, thousands of scientists do dispute global warming. So if global warming and its supporters are not about science, then you have to ask, about what are they?
bump
And don't forget that there are heretics that will be brought before a board of inquisitors.
Mark
bttt
bookmark
Yes! And very likely a mental illness as well.
From Neal Boortz:
The United Nations is anti-American and anti-Capitalist. In short .. I don't trust them. Not a bit. The UN would eagerly engage in any enterprise that would weaken capitalist economies around the world.
Because after the fall of the Soviet Union and worldwide Communism many in the anti-capitalist movement moved to the environmental movement to continue pursuing their anti-free enterprise goals. Many of the loudest proponents of man-made global warming today are confirmed anti-capitalists.
Because the sun is warmer .. and all of these scientists don't seem to be willing to credit a warmer sun with any of the blame for global warming.
The polar ice caps on Mars are melting. How did our CO2 emissions get all the way to Mars?
It was warmer in the 1930s across the globe than it is right now.
It wasn't all that long ago that these very same scientists were warning us about "global cooling" and another approaching ice age?
How much has the earth warmed up in the last 100 years? One degree. Now that's frightening.
Because that famous "hockey stick" graph that purports to show a sudden warming of the earth in the last few decades is a fraud. It ignored previous warming periods ... left them off the graph altogether.
The infamous Kyoto accords exempt some of the world's biggest CO2 polluters, including China and India.
The Kyoto accords can easily be seen as nothing less than an attempt to hamstring the world's dominant capitalist economies.
Because many of these scientists who are sounding the global warming scare depend on grant money for their livelihood, and they know the grant money dries up when they stop preaching the global warming sermon.
Because global warming "activists" and scientists seek to punish those who have different viewpoints. If you are sure of your science you have no need to shout down or seek to punish those who disagree.
What happened to the Medieval Warm Period? In 1996 the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a chart showing climatic change over a period of 1000 years. This graph showed a Medieval warming period in which global temperatures were higher than they are today. In 2001 the IPCC issued another 1000 year graph in which the Medieval warming period was missing. Why?
Why has one scientist promoting the cause of man-made global warming been quoted as saying "we have to get rid of the medieval warming period?"
Why is the ice cap on the Antarctic getting thicker if the earth is getting warmer?
In the United State, the one country with the most accurate temperature measuring and reporting records, temperatures have risen by 0.3 degrees centigrade over the past 100 years. The UN estimate is twice that.
There are about 160,000 glaciers around the world. Most have never been visited or measured by man. The great majority of these glaciers are growing, not melting.
Side-looking radar interferometry shows that the ise mass in the West Antarctic is growing at a rate of over 26 gigatons a year. This reverses a melting trend that had persisted for the previous 6,000 years.
Rising sea levels? The sea levels have been rising since the last ice age ended. That was 12,000 years ago. Estimates are that in that time the sea level has risen by over 300 feet. The rise in our sea levels has been going on long before man started creating anything but natural CO2 emissions.
Like Antarctica, the interior of Greenland is gaining ice mass.
Over the past 3,000 years there have been five different extended periods when the earth was measurably warmer than it is today.
During the last 20 years -- a period of the highest carbon dioxide levels -- global temperatures have actually decreased. That's right ... decreased.
Why did a reporter from National Public Radio refuse to interview David Deming, an associate professor at the University of Oklahoma studying global warming, after his testimony to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee unless Deming would state that global warming was being caused by man?
Why are global warming proponents insisting that the matter is settled and that no further scientific research is needed? Why are they afraid of additional information?
On July 24, 1974 Time Magazine published an article entitled "Another Ice Age?" Here's the first paragraph:
"As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."
Rush amazes me...a caller will have a comment or a question and his response sometimes sounds like a well tuned college lecture....
Having just read "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis Summary for Policymakers Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change," I must conclude that there indeed is scientific evidence of global warming.
However, we have the "Chicken Little" syndrome being practiced by the authors of the referenced report. There is no discussion of the potential role of the Sun, and its dominant role in climate change. There is no serious discussion of the difference between normal variability in climate and climate change. There is no discussion of the assumptions, data, and methodology used in the report. There is no discussion of the relative amounts of carbon dioxide, its variability, and sources. For example, given that global warming is caused by variations in energy emitted by the Sun, perhaps the increase in carbon dioxide is simply the result of more carbon dioxide being expelled from the oceans as they warm.
The bottom line is that the report is so flawed as to be an embarrassment to the science community. The writers really need to learn about systems analysis and the comprehensive approach to science, instead of running around claiming that the sky is falling!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.