Beam me to Planet Gore !
Because it is not the only one...
Take a look at the Allentown Morning Call, for another example.
I've noticed more and more of these letters to the editor in recent months...
What disturbs me about them is not the fact that this person has bought into the cult of global warming (we have freedom of religion in this country, including wicca and pantheism). What disturbs me is an increasing number of calls to completely shut out debate on the subject.
They usually equate those who oppose them as "flat earthers." Well, let us consider: if anybody actually believed that the earth was flat, would a newspaper deny publication of a letter on that basis? Would a newspaper deny ad space on that basis? Hardly. Why? Because debate is seriously over on that subject. And if somebody wants to make an idiot of himself by publishing a letter, that's his privilege. And if somebody wants to waste a lot of money with a full page ad, while making an idiot of himself, that's his privilege.
That's the characteristic of a debate that is over. The losing side can say whatever they want and it doesn't matter, because nobody would believe it anyway. Suppression of speech (note I don't say "censorship," as only government can censor) is not needed if the debate is over.
In the case of "man-made climate change," though, the debate is NOT over. There are as many prominent scientists who doubt the politically-correct interpretation as who buy into the PC version. (In fact, if government grants, endowments, and jobs were not involved, I would suspect that there would be MORE scientists opposed to the algorian position as would be in favor of it)
If the truth would ever be revealed, I would suspect that the studies supporting man made global warming would be about as suspect as a study on the positive health benefits of unfiltered cigarettes paid for by RJ Reynolds, or a historical review debunking the Armenian genocide, sponsored by the Friends of the Ottoman Empire, Inc.
The only reason to suppress debate is because of fear that the flaws in the suppressor's argument may be revealed.
So I would submit that maybe the debate is over.
And Algore's side lost.
In other words, Paulie wants to silence all dissent.
C'mon, Paul.
There are no Federal Funds available to universities and research organizations for contrary views. That is why the Global Warming issue seems so one sided.
That letter writer shows complete scientific illiteracy. As such, he is a prime candidate for the Obamaloon’s cabinet of Loon-O-Tics. Please apply immediately.
So, the number of Google hits Trumps Scientific opinion ?
We need to go after these dudes, Tea party like. Finally we have Scientists who don’t need Fed. Funding speaking their mind.
1) CO2 is defined as "pollution" only by lunatics.
2) If CO2 levels now are higher than ever, how come temperatures have been higher in the past?
If you google “vampire” you get 53,200,000 hits. Many of which lead to sites claiming vampires are real or of people claiming to be vampires.
BZZZT!
Sorry.
Thanks so much for playing, but that is incorrect.
If you Google "effect of CO2 on climate change" (with the quote marks), you get exactly 8 hits, one of which is this article in the Concord paper.
If you Google "effect of CO2 on climate change" (WITHOUT the quote marks), you get 20,500,000 hits, but those include every page anywher with the word "effect" -OR- the word "CO2" -OR- the word "climate" -OR- the word "change".
This idiot doesn't even know how to google.
I’m sure the Concord Monitor was more than happy to publish that letter. :(
This gives an overall flat line appearance to the CO2 detected in the past, especially the last 2000 years, where diffusion is highest.
Don't be mislead by the ice core CO2 joke, it's designed to deceive. Plenty of science on the diffusion of CO2 in ice, search google scholar for more.
Another factor is the change to the CO2 measurement technique, a dastardly unscientific sleight of hand. I write about it here CO2 History Revised By The IPCC. A good video lecture at the link, if you are so inclined.
Paul Hague is a moron to use Google as a source due to the hit count.
The good news is these people are going to live long enough for it all to come right back in their face. There’s some hard lessons coming.
The counter to this type of ill-informed letter is to quote Lord Monckton and other anti-warming luminaries like William Gray. There’s a ton more of good material at:
Just as another thought, the entire fabric of CAGW is built on computer models. They are deficient in at least two important areas, cloud modeling (a very complex area, with many subtle dependencies and effects on the model), and solar variability which is a very important factor right at the moment.
The fact of the matter is that the CAGW predictions from just 1998 are already way off - the current climate is outside the error bands. If they couldn’t get it right over just a ten year timespan, why should their ninety year prediction have any credence?
CAGW ‘theory’ needs to be stopped before it costs us bigtime. The Earth is cooling at the moment, not warming.
Snowstorm in Denver today. Over a month into spring. Another example of global warming...
| bite me |
