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 ...
Well, yes, but so what? The earth's climate has been changing since it's beginning. And the alternative to that is climate stasis, which has never occurred in the 4.5 billion years of earth's existence.
This is what bothers me, though. Assuming that human beings have a dramatic affect on climate, if we were to do what the climate change cultists want, that would necessarily involve, well, changing the climate. Apart from doing what they claim is a bad thing, they don't tell us what the ideal climate of the earth is -- what it should be changed to.
Thanks for clearing it all up.
If you want to freak out people who insist on eating only “organic” food, tell them it is a lie, that their food is contaminated with molecules other than carbon, many of which have no carbon in the *at all*, so they are not “organic”.
Most organic compounds are nasty and toxic. I have no idea why so much romanticism is entwined with the word “organic.”
Same thing with “natural.”
People attach a religious significance to these words, which is not based in scientific reality at all.
You’re welcome.
However, I’m not sure if I clarified anything, or threw more mud on the matter.
The fools have been around for a very long time. I think my grandfather tormented some of the more fanatical followers of John Kellogg by claiming to have irrefutable proof that their healthy diet was in fact loaded with “molecules”, which they then adamantly denied.
Also, the humanly contributed portion of atmospheric carbon dioxide is a small single digit percentage.
The globe has been through stuff that would have killed off humans and has come through it smelling like a rose. But humans weren’t there at that time. People are fearing for people, although they might be pointing at the troubles of spotted molluscs.
The climate fearists have in the meantime backed their falling skies down to the tautological and meaningless statement that “climate change is a fact.” Well, yes climates change. They have for the entire existence of the earth. HOW they change is the question under study, and models of runaway change have kept failing while the climate has kept on doing jolly well what it has liked.
There is a supernatural significance to things, but it’s the significance that God has given. And it seems pretty pedestrian to the alarmists. Glorify God with what you have and you will be blessed. Dullsville! Well not quite dullsville. God is awesome. Most of modern technology is the result of what God gave to men who were willing to believe that God had put it in the creation for them to ferret out.
And atoms too!
Oh, that is funny!
On occasion, when salespeople in a grocery store are giving away free samples of their “chemical-free” food item, I just hold my tongue and politely decline. I really want to ask them how they achieved complete vacuum, but I would probably be answered with a blank stare.
Indeed.
In fact, the Church used to underwrite scientific research. Maybe it still does.
I agree. His article is good, with the exception of his stoooopid CO2 comment. If that were the case, then we sure end all plant life.
Where did that come from?
I like it whether it’s true or not.
Increase the minimum wage - problem solved.
LOL That will only have good effect if they have a rudimentary understanding of chemistry though.
Uranium is natural. :-)
I like CK but he has these little blind spots here and there. For a man who has been through medical school it’s kind of strange that he would have one on something in the area of science.
The information came from my memory.
If you want references for the origination of the “CO2 causes global warming” hypothesis, I will have to dig a little. Ditto for references on how fluorescence works. The reasoning putting it all together is my own.
So it is.
Somehow, though, I doubt that sausages made containing 5% pure natural uranium will sell very well.
It would keep the bacteria down. lol
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.