OK, I’ll concede that man is causing global warming by emitting carbon dioxide
when they can explain to me how reducing a “greenhouse” gas that makes up 0.117%,
that’s ZERO POINT ONE ONE SEVEN PERCENT
of the greenhouse effect
will have any effect on climate.
HACKS!
“deniers”?
Pa-th-etic, when will the Global Warming Believers realize that is not grape kool aid that is in the center of their meeting?
“This is true today: Modern science has conclusively demonstrated that human activities are dangerously overheating the planet.”
Outrageous lie.
That was when the church was the government....
“There is no point trying to change the climate cranks’ minds. For economic as well as ideological reasons, they will no more acknowledge the truth of man-made global warming than the 17th-century Vatican would concede that the Bible was not literally true.
The rest of us, however, can change how we relate to the cranks.”
What is hilarous about this dimwit is that overwhelming evidence to the contrary of his ‘facts’ go in one ear and out the other for the exact same reason he states that the cranks don’t believe. I myself can’t wait indeed to see how history laughs at these beliefs of man made global warming. He’s a ‘concensus’ guy, when there is no consensus and scientists that have one bit of intellectual honesty know that it isn’t a done and finished scientific fact. It is a theory, being tested. He’s one of those ‘scientist’ type thinkers that said string theory and quantum mechanics was impossible in the 1950’s because it went against the already established scentific ‘fact’ of reality at the time. Dullard to the core.
The Galileo/Vatican contraversy is grotesquely simplified in the popular recitation. Galileo was not a competent astronomer by Renaissance standards. He did not understand either Ptolemaic nor Copernican methods, which weakened his arguments immeasurably. Basically, Galileo had a contentious personality and a way of making enemies (and admirers). One of his admirers was Pope Urban , but when Galileo went out of his way to insult Urban in Dialogues the Pope declined to intervene and save him from his enemies.
He may have unwittingly stumbled on the real truth, with a minor correction:
Despite having no more scientific credibility than the Flat Earth Society, the climate cranks environmentalist wackos have held our nation’s climate energy policy hostage for decades.
Fixed. Obviously, our author is one of said wackos.
Here is REAL SCIENCE!!!!
http://miltonconservative.blogspot.com/2010/03/simple-chemistry-and-real-greenhouse.html
Any “global warming” nuts wanna have a crack at debunking this?
Wash your eyes out with this rebuttal:
Mark Hertsgaard displays an embarrassing lack of self-awareness with that statement. But then perhaps leftists such as Hertsgaard have lost the ability to feel embarrassment, when the alternative is paying attention to facts that call leftist dogma into question.
First he decries the supposed intransigence of the authorities (as represented by the RCC) that refused to listen to the arguments of Galileo ("the denier"), while lionizing Galileo's efforts. Then in the next breath he uses a "reference to authority" argument to prop up his assertions of impending man-made climate-change doom and to damn all of those pesky deniers (Galileo excluded, of course). He's playing a game of "good denier, bad denier" without even realizing what he's doing. Talk about cluelessness...
Hint to Hertsgaard: "Major scientific organizations" are political animals that follow the money, the orthodoxy, and the crowd - they are not actually organizations that follow the scientific method to arrive at their pronouncements. The leadership of such societies have often taken sides on issues without adequately polling their membership. For example, do some research about the controversy within the APS (American Physical Society) wherein actual scientists took strong issue with the official position of the APS leadership that climate science was settled science.
It would be a good idea for bandwagon jumpers such as Hertsgaard to do some reflection on the meaning of the oft-repeated caution that "science advances one funeral at a time"...
I do not buy the claim that if we reduce C02 emission by an arbitrary amount the result will be a change in weather patterns. The public is being asked to believe, in a sense, that "I'm from the government, I'm here to change the weather."
Here is what I would like to hear from a global warmist.
"We are not sure exactly how strong the link between C02 and climate change is, and we admit there exists evidence to the contrary that is not easily explainable. But limiting C02 has so many other benefits it is worth pursuing."
I want a clean environment. I want cheaper, renewable energy sources. I would love to the see the combustion engine replace with something cleaner and cheaper. I would love to see alternative means for heating our homes. But until that day, we need to open ANWR, North Dakota, and expand nuclear power
If there are any climate problems that need solving, if there is alternative energy to be had, the answer will come from the private business sector. It will not come from governmental agencies with a green light to spend as much of our tax dollars in the form of grants as it sees fit.
Will it take the ‘Rats as long to accept the failure of their Globull Warming Hoax as it did the Soviet Union and Lysenkoism ?
Let’s put our liberal thinking caps on and compare and contrast arguments.
1. Global temperatures are increasing by a barely noticeable amount each decade. This is inexorable and will cause the atmosphere to boil away in the next million years. The solution is to bankrupt western civilization now.
2. The federal workforce is given, on average, $3000 per day to spend. Each employee spends $4000 per day. Weekends and holidays too. The difference is hardly noticeable to your average bureaucrat. This leakage is infinitely sustainable, and any attempt to cut spending by any amount will cause the collapse of western civilization.
Do I have their arguments down pat, or what?
When THOSE commies come around then I can get around to dealing with the Green-Pinkos.
And yet he doesn't present a single scientific fact in the entire article.
I would remind this claptrap selling little twit that 100 years ago the ideals of eugenics and the idea that blacks had inferior mental capabilities were far more universally accepted among scientists than AGW is now.
Unless you are a Young Earth Creationist, 150 years is a drop in the bucket, especially after coming out of the little ice age.