I looked into his face and could see he wasn't angry or hostile or combative. He seemed like a good guy and, by the way his wife gently rolled her eyes, I could see he liked to talk. So I took a chance and replied. Posted on 03/29/2012 9:14:16 PM PDT by FreeAtlanta
He looked like a former linebacker, tall and solidly built. After stowing his wife's luggage in the overhead, he squeezed past me, sat down and looked straight at the astronomy textbook I was reading. "You're a scientist?" he asked. "Are you involved in that big controversy over climate?" I looked into his face and could see he wasn't angry or hostile or combative. He seemed like a good guy and, by the way his wife gently rolled her eyes, I could see he liked to talk. So I took a chance and replied.
"What controversy?"
What followed was a long conversation, 30,000 feet above the American West,
(Excerpt) Read more at npr.org ...
Not a single fact in the article, but climate change wins. On their word, it won the day, because all of the agencies agree. Nothing about disengenuous data. No rising seas. Just good people agreeing. Or else your stupid. And maybe stupid people can’t be tolerated any longer, maybe.
Well - you see Timmy - the big bad oil companys ...
I’m so sick of these retards - pretending to be smart.
It is from National Palisimian Radio, after al - what can one expect.
|
Perhaps climate change can wait while you ponder more fundamental issues. |
I have to agree with TwoSwords. The NPR article is extremely deceptive, and that is beyond the observation that there isn’t a bit of truth in it.
Nobody is arguing about whether climate changes or not. It has never stopped changing. Yet NPR sought to take a smug, superior liberal stance that this was what the political debate was all about. Typical liberal trick: distraction from the real issue. Erect a straw man and then flog it. Yawn...
The only question is whether or not humans are causing global warming. The IPCC’s computer models have failed to prove this very weak theory. There is no trophospheric hot spot—the essential fingerprint to prove that CO2 causes warming. It has not been found despite the warmists best efforts to gather the essential data that the computer models depend on for calibration.
They obviously believe that we are pretty thick to fall for this tripe.
I’d never heard palisimian and you made me look it up. Says a lot for me. On the bright side I don’t rate them simians. More like standing rats. Of no use whatsover.
I must congratulate you in finding one of the most insipid and inane article (but then you went to a source rich in inanity - NPR).
If there was a sliver of substance in that mound of drivel, I surely missed it.
That climate changes, no one disputes it. That man contributes to it in any significant and predictable amount is where the evidence is lacking. On the other hand there in a mountain of evidence that the whole global warming fraud is 99% about politics.
what gets me about these libs is that even though they are absolutely convinced that man made global warming is destroying the planet, they still fire up their carbon powered computers and frivolously kill polar bears just so they can post comments about climate change on NPR’s carbon powered website. They can’t help themselves.
But I love the certainty with which they talk of things they cannot possibly know. ;-)
Yep.
Never mind that much of north America was covered with a couple of miles of ice about 15,000 years ago... It’s been warming for the last 13,000 years or so... Duh... Shocking that the trend continues...
Interesting how the guy in the NPR story keeps using 'climate change' instead of 'Global Warming'. They're trying hard to confuse the issue in folks' minds.
They started doing this several years ago, when it became clear that the globe wasn't warming, anymore, it was cooling. They needed to distract all those folks who were no longer believing science had the answer to all the world's problems
The anthropogenic cause, on the other hand, is a whole different subject. That has not come even close to being proven. All hysterical claims fail the test of the definition of science --- miserably!
the vast majority of hypotheses suffer the indignity embodied in a phrase attributed variously to Thomas Huxley and Lord Kelvin: "a beautiful theory slain by an ugly fact" -- then you have a theory that can be published, and tested, and verified by other scientists. If you don't, you throw it out.
“Science can never be prescriptive. All it can do is raise issues for the world's attention. It is politics and economics that then decide what to do about them. People who argue that the science says we must do something are being disingenuous about their true motives. If those people are also scientists, then they are abusing science. This is a tremendously important point.” --- Iain Murray, National Review, December 21, 2004
Napping on Prozac Radio
I disrupt my Liberal neighbors' belief with this comment:
"Where I live in Central Florida was—at one time—an ocean beach, 90 miles from either coast."
That seems to shut their debate down. :)
this is a liberal wet dream and probably 90% made up...stupid, but well-meaning proletarian is converted by the superior logic of the better person...I bet if you found the passenger you’d find out it didn’t exactly go down this way
That's why global warming is now called "climate change."
Entire screed is negated in the title.
And the entire thing reeks of the boilerplate, liberal wet dream of "enlightening one of the neanderthals with the wisdom of progressivism."
Former linebacker....solid....helped the little wifey with her luggage.....opinionated(however wrongly)....Calm, cool, collected liberal sets him straight...converts him to religion of climate change...."Lord! May this former heathen go forth and testify!"
They are no more to believed than Harold Camping on May 22, 2011, the day after his Armageddon.
And prior to 1998 there are doubts about the data, since they were proven to be fudging it after warming slowed to a stop. Who knows how much false data was included earlier?
And prior to 1998 there are doubts about the data, since they were proven to be fudging it after warming slowed to a stop. Who knows how much false data was included earlier?
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.