Re: No change in political climate
Ms Goodman,
If there is manmade global warming, and it has been proven to the point that those who disagree are “deniers,” how come countries around the world are spending BILLIONS of dollars to prove manmade global warming? I mean we spend no money on proving that the earth is round.
So since there is BILLIONS of dollars being spent to PROVE a manmade connection, then obviously it is not proven. Which means that science has not and may not ever prove a connection. If that is the case then why should be cut off all discussion?
Is this not a Stalinist tactic of quieting all those that may question your beliefs?
As a reporter do you not agree with the First Amendment and freedom of speech. Or is some speech more free than others?
Does not Science expand and grow by discussion and dissent? If as Hillary says that it is the responsibility of a Free people to disagree with the government, should than also not apply to Government Scientist so that is actually good to disagree with them?
So when you write “I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.” Are you not being a hypocrite or a Stalinists?
Also before we spend trillions of dollars to stop something as questionable as manmade global warming which you are promoting, can you, Al Gore, or any environmentalist answerer the following questions?
1. What gas is responsible for approximately 95% of the "greenhouse effect" on planet Earth?
2. Are the United States a net A) Emitter, or B) Absorber of carbon dioxide?
3. Is the global climate now A) Warmer, or B) Cooler than it was approximately 1,000 to 1,100 years ago?
4. Can you name any other things that can affect the Earths temperature besides mankind.
Are you aware of the Scientific method?
The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
6. Can you explain how the amount of carbon put in the atmosphere by mankind has any affect when it is less than the natural fluctuations of carbon put in the atmosphere naturally.
When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.
The environmentalists pushing the 'global warming' myth have never gotten past Step # 2!
I like this statement in the Opinion Journal in the Global Warming Smear thread.
"One can only conclude from this episode that the environmental left and their political and media supporters now believe it is legitimate to quash debate on climate change and its consequences. This is known as orthodoxy, and, until now, science accepted the legitimacy of challenging it."