Posted on 12/09/2009 12:06:32 PM PST by steve-b
>>The earth isn’t flat, therefore Anthropogenic Global Warming deniers are wrong?
The earth isn’t flat, therefore Obama isn’t a Muslim?
The earth isn’t flat, therefore Obama was born in Hawaii?
This article marks a new low: especially considering it’s from a writer who all-too-obviously thinks he’s got that logic stuff cold.<<
Yep, that is pretty much the support for his arguments. And you did it in just a few sentences. Way to go!
This sort of stuff only fares well when presented to True Believers. “The other guys are flat earthers!”
:)
You mean like the atrocities committed by the French revolutionaries, ardent disciples of Voltaire and Rousseau? Not to mention their spiritual descendants the Nazis and commies?
What a bunch of &*&%$##@@!!!!
The Real Copenhagen Agenda: The U.N.’s climate chief tells all.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567921682049840.html
Phil Jones, director of the research program at the center of “climategate,” temporarily stepped down from his post Tuesday. And last week, Pennsylvania State University said it would launch an inquiry into the conduct of Michael Mann, one of its professors and perhaps the world’s most prominent paleoclimatologist.
Messrs. Jones and Mann have both been key contributors to the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The emails leaked from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit two weeks ago revealed, among many inconvenient truths, the corruption of the IPCC’s process of assessing climate science. Still, despite the probes into some of the IPCC’s key participants, the chair of that body insists nothing rotten is about to happen in the state of Denmark, where world leaders are set to debate sweeping policies based on IPCC conclusions.
“It is a very transparent, a very comprehensive process which insures that even if someone wants to leave out a piece of peer reviewed literature there is virtually no possibility of that happening,” Rajendra Pachauri told the Guardian on Sunday, adding that “people who are aware of how the IPCC functions and are appreciative of the credibility that the IPCC has attained will probably not be swayed by an incident of this kind.”
But the heightened awareness of the IPCC’s functioning seems precisely what now plagues the U.N.’s global warming frontman. So it’s not surprising that, for all his insistence that the group’s methods are spotless, he seems eager to change the subject from science. What he has chosen to talk about instead is instructive.
It seems what most concerns Mr. Pachauri now is not climatology, or glaciology, or oceanography—but the way we live. “Today we have reached the point where consumption and people’s desire to consume has grown out of proportion,”
Read more at online.wsj.com ...
“And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both. “ - anthropomorphic global warming pimp,Stephen Schneider.(Quoted in Discover, pp. 45–48, Oct. 1989)
“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience” -Albert Camus
“Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God.” -Benjamin Franklin
LOL = just look at the author of the article. It makes you wonder what’s a Dick Dorworth
Until it got to his list of other flats earthers, I honestly couldn’t tell if he was going to side with the AGW crowd or lambaste them.
Everything he said prior to the list could describe belief in AGW just as well...
Er, wasn’t the Flat Earth Society just a fun club and a way for the owner to make a little money on the side?
In 1977 the exact same arguments would have been made for all the “Idiots” who didn’t buy into the idea that we’d soon have a new ice age due to man-made global cooling.
BTW it's rude to post than absolutely ignore the people that make legitimate comments to your posting.
“...what’s a Dick Dorworth”
Less than a bucket of warm spit.
Well, that's certainly my view of it, but shush, don't tell the libs. They're too much fun to play with.
Dick Dorworth needs an education on the definition of science.
The man is completely clueless.
History will not be kind to these people.
Busy time of year — Happy Holidays, y’all....
I posted this on his web page artcle:
Dick Dorworth can call me a “Flat-Earther” all he wants and it won’t change one fact about the Global Warming debate will it? Dorworth is not trying to convince you the science is sound, he is trying to convince you that those opposed to the swindle are either evil, stupid, or weird. So much for common decency from the “tolerant” left!
The argument is not whether the planet is getting warmer or colder, what matters is whether or not we can do anything about it. That is the real argument, and an argument the AGW proponents, like Dorworth, refuse to participate in. And since AGW proponents won’t debate the carbon “crisis”, their justification for taxing and controlling industries around the world, we are left to use their own claims concerning man’s activities, as well as facts that are readily accessible, to determine the legitimacy of their case for regulating Carbon, while they call us names.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control (IPCC) tells us that humans contribute 5% of atmospheric carbon concentrations, and Carbon Dioxide from man’s activities needs to be reduced to save the planet. For the sake of argument let’s accept their number of 5%. Since we also know that the carbon dioxide currently makes-up thirty-eight one-hundredths of one percent (.0038) of our atmosphere, it is easy to do the math to determine the outcome should we do what they tell us needs to be done. In fact, lets go farther by pretending that every man, woman, child and SUV has died and use the full 5% instead of the far smaller reduction they now expect to achieve with us all stubbornly staying alive.
By multiplying 38/100 of one percent by 5% (.0038 x .05) you get the number of .00019, or 19/1000 of 1%. Now think about that. If every person disappeared off the face of the Earth we would achieve a reduction of a colorless, odorless, harmless inert gas called Carbon Dioxide by .00019 the total of all atmospheric gases. Think about it, all this nonsense about changing our atmosphere by less than nineteen one-thousandths-of-one-percent. It’s astoundingly stupid.
Think about what they are asking us to sacrifice to change the atmosphere by far less than the number we just calculated. Consider how many jobs they are asking us to give-up for that number. Think about the freedom they are asking you to sacrifice to accomplish nothing.
How compassionate is it to advance a lie that insures the third-world will experience many more generations of hunger and poverty. It is not only absurd, it shows you just how craven and dishonest the global left has become in their quest to lord over the rest of us rubes and peasants.
Simple math demonstrates what an outrage this fraudulent Anthropogenic Global Warming campaign is. Too bad Mr. Dorworth spends his time attempting to demean people rather than learning simple math.
Charles McFarling
Indianapolis, IN
Merry Christmas to you.
The flat earth hoax that people believed the earth was flat was invented in the 1800’s to discredit the church. If you go back and actually read the history books you will find that people knew the earth was round. The reason that they came up with the notion that people believed the earth was flat was to say the the church hid the truth from the people. The issue wasn’t so much whether the earth was round but the size of the earth.
A mischaracterization (similar to the way that AGW skeptics are said to believe that climate change doesn't exist).
In general, creationists tend to accept microevolution (adaptation) while challenging macroevolution (emergence of new species).
bump
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.