Global Warming and Science


I was watching the debate tonight and heard the questioning surrounding the science of global warming.  Admittedly I’m biased, but it sounded to me like the moderators were laughing inside as they were questioning the candidates about global warming.

The questions were led with the fact that scientists overwhelmingly support the fact that mankind is contributing to the warming of the globe.  Now, given that fact, do you reject that science?

It’s the Left’s trick question.

The words aren’t what they’re asking.  What they are asking is:  “Do you deny catastrophic anthropomorphic global warming?”  But the questions are always phrased in such a way as to mask the true nature of the question.

For example, if I asked you this question, how would you respond?

If you were to piss in the ocean, would the level of the ocean by higher than it would have been had you not decided to piss in the ocean?

Who can deny the science?  When you add “water” to a body of water, can you argue that the volume of water actually decreased?  Certainly not.

The question should be:

If you were to piss in the ocean, would the level of he ocean be higher by any meaningful measure?

If THAT question were asked, the answers would make more sense.

And so it is with global warming.  Any reasonable person would argue that we DO contribute to the warming of the planet.  However, the degree to which we contribute is not of such significance that we need to take the actions that the far-left would ask us to take.

Advertisements
12 comments
  1. dedc79 said:

    Who are the scientists that you would point to who support your view, and who are their clients/funders (if they have clients)? I’m not interested in links to American Enterprise or Heritage Foundation articles. I am talking about scientific studies that say humans aren’t significant contributers to global warming.

  2. Alan Scott said:

    The green idiots frame the debate that to be against Global freaking Warming, you are anti science. How about we are anti fraud ? How about so many predictions based on climate change have been wrong? Man made climate change is a scientific theory. When predictions turn out to be wrong, it puts into question the theory. It means the science is not settled .

  3. I think everyone misses the real issue when they talk about “climate change”. We all should be agreeing that we’re poisoning the fuck out of our enviroment and it aint our generation thats going to pay the price. 😦

    • I’m more for that focus on the issue myself. All the other pollution seems to take a back seat. Everyone talks about how “industrious” China is and how “green” it’s going in regards to carbon emissions, but isn’t it still a country where you have to wear a mask to walk around the streets in?

  4. Moe said:

    pino – so now it’s catastrophic anthropomorphic global warming! I hear Rush and FOX these days saying the climate may be warming, but it’s not man-made. Which is very interesting since a decade ago they didn’t need to even mention the man made part because they outright denied that climate change was happening.

    For data on what to believe, I direct you to the Pentagon and NASA. Unless you don’t consider them reliable sources.

    • Moe said:

      Ooops, that sounded hostile. Not meant to be. Also, cute picture.

      • pino said:

        Ooops, that sounded hostile. Not meant to be.

        Nahh….often the typed word is taken in the worst possible context. I think that we’re at a place where we know we don’t mean this stuff like that…..

  5. pino said:

    Who are the scientists that you would point to who support your view, and who are their clients/funders (if they have clients)? I’m not interested in links to American Enterprise or Heritage Foundation articles. I am talking about scientific studies that say humans aren’t significant contributers to global warming.

    Fair enough. Working on it.

    How about so many predictions based on climate change have been wrong?

    This is a valid point. None of the predictions these folks have are even close.

    We all should be agreeing that we’re poisoning the fuck out of our enviroment and it aint our generation thats going to pay the price.

    I like that old saying:

    “We weren’t given this earth by our fathers. It has been borrowed to us by our children.”

    so now it’s catastrophic anthropomorphic global warming!

    Whatever the name, the implicit statement is the same. When Al Gore delivered to us his movie, it came with dramatic conclusions of massive impacts to our environment. There is no reasonable “middle-ish” ground with the Left. I either have to tax gasoline to the tune of $11 a gallon or I believe that dinosaurs walked the earth with humans. If I don’t agree that the wealthy nations contribute tons and tons of money to give to the poor nations, I’m unable to articulate valid science that shows we evolved from other animals.

    Can I say that the earth is warmer than it otherwise would e without also claiming that the world is going to be 50 degrees hotter a week from Tuesday?

    • Moe said:

      [Can I say that the earth is warmer than it otherwise would e without also claiming that the world is going to be 50 degrees hotter a week from Tuesday?]

      Of course you can, especailly since no one else has said that either. Al Gore’s conclusions of ‘massive impacts’ are still valid. The impact is just getting underway.

      Extreme drought, spreading desertification, warmer oceans, more extreme storms . . . all happening. Right now.

      • pino said:

        Al Gore’s conclusions of ‘massive impacts’ are still valid. The impact is just getting underway.

        THAT is where you will find serious disagreement. And to the point above, I need to find those studies.

        But I don’t think that the conditions you describe above are true. Just recently a report found that the Russian drought was not caused by AGW and the fact that storms are stronger also isn’t true. There are not any more strong tornadoes than before and tropical cyclone strength is actually down.

      • Moe said:

        Okay, herea re some links – pretty reputable I’d say:

        The Climate change area of the NASA web site has hundreds of pages, but maybe this one is a good start:
        http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

        This one was commissioned by the Pentagon and talks about ‘abrupt’ change
        http://www.climate.org/topics/PDF/clim_change_scenario.pdf

        Here’s a story from Wash Po from 2007 about military ‘sharpening focus’ on climate change
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/14/AR2007041401209.html

        And this directly from the US Dept of defense:
        WASHINGTON, July 31, 2009 – Rapidly diminishing sea ice, melting glaciers, rising sea levels, increased storm severity — all are possible consequences of a climate that mounting evidence suggests is changing significantly.

        Full press release here:
        http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=55327

  6. Alan Scott said:

    I am waiting for anyone to contradict me. If you have a theory such as man made climate change. you make predictions because you cannot see the whole earth and it’s weather at all times. We on the right are not anti science, no matter what you guys spout .

    All scientific theory has to be testable, such as. Is light, wave or particle or both ? There is experimental evidence that suggests all of them. So with so many failed predictions, how can the science of Global Warming be settled ?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: