More Hot Air from the Propagandists
I am becoming apoplectic about the Global Warming hysteria put out by people who should at least be cautious, if I can't say they should know better. After all, no one knows better; in fact, that's the whole argument of the skeptics -- who, by the way, are not a "marginalized breed," as Time would have us believe. On the contrary, they are increasingly on point and vocal. It's just that it's all behind the scenes, because people like Drudge and Time and Science and Nature and National Geographic (it brings tears to my eyes to add this last one) are all so blind-sided to how the pseudoscientific community behind the hysteria has duped us all.
Here are some excerpts from Time with my comments. But first, promise me you'll go watch five short videos here before you jump to any hysterical conclusions. No one denies the earth is warming; but others say an ice age is coming within the next 100 years. Who to believe? Look at both sides first.
Also, please complete your education by consulting this blog and this blog, in depth, before you make up your mind. Remember, GET ALL SIDES OF THE FACTS. Not just the spin, as others have said before me. Kyoto makes no economic or climactic sense. It wouldn't even cure the supposed problem, as the climatologists themselves have admitted.
Excerpts:
"Environmentalists and lawmakers spent years shouting at one another about whether the grim forecasts were true, but in the past five years or so, the serious debate has quietly ended. Global warming, even most skeptics have concluded, is the real deal, and human activity has been causing it." [This is not true; in fact, I would call it an abject lie. The controversy is just getting warm.]
"[J]ust last week the journal Science published a study suggesting that by the end of the century, the world could be locked in to an eventual rise in sea levels of as much as 20 ft." [Science is one of the worst offenders who have betrayed the equivalent of the scientific oath.]
"For years, popular skepticism about climatological science stood in the way of addressing the problem, but the naysayers—many of whom were on the payroll of energy companies—have become an increasingly marginalized breed." [I demand that Time put their fact checkers where their mouth is. Cite some names on the energy company payroll, please.]
"The most notable of them is An Inconvenient Truth, due out in May, a profile of former Vice President Al Gore and his climate-change work, which is generating a lot of prerelease buzz over an unlikely topic and an equally unlikely star. For all its lack of Hollywood flash, the film compensates by conveying both the hard science of global warming and Gore's particular passion." [Do we here a come-back for 2006? Good grief. Not only did he NOT invent the internet, he wants us to believe he started this hysteria about Global Warming.]
"Such public stirrings are at last getting the attention of politicians and business leaders, who may not always respond to science but have a keen nose for where votes and profits lie." [And time Magazine has a good notion for what sells magazines.]
"Wal-Mart has begun installing wind turbines on its stores to generate electricity and is talking about putting solar reflectors over its parking lots." [Yes, Wal-Mart knows where public opinion lies. Of course, you won't hear any praise from the unions for this.]
"And how much carbon is socked away in Arctic soils? Lawrence puts the figure at 200 gigatons to 800 gigatons. The total human carbon output is only 7 gigatons a year." [Oh, so humans are so puny after all? That is one piece of data that makes sense.]
"The anger surrounding all that exploded recently when nasa researcher Jim Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a longtime leader in climate-change research, complained that he had been harassed by White House appointees as he tried to sound the global-warming alarm. 'The way democracy is supposed to work, the presumption is that the public is well informed,' he told Time. 'They're trying to deny the science.' " [No, Mr. Hansen, they're trying to keep their scientific nose clean. Go promote your personal bugaboo on your own time, not the government's. The public finances your paycheck, and for once, the foxy government is actually trying to mind the henhouse.]
"Curbing global warming may be an order of magnitude harder than, say, eradicating smallpox or putting a man on the moon. But is it moral not to try? We did not so much march toward the environmental precipice as drunkenly reel there, snapping at the scientific scolds who told us we had a problem. The scolds, however, knew what they were talking about. In a solar system crowded with sister worlds that either emerged stillborn like Mercury and Venus or died in infancy like Mars, we're finally coming to appreciate the knife-blade margins within which life can thrive. For more than a century we've been monkeying with those margins. It's long past time we set them right." [If I were not a qualified agnostic, I'd say, "God must be chuckling at the hubristic egocentrism of this being He created in His 'likeness.' "]
For the full article, watch a free publicity at this page and press onward.
Here are some excerpts from Time with my comments. But first, promise me you'll go watch five short videos here before you jump to any hysterical conclusions. No one denies the earth is warming; but others say an ice age is coming within the next 100 years. Who to believe? Look at both sides first.
Also, please complete your education by consulting this blog and this blog, in depth, before you make up your mind. Remember, GET ALL SIDES OF THE FACTS. Not just the spin, as others have said before me. Kyoto makes no economic or climactic sense. It wouldn't even cure the supposed problem, as the climatologists themselves have admitted.
Excerpts:
"Environmentalists and lawmakers spent years shouting at one another about whether the grim forecasts were true, but in the past five years or so, the serious debate has quietly ended. Global warming, even most skeptics have concluded, is the real deal, and human activity has been causing it." [This is not true; in fact, I would call it an abject lie. The controversy is just getting warm.]
"[J]ust last week the journal Science published a study suggesting that by the end of the century, the world could be locked in to an eventual rise in sea levels of as much as 20 ft." [Science is one of the worst offenders who have betrayed the equivalent of the scientific oath.]
"For years, popular skepticism about climatological science stood in the way of addressing the problem, but the naysayers—many of whom were on the payroll of energy companies—have become an increasingly marginalized breed." [I demand that Time put their fact checkers where their mouth is. Cite some names on the energy company payroll, please.]
"The most notable of them is An Inconvenient Truth, due out in May, a profile of former Vice President Al Gore and his climate-change work, which is generating a lot of prerelease buzz over an unlikely topic and an equally unlikely star. For all its lack of Hollywood flash, the film compensates by conveying both the hard science of global warming and Gore's particular passion." [Do we here a come-back for 2006? Good grief. Not only did he NOT invent the internet, he wants us to believe he started this hysteria about Global Warming.]
"Such public stirrings are at last getting the attention of politicians and business leaders, who may not always respond to science but have a keen nose for where votes and profits lie." [And time Magazine has a good notion for what sells magazines.]
"Wal-Mart has begun installing wind turbines on its stores to generate electricity and is talking about putting solar reflectors over its parking lots." [Yes, Wal-Mart knows where public opinion lies. Of course, you won't hear any praise from the unions for this.]
"And how much carbon is socked away in Arctic soils? Lawrence puts the figure at 200 gigatons to 800 gigatons. The total human carbon output is only 7 gigatons a year." [Oh, so humans are so puny after all? That is one piece of data that makes sense.]
"The anger surrounding all that exploded recently when nasa researcher Jim Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a longtime leader in climate-change research, complained that he had been harassed by White House appointees as he tried to sound the global-warming alarm. 'The way democracy is supposed to work, the presumption is that the public is well informed,' he told Time. 'They're trying to deny the science.' " [No, Mr. Hansen, they're trying to keep their scientific nose clean. Go promote your personal bugaboo on your own time, not the government's. The public finances your paycheck, and for once, the foxy government is actually trying to mind the henhouse.]
"Curbing global warming may be an order of magnitude harder than, say, eradicating smallpox or putting a man on the moon. But is it moral not to try? We did not so much march toward the environmental precipice as drunkenly reel there, snapping at the scientific scolds who told us we had a problem. The scolds, however, knew what they were talking about. In a solar system crowded with sister worlds that either emerged stillborn like Mercury and Venus or died in infancy like Mars, we're finally coming to appreciate the knife-blade margins within which life can thrive. For more than a century we've been monkeying with those margins. It's long past time we set them right." [If I were not a qualified agnostic, I'd say, "God must be chuckling at the hubristic egocentrism of this being He created in His 'likeness.' "]
For the full article, watch a free publicity at this page and press onward.
posted by Katy Delay at 12:09 PM
1 Comments:
Very reasonable. I've added a link to your article into my article about Freeman Dyson's critique of global warming (click).
Post a Comment
<< Home