Posted on 02/14/2010 10:09:08 AM PST by ricks_place
Yeah, that’s right and I would agree that “Anthropogenic Global Warming” is a political movement — and — not a model from scientific study, from past cycles and truly understanding the nature of our climate . It’s a perversion of science and a way to control people... and Al Gore is a politician, to be sure... :-)
There IS NO science of global warming.
Okay... I'll "pick a nit" here... LOL...
There is science for Global Warming and Global Cooling. What there is no science for -- is -- "Anthropogenic Global Warming".
Don't get caught in the trap of saying that there is no Global Warming, because there is (along with Global Cooling). Make sure you distinguish that from "Anthropogenic Global Warming" -- which is actually the "politics" of the matter and not the science of the matter...
And so..., if you do distinguish on that basis, you'll have an easier time with your arguments with liberals and you will be more accurate.
Of course, another thing you'll have to contend with, with liberals, is their changing and shifting language on the matter, and now they've taken to using "Climate Change", which is a perfectly respectable phrase, but they are trying to subvert that phrase, as we speak... :-)
YOU will love this;)
From a recent FReeper thread......and wayyyyyyyy over my head. LOL!!
http://joannenova.com.au/2008/10/the-missing-hotspot/
Yeah, certain scientists looking for the “Hot Spot” like some others look for the G-spot... LOL... (don’t ask me if it’s there or not... :-0 ...)
Even though I’ve looked at the so-called “Hot Spot” a bit (at least the theory of it), I can’t get too excited about it. It’s an “artifact” of a “computer model” is all that will come out of that argument.
They’ll just say that they have to work on the “model” a little bit more and tweak it and then they’ll have it right... so that’s why I don’t make a big deal about it. Yes, you can mention it, but it’s not the “big killer” that many make it out to be (at least I don’t think so).
If you want to give people the “big smackdown” for Al Gore’s hockey stick, all you gotta say is that Gore says/implies/states that CO2 increases first and then the temperature goes up. Well, all you have to say is that all the data (every last single bit of it) shows that the temperature goes up first and then CO2 follows it by several hundred years later... [smack-down!] ... end of story... (for the average joe).
And what happens when you start going down that track (of discussing the “hot spot”) with the “average joe on the street” — is that their eyes glaze over and then they think you’re just as big a nut as some of these scientists are who talk “geek-speak” and so on.
I don’t think it helps with the “man on the street” actually, although it might help with someone who is more into this topic.
That’s why I mention this documentary up above, because that’s especially geared for the “man on the street” and it can easily be understood, without investing too much time and effort into “geek-speak” and getting a “background” in the material before you even talk about it.
That’s just my opinion on the matter, and you are trying to get the “general voter” on your side... :-)
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.