Posted on 04/26/2008 2:09:48 PM PDT by neverdem
read
It’s too big a business to shut down now. The World Bank has a carbon finance unit.
Cozening up with liberals like Clinton and Pelosi and new accepting Gorebal Warning, geeezzzz.
Limbaugh is not a philosopher so he may or may not be aware of just how accurate and profound his understanding of this issue really is.Ooooo. It takes a philosopher to understand the profundity of things.
I'm going to keep reading, but this sentence did set me back a bit.
The author is presuming a syllogistic construct in "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing global mean surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise."
Trouble is, it's not!
LOL...and this author is a “philosopher” in the sense that a high-school geometry student is a “mathematician.” :-)
The we did it argument is much like the "Socrates is mortal" argument we saw above. (a) Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the earth's atmosphere. (b) Human activities put them there. (c) Therefore, global mean surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures are rising.What???
This is absolutely illogical.
Forget about what you know or think about global warming. Just analyze the above paragraph.
a) refers to the accumulation of gasses in the atmosphere
b) refers to activities which put those gasses in the atmosphere
c) says nothing about the activities (b) and arbitrarily introduces a new variable (temperature) which does not exist in either of the two premises.
I have a syllogism of my own:
a) anyone who recognizes this author to be an idiot has at least some ability to think logically
b) I recognize this author to be an idiot
c) therefore, I have at least some ability to think logically.
Horsefeathers! Fricking de-constructionist crap.
IF I eat habenros, "THEN it follows" that I use excessive ice cubes to.... reduce the burning later....
If-then logic is pretty solid, based on good observational data.
/johnny/
PS: Misspelling gases as “gasses” doesn’t weaken my argument.
/johnny/
It seems to me that you can investigate a specific "weather change"(as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation"), or series of incidents of "weather change", but "climate change" is redundant.
It would be like running around screaming "The Dow-Jones Industrial Average has changed!!!!!"
Instead of "Climate Change", we should instead utilize the stock market reporting methods and refer to the "Global Weather Average - Temperature" and the "Global Weather Average - Rain" and "Global Weather Average - Snow", etc., but then that would allow specific analysis of historical data and the media and politicians wouldn't want the facts to interfere with the opportunity to invoke socialist, government managed, solutions that "Climate Change!!!" provides.
If AGW had anything to do with the weather or the Earths temperature, there would be little harm in co-opting the democrats/socialists argument. But considering that this entire religious cult is about social overhaul and destroying capitalism, if we agree to their premise we essentially can only argue about how much of capitalism we want to destroy and how much new regulation we want.
Instead of taking a real conservative approach to this problem, we’ve opted to find the public relations war against an enemy that owns every television network, academia, Madison Avenue and one entire political party (plus about 25% of ours). We aren’t being conservative and arguing for increased EFFICIENCY, decreased DEPENDENCY on our enemies and neighbors and technological solutions to REPLACE existing industries instead of just declaring them enemies of the state and destroying them along with their jobs.
And considering that all the new scientific data is heading AGAINST the idea that the world is getting warmer, we should never, never, never cede the argument that these zealots invented.
“subsurface ocean temperatures to rise”
this has recently been disproven.
Also, I lost all I mean ALL respect for Newt with his GOREbal warming stance, I can only say I hope he is being well paid for selling out.
Whenever I see him on TV or hear him on the radio I turn it off.
bttt
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.