Posted on 05/22/2015 12:22:59 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
It's Memorial Day, and the forecast is for renewed mocking and derision regarding man-made climate change from the know-nothing, science-averse wing of the Republican Party. President Barack Obama's warning—issued during his commencement address at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy graduation ceremonies Wednesday—that climate change represents a national security threat seems certain to provoke that kind of stormy reaction.
[SNIP]
Among the Republicans running for president, climate change denial is the current mode of thinking for most....it's hard to see anyone in the crowd calling for military preparedness. Mostly, the candidates appear interested in sidestepping the topic (albeit in a disapproving manner)..
The result is not so much an attack on climate change science as an attack on any policy that would seem to address the problem. Is there such a thing as a conservative approach to global warming? If so, we haven't heard it outlined by an actual candidate—although New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie would seem the ideal mean for the job as he actually believes climate change to be real and that "human activity contributes to it,".....
Perhaps what Senator Cruz and others should do is simply visit the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis where faculty have been looking into how much damage climate change will have on coastal facilities around the Chesapeake Bay and what are the most cost-effective strategies to deal with it. That might teach them why the Navy and the other branches of the military can't afford to be climate deniers anxious to appease special interests or play to certain voters: They have a country to defend. As Mr. Obama observed, "climate change impacts every country on the planet." It's no laughing matter to imagine a future president who would ignore such an obvious security threat for no good reason beyond some measure of short-term political gain.
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...
I thought so too.
You can’t miss the “red faced” tone of the piece.
Lol!
Oh my.
He he he...
The Sahara was lush and green in Earth’s history. That was well before the industrial age.
The Baltimore Sun...trying to out slime the New York Times, but that paper is not worth lining the birdcage.
Good points. I count myself a skeptic, which is the scientific say of looking at results of experiments.
I remember learning the scientific method - test your hypothesis by examining the evidence. If the evidence supports your hypothesis, you have a theory. Finally, be skeptical of your own results, and have someone else attempt to repeat your tests. If the results are duplicated, you may have a valid theory.
The junk science method - dream up a theory, that if true, would get you government money and power, and reduce the freedom of the citizens. Set out to prove it by skewing your samples and your computer models. Ignore any evidence to the contrary, and if that doesn’t work, cook the books.
They haven’t established to my satisfaction:
1. That the world is getting warmer
2. that human activity is affecting climate change, which has happened constantly since the world began, and there were no humans.
3. that reducing our freedom will in any way reverse, stop, or even slow any ongoing changes in the worldwide climate.
Don’t trust even a peer reviewed study. The peer review process is hopelessly corrupt.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
H. L. Mencken
And, of course, “Global Warming” is just another one of these hobgoblins.
8)Define to me why eons ago, Kansas was under water and Tampa was 700 miles from the shoreline!
I love the smell of dung fires in the morning.
Art Linkletter...what a great show he had.
LOL! You mean how did they discover ancient ruins now covered by water due to dung fires and roasting mammoth steaks?
True..and the east coast of the U.S. was approximately 500 east of where it is now. Connecticut at the time was under Lake Hitchcock.
Consider the following:
All the climate change fans, they think their theory is “settled science”. That skeptics who point out that ALL the supporting data has been shown to be faked and ALL the so-called researchers have a financial interest in continued research grants being funded, etc; etc; are idiots, neanderthals, and like this article, demean them in the most childish, anti-science way imaginable. THERE IS no climate science.
Now think about “Quantum theory”. Developed let’s say 1900-1925; there was the Bohr model, which was later supplanted by a more sophisticated conceptualization.
“Quantum theory” and “quantum mechanics” have enabled very, very precise measurements and predictions to be made. Sure, some parts of it are not fully understood; and the original theories had no notion of the subatomic particles like bosons and hadrons and muons et al.
But there are vanishingly few people who do not think chemical compounds are made up of molecules and atoms; with valences and charges and spins, and that these notions enable amazingly insightful predictions about chemical behavior. In their larval form, they enabled early physicists to predict the eventual discovery of elements that were unknown; and not just the transuranics, Scandium, for example, was predicted to exist before it was ever discovered (and that happened in the 1800’s)
But my point is that this body of knowledge has been called “Quantum theory” and is called that TODAY. By calling it “theory” virtually every physicist acknowledges that this is a fluid body of knowledge, subject to change. Over a hundred years old, confirmed by millions and millions of chemical reactions and nuclear behavior, yet it’s still called “theory”. Subject to reinterpretation and there’s no shame in it.
Yet “climate change” is not a theory, it’s a religion. Never mind that it has been shown to be spurious, useless for predicting, nonsensical since it ignores earth precession in orbit around the sun, not to mention sunspot activity.
So the people who throw dirtbombs at people who doubt the validity of the theory of climate change quite frankly have the intellectual capacity of a hemmorrhoid.
How about the danger of muslim jihad denial?
The danger of abortion/infanticide denial?
The danger of zero tolerance denial?
The danger of special protected class law destroying “equal under the law”?
The danger of out of control swat teams denial?
The danger of civil asset forfeiture abuse denial?
The danger of redifining words to destroy all meaning, denial?
The danger of homonazi agenda denial?
The heavily sponsored man-made climate change canard is a way of blaming those who’ve been put out of work by influential socialist traitors. Government-linked plutocrats are afraid of losses of investments caused by forty years of their own erroneous policies and by natural, occasional weather and geological events. They’ve built a falling economic structure. They’re guilty, and they know it.
We are expected to believe that scientists had accurate enough measuring statistics that enabled them to say that, going back to 1900, we can measure a total sea level rise of about 10”. And that since 1992 we can safely say that the sea level is rising 0.12 inches per year. We are supposed to believe that sea level rise of the Indian Ocean, the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic ocean can be measured to an accuracy of 0.04 to 0.1 inches per year since 1900? Or, can we go back“several thousand years” and safely say to a fraction of an inch what the sea level was then?
From NOAA National Ocean Service:
Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 0.04 to 0.1 inches per year since 1900.
This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 0.12 inches per year.
This is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years.
What are the biggest climate change hand-wringers doing about this? The Obamas take His and Hers airplanes from DC to the same city in California on the same day and that is perfectly ok. Barbra Streisand looks like she has a lawn right out of a Rain Forrest. Not one hand wringer out there is making a single iota of an effort to change their life style to back up their BS.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Yes, climate denial laughter MATTERS!
Baltimore Sun? Is that a high school newspaper?
And the models just whiff on clouds. There’s a reason they do. Clouds would cancel out CO2 effects.
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.