Posted on 02/21/2014 2:41:35 PM PST by SoFloFreeper
I repeat: I’m not a global-warming believer. I’m not a global-warming denier. I’ve long believed that it cannot be good for humanity to be spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I also believe that those scientists who pretend to know exactly what this will cause in 20, 30, or 50 years are white-coated propagandists.
“The debate is settled,” asserted propagandist-in-chief Barack Obama in his latest State of the Union address. “Climate change is a fact.” Really? There is nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that science is settled, static, impervious to challenge. Take a non-climate example. It was long assumed that mammograms help reduce breast cancer deaths. This fact was so settled that Obamacare requires every insurance plan to offer mammograms (for free, no less).
Now we learn from a massive randomized study — 90,000 women followed for 25 years — that mammograms may have no effect on breast-cancer deaths. Indeed, one out of five of those diagnosed by mammogram receives unnecessary radiation, chemo, or surgery.
So much for settledness. And climate is less well understood than breast cancer. If climate science is settled, why do its predictions keep changing? And how is it that the great physicist Freeman Dyson, who did some climate research in the late 1970s, thinks today’s climate-change Cassandras are hopelessly mistaken?
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
I also kind of wonder about the mammogram stuff. That all didn’t start becoming an issue until ObamaDontCare. I don’t think BozoCare really wants women to be checked and cancer found early. Call me harsh or conspiratorial, but I think the left wants as many people to die off as possible.
Really? Does this moron actually believe that the facticity or truth of something can be determined by the result of a debate?
Perhaps a debate might conclude that it is perfectly safe to put a loaded gun to one's head and pull the trigger. Only a moron would conclude that this was indeed a "fact". And only an even dumber moron would go out and predicate policy on such a 'fact".
Just how dumb is this moron acting as President, anyway?
That mammogram study ran for 25 years. I don’t think anyone saw 0bamaCare coming that long ago.
I see this ridiculous attitude all the time on LENR threads.
I prefer Krauthammer to most in his field of punditry.
But, he says:
“I’ve long believed that it cannot be good for humanity to be spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.”
Why, because it’s “spewed”?
How so? Specific references to this article required.
They struck first with “deniers” and we responded with “climate alarmists”, but I think it’s time to take it to the next level and refer to anyone who parrots the “climate is settled” and/or “97% of all scientists...” baloney as a “climate cultist,” for that’s exactly what they are, members of a cult that has become immune to factual information.
As soon as someone, in any position whatsoever, spews out either of those phrases they should immediately be told, “Oh, you’re one of those climate cultists. Okay then,” and then change the subject as you would when confronted by a member of any cult with their fact-free diatribes.
Anyone spewing those statements does so to shut down rational argument, so let that happen, but not without first labeling them clearly for what they’ve become, members of the cult of global warming.
Its not settled as long as there is at least one unsettled person.
Then stop breathing, dummy!
Actually, the hypothesis of carbon dioxide mediated global warming was proposed following the observation that CO2 has an unusually wide and strong fluorescent absorption/emission band in the infrared portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Every pure substance has electromagnetic radiation frequencies at which it is fluorescent, but these are usually fairly narrow bands. Someone hypothesized that the wide fluorescent band of CO2 within the infrared would cause warming. However, it would only cause warming if it were converting some visible wavelength to infrared--which is not happening. The other thing that happens with fluorescence is that a tiny amount of light energy is retained by the atom or molecule when it absorbs and emits light in the fluorescence process. Since that energy retention always happens, and it is not unique to infrared fluorescence, there is no reason to think that its effect in CO2 would cause unusual warming.
< /technobabble >
Who are the RINOs believing global warming BS?
Sciens is never settled.
Just ask Galileo.
“Science”, that is.
Also ask Avrogado, Madame Curie, Lavoisier, and all those other guys.
Climate Nuts, Climate Loons, Climate Nazis.
This climate change crap is one of the biggest scientific hoaxes ever perpetrated on naive people.
My house plants are in ecstasy whenever I breathe on them.
In a just world you could marry your Philodendron and breath on each other happily ever after without fear of condemnation!
Can I wear a headpiece of orange blossoms, and carry a bouquet of baby’s breath?
We may all be required to to offset the CO2 of our own respiration. Either that or carry a pine tree in a backpack.
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.