Washington, DC (TLS). Al Gore's 'Live Earth' concerts didn't exactly set the woods on fire in terms of creating a massive, world-wide groundswell of support for his erroneous hypothesis about global warming. Response to the shindig was mixed, and even green-friendly places like Great Britain referred to the event as 'dull.'
Yet there was at least one moment of excitement when Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. went neanderthal in a rampage against politicians in Washington who express doubt about Gore's spin on the cause of climate change and what to do about it.
Like a bull in a china shop, RFK Jr. referred to those who disagree with the Gore hypothesis as 'traitors.' Here are his exact words:
'Get rid of all these rotten politicians that we have in Washington, who are nothing more than corporate toadies. This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors.'
The environmentalist activist and son of the late Senator Robert F. Kennedy grew hoarse from shouting the tirade.
Someone obviously needs to inform Junior that just because one happens to disagree with the hypothesis that mankind is responsible for global warming does not make one a 'traitor.'
As we have reported many times on The Liberty Sphere, the mass of scientific evidence indicates that Gore and his hypothesis are wrong. That makes the entire 'environmentalist movement' wrong.
One can have a healthy concern for the environment without being part of an overtly political 'environmentalist movement' which is nothing more than a front-group for a gang of Socialists who wish to destroy human liberty, freedom of choice, free markets, and American capitalism.
If the movement can convince the majority of Americans that human beings are singularly responsible for climate change, which goes against every known, verifiable scientific fact, then they can also convince gullible Americans that nothing less than a massive change in our way of life, our economic system, and even our form of government is necessary to 'stop global warming.'
The geological record contains ample proof that human beings really can't do a damn thing to stop the planet from undergoing its regular, cyclical changes in climate that fluctuate between warm and cool, and at various points in between, even at times tilting toward extreme conditions such as we found during the Ice Age.
If modern, industrialized mankind is the single biggest source of global warming, then how, pray tell, did the earth emerge from the last Ice Age? There was certainly no burning of fossil fuels at the time. There was no man-made pollution of any kind.
Yet the ice receded so dramatically that what was once an ice-covered frozen wasteland, held captive by a mega-deep freeze, gradually became a human-friendly environment with a moderate climate.
And let's not forget that the Middle Ages were significantly warmer than the present climate. What, exactly, contributed to the gradual cooling that has occurred since then?
With all of our global warming hysteria, the earth is still much cooler than the days when Greenland was exactly as the name denotes--a green land that was lush with plant life and a moderate climate.
Sorry, Junior, but you and your buddy Al Gore simply don't have your facts straight. And, it is obvious that your outburst at Live Earth was an example of the old adage, 'If you can't win a debate with the facts and logic, go ape.'
Showing posts with label sicentists disagree on cause of climate change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sicentists disagree on cause of climate change. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Monday, May 21, 2007
Global Warming Debate Over Carbon Dioxide
Washington, DC (TLS). A key element in the debate over the cause of global warming is the carbon dioxide issue. Doomsday alarmists of the 'consensus' scientists, who maintain mankind is the cause, point to carbon data as proof that what we are putting into the air has caused temperatures to rise.
'Scientists' of this ilk are behind Al Gore's new movie, which I understand has become required viewing in some colleges for graduation, and is being shown in class after class--sometimes forcing students to see it four times in one day in a variety of classes--in high schools.
The propaganda machine is hard at work attempting to indoctrinate the young that mankind is responsible for global warming and that the carbon we put in the air causes temps to rise.
Hard science, i.e., the study of actual verifiable data, shows otherwise.
Scientists who look at the facts and let the facts dictate their policy proposals, rather than allowing their policy bias to dictate how they view science, state that a rise in carbon is a direct RESULT of rising temperatures and NOT the CAUSE of it.
In short, most reliable and honest scientists know that a rise in carbon does not cause a rise in temperatures, but a rise in temperatures causes a rise in carbon dioxide.
This fact is proved in the geological record. During those periods of the earth's history when the planet has been at its warmest, the presence of carbon dioxide is at very high levels. Yet this was long before current lifeforms were even on the planet. There were no man-made emissions going into the atmosphere to cause such a rise in carbon.
Long after Man appeared on the earth, during those cyclical periods when the temperatures rose significantly, we also see a rise in the amount of carbon. Yet these periods in human history pre-date the industrial era. Once again, there were no man-made emissions going into the atmosphere.
Thus, the observable data proves that rising temperatures cause a concomitant rise in carbon. There is to date NO valid historical scientific data that remotely suggests that a rise in carbon creates a rise in temperatures.
The 'consensus scientists,' therefore, have it exactly backwards.
'Scientists' of this ilk are behind Al Gore's new movie, which I understand has become required viewing in some colleges for graduation, and is being shown in class after class--sometimes forcing students to see it four times in one day in a variety of classes--in high schools.
The propaganda machine is hard at work attempting to indoctrinate the young that mankind is responsible for global warming and that the carbon we put in the air causes temps to rise.
Hard science, i.e., the study of actual verifiable data, shows otherwise.
Scientists who look at the facts and let the facts dictate their policy proposals, rather than allowing their policy bias to dictate how they view science, state that a rise in carbon is a direct RESULT of rising temperatures and NOT the CAUSE of it.
In short, most reliable and honest scientists know that a rise in carbon does not cause a rise in temperatures, but a rise in temperatures causes a rise in carbon dioxide.
This fact is proved in the geological record. During those periods of the earth's history when the planet has been at its warmest, the presence of carbon dioxide is at very high levels. Yet this was long before current lifeforms were even on the planet. There were no man-made emissions going into the atmosphere to cause such a rise in carbon.
Long after Man appeared on the earth, during those cyclical periods when the temperatures rose significantly, we also see a rise in the amount of carbon. Yet these periods in human history pre-date the industrial era. Once again, there were no man-made emissions going into the atmosphere.
Thus, the observable data proves that rising temperatures cause a concomitant rise in carbon. There is to date NO valid historical scientific data that remotely suggests that a rise in carbon creates a rise in temperatures.
The 'consensus scientists,' therefore, have it exactly backwards.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
A Liberty Sphere Classic on Global Warming
Washington, DC (TLS). The following is a reprint of a Liberty Sphere classic from November of 2006. It is a treatise on global warming and the political implications of the belief that mankind is to blame for climate change.
In anticipation of Glenn Beck's expose of the environmentalist movement's grand hoax this evening on the Headline News Network, I decided to post this Liberty Sphere classic for your consideration.
'HOW ENVIRONMENTALISTS CONSORT TO DESTROY AMERICAN FREE ENTERPRISE'
by D. Martyn Lloyd-Morgan
The responsible stewardship of the environment is not up for debate in modern times. Every responsible, thinking person is forced to consider the world around us and the impact the activity of man has upon the earth's ability to sustain and renew life. The debate, therefore, centers upon one single issue--globing warming and its cause.
Global warming itself is not really the issue at all. It is a fact. In the earth's long and sometimes violent history, there have been patterns of warming and cooling that run in cycles, usually in response to the sun's activity. As the sun increases in volatility with solar storms, the impact on earth is quite predictable. Earth's temperatures increase.
For example, during the Middle Ages, long before the burning of fossil fuels, the earth experienced a warming that is well-documented among feudal societies where written descriptions of the climate are preserved from the era. In reading those documents we are struck by the descriptions of various writers who describe warm temperatures in areas that are generally known for the cold.
During the modern industrial era, however, particularly at its infancy in the 18th and 19th centuries, we see descriptions of a much cooler climate than that of the Middle Ages. In fact, there was a mini ice age that occurred early on during the period where unusual cold and snowfalls were described by novelists and historians.
These periods of global cooling occur simultaneously with a leveling out of the sun's activity. As solar storms decrease, the earth responds by a cooling of global temperatures.
Presently we are in the midst of an increase in the sun's activity. This activity has been documented for quite some time, resulting in a slight but observable increase in the earth's temperatures.
Thus, the issue of global warming is not up for debate. It is a fact at present, just as it has been a fact many times throughout the cyclical life of the planet. The debate centers on man's role, if any, in the warming that is occurring.
The 'environmentalist movement' has come down on the side of man's culpability in the warming of the earth's temperatures. With a dogmatism that would put Medieval Catholicism to shame, those who belong to the movement insist, adamantly, that the blame for global warming lies squarely with human beings. Human activity, according to the environmentalist dogma, is the single largest contributor to the increase of the earth's temperatures, and thus, steps must be taken to curb man's activity.
The activity in question, of course, is free enterprise, capitalistic industrialism, and entrepreneurship that supposedly 'rapes the precious environment.' This, according to the High Priests and Priestesses of the movement, must be stopped cold.
At the opposite side of the spectrum lies conservatives, libertarians, and those who adhere strictly to 'hard science.' It isn't that these persons deny the possibility of global warming, or global cooling either, for that matter. Rather, these persons question man's contribution to the process. They are not convinced that human activity has much of an impact one way or the other on changes in the earth's temperatures.
Hard science definitely appears to confirm the notion of the latter group of persons.
Take the example of the mammoths in the North Pole region of the earth. Millions of years ago it is clear that the polar region was warm, blooming with plant life, and inhabited by life forms that fed on the plants that were abundant in the region. Hard science proves that this was the case.
Scientists discovered large mammoths frozen in the ice of the polar region that still had undigested green plants in their mouths. These majestic gargantuan creatures roamed the polar region during an era of the earth's history when there was no ice but plant life, grasses, and trees.
The startling discovery of the frozen mammoths in the polar ice region forced scientists to consider one basic fact--there are times when the earth's climate changes suddenly, unpredictably, and violently.
These mammoths had obviously been feeding on the plant life in the polar region, yet they froze to death so quickly that the plants they had just taken into their mouths were frozen along with them. Preserved in the ice for eons of time, these animals provided hard scientific proof of three basic postulates.
First, the polar region was not always frozen but teeming with plant life. Second, this plant life sustained animal life that in today's climate would not survive the cold of the region. And third, the earth is often unpredictable in its wide variances of temperatures, sometimes resulting in sudden, violent, and catastrophic shifts in temperature.
In short, the mammoths froze to death within seconds or minutes while munching on the plants that once grew in the Arctic.
In addition, the mere fact that the Arctic region contains some of the world's most abundant oil deposits is ample proof that the region was once inhabited by numerous animals that left behind fossils that eventually led to the 'fossil fuel' of oil. Such animals could not survive the harsh climate the region has today.
Thus, observable, documented hard science is in unanimous agreement concerning the earth's climate. In the grand scheme of things, mankind has little to do with it. The dramatic shift of the climate in the Arctic region occurred long before man appeared on the earth. The Ice Age was ushered in by forces totally outside the activity of human beings. The warming that has occurred since the end of the last Ice Age began long before humans began burning fossil fuels.
It can be documented without dispute, for example, that the earth has been warming for centuries. In actuality, taking the long view, the earth has been warming gradually ever since the end of the last Ice Age, long before there was any industrialization.
Why, then, do the dogmatists within the environmentalist movement insist so vehemently that global warming is a man-made phenomenon? Why are those who present an alternative view to the notion that man caused global warming presently referred to by these dogmatists as 'Holocaust deniers?' These are shockingly harsh terms.
This is not all. PBS was scheduled to do a documentary on global warming. They were planning to utilize the expertise of a world-renown scientist at the University of Oklahoma. However, when the scientist explained to the producers at PBS that he planned on basing his views solely on hard science, they told him in no uncertain terms that he MUST lay the blame for the phenomenon on human activity and the burning of fossil fuels. When the scientist protested that such a view is based upon speculation and opinion rather than hard scientific evidence, he was politely told his services would not be needed on the program.
Why? Why is the dogma of the environmentalist movement so important to its adherents that scientists must be browbeaten into submission and the documented scientific evidence ignored?
The answer is that today's environmentalist movement is not a scientific movement but a political one. The movement is a front for those with a definite political agenda.
Consider this. The scientists who belong to the environmentalist movement claim that their basis of authority on the subject of global warming is 'by consensus.' They have arrived at their viewpoint that man is responsible for global warming by consensus, that is, most of the scientists in the movement adhere to a viewpoint that is not universally held by the best minds within the scientific community.
And this is the source of the problem. If science is determined by consensus, it ceases to be science. It then becomes conjecture, opinion, and theory. Hard science is based upon one thing alone--the observable facts. Anything that cannot be verified with observable facts remains in the realm of opinion and theory. But it is not science.
Thus, the environmentalist movement has outed itself as a purely political movement. By admitting to the notion that scientific fact can be determined by consensus rather than hard evidence, the movement has immediately taken itself totally outside the scientific realm.
This leaves only one dire conclusion. The environmentalist movement is nothing more than a political movement that is dedicated to the destruction of capitalism, entrepreneurship, and free enterprise industrialism. Thus, Americans are told how horrible they are for driving SUVs. We are told how wicked are the oil companies. We treated to diatribes about how awful are the chemical companies. To express a belief that nuclear-powered energy sources are an acceptable, clean alternative is to commit the unpardonable sin. This is enough to get you excommunicated by the High Priests and Priestesses of the movement. You will surely go straight to hell.
Thus, the environmentalist movement is today the single largest threat to liberty in the world outside of terrorism. In the name of saving the planet from us wicked human beings, its adherents would dismantle American capitalism and free enterprise. Under the guise of 'doing good' the movement would destroy the basis of the American economy and totally change our way of life.
It is for this reason that many of the ex-Communists and Socialists from the Cold War have joined the environmentalist movement. When the old Soviet Union fell as a result of the policies of President Ronald Reagan, who brought them to the brink of economic disaster with our massive military buildup, the comrades were caught without a cause and with no place to go.
These people always have to have a subversive 'cause' to justify their existence.
Thus, they chose the environmentalist movement as the perfect vehicle by which to push toward their goal of destroying capitalism, dismantling the American economy, burying our prosperity, and eventually bringing the complete demise of a Republic that is dedicated to human liberty.
To buy into environmentalist pronouncements as the musings of concerned scientists is a big mistake. The practice of environmentalists to ignore hard science and smear the good names of respected scientists who do not subscribe to their views is ample proof of the subversive nature of this movement.
Thinking people can see right through the ruse. When science is decided by 'consensus' and not factual evidence, it is clear that anything the man-is-to-blame-for-global-warming crowd has to say is to be viewed with a grain of salt. They are not to be taken seriously, except for their massive and single-minded desire to dominate politics and alter the course of a free society.
As for their anti-American and anti-liberty scheme, we should quickly and forcefully repudiate their statements in the public arena whenever we have opportunity to do so.
In anticipation of Glenn Beck's expose of the environmentalist movement's grand hoax this evening on the Headline News Network, I decided to post this Liberty Sphere classic for your consideration.
'HOW ENVIRONMENTALISTS CONSORT TO DESTROY AMERICAN FREE ENTERPRISE'
by D. Martyn Lloyd-Morgan
The responsible stewardship of the environment is not up for debate in modern times. Every responsible, thinking person is forced to consider the world around us and the impact the activity of man has upon the earth's ability to sustain and renew life. The debate, therefore, centers upon one single issue--globing warming and its cause.
Global warming itself is not really the issue at all. It is a fact. In the earth's long and sometimes violent history, there have been patterns of warming and cooling that run in cycles, usually in response to the sun's activity. As the sun increases in volatility with solar storms, the impact on earth is quite predictable. Earth's temperatures increase.
For example, during the Middle Ages, long before the burning of fossil fuels, the earth experienced a warming that is well-documented among feudal societies where written descriptions of the climate are preserved from the era. In reading those documents we are struck by the descriptions of various writers who describe warm temperatures in areas that are generally known for the cold.
During the modern industrial era, however, particularly at its infancy in the 18th and 19th centuries, we see descriptions of a much cooler climate than that of the Middle Ages. In fact, there was a mini ice age that occurred early on during the period where unusual cold and snowfalls were described by novelists and historians.
These periods of global cooling occur simultaneously with a leveling out of the sun's activity. As solar storms decrease, the earth responds by a cooling of global temperatures.
Presently we are in the midst of an increase in the sun's activity. This activity has been documented for quite some time, resulting in a slight but observable increase in the earth's temperatures.
Thus, the issue of global warming is not up for debate. It is a fact at present, just as it has been a fact many times throughout the cyclical life of the planet. The debate centers on man's role, if any, in the warming that is occurring.
The 'environmentalist movement' has come down on the side of man's culpability in the warming of the earth's temperatures. With a dogmatism that would put Medieval Catholicism to shame, those who belong to the movement insist, adamantly, that the blame for global warming lies squarely with human beings. Human activity, according to the environmentalist dogma, is the single largest contributor to the increase of the earth's temperatures, and thus, steps must be taken to curb man's activity.
The activity in question, of course, is free enterprise, capitalistic industrialism, and entrepreneurship that supposedly 'rapes the precious environment.' This, according to the High Priests and Priestesses of the movement, must be stopped cold.
At the opposite side of the spectrum lies conservatives, libertarians, and those who adhere strictly to 'hard science.' It isn't that these persons deny the possibility of global warming, or global cooling either, for that matter. Rather, these persons question man's contribution to the process. They are not convinced that human activity has much of an impact one way or the other on changes in the earth's temperatures.
Hard science definitely appears to confirm the notion of the latter group of persons.
Take the example of the mammoths in the North Pole region of the earth. Millions of years ago it is clear that the polar region was warm, blooming with plant life, and inhabited by life forms that fed on the plants that were abundant in the region. Hard science proves that this was the case.
Scientists discovered large mammoths frozen in the ice of the polar region that still had undigested green plants in their mouths. These majestic gargantuan creatures roamed the polar region during an era of the earth's history when there was no ice but plant life, grasses, and trees.
The startling discovery of the frozen mammoths in the polar ice region forced scientists to consider one basic fact--there are times when the earth's climate changes suddenly, unpredictably, and violently.
These mammoths had obviously been feeding on the plant life in the polar region, yet they froze to death so quickly that the plants they had just taken into their mouths were frozen along with them. Preserved in the ice for eons of time, these animals provided hard scientific proof of three basic postulates.
First, the polar region was not always frozen but teeming with plant life. Second, this plant life sustained animal life that in today's climate would not survive the cold of the region. And third, the earth is often unpredictable in its wide variances of temperatures, sometimes resulting in sudden, violent, and catastrophic shifts in temperature.
In short, the mammoths froze to death within seconds or minutes while munching on the plants that once grew in the Arctic.
In addition, the mere fact that the Arctic region contains some of the world's most abundant oil deposits is ample proof that the region was once inhabited by numerous animals that left behind fossils that eventually led to the 'fossil fuel' of oil. Such animals could not survive the harsh climate the region has today.
Thus, observable, documented hard science is in unanimous agreement concerning the earth's climate. In the grand scheme of things, mankind has little to do with it. The dramatic shift of the climate in the Arctic region occurred long before man appeared on the earth. The Ice Age was ushered in by forces totally outside the activity of human beings. The warming that has occurred since the end of the last Ice Age began long before humans began burning fossil fuels.
It can be documented without dispute, for example, that the earth has been warming for centuries. In actuality, taking the long view, the earth has been warming gradually ever since the end of the last Ice Age, long before there was any industrialization.
Why, then, do the dogmatists within the environmentalist movement insist so vehemently that global warming is a man-made phenomenon? Why are those who present an alternative view to the notion that man caused global warming presently referred to by these dogmatists as 'Holocaust deniers?' These are shockingly harsh terms.
This is not all. PBS was scheduled to do a documentary on global warming. They were planning to utilize the expertise of a world-renown scientist at the University of Oklahoma. However, when the scientist explained to the producers at PBS that he planned on basing his views solely on hard science, they told him in no uncertain terms that he MUST lay the blame for the phenomenon on human activity and the burning of fossil fuels. When the scientist protested that such a view is based upon speculation and opinion rather than hard scientific evidence, he was politely told his services would not be needed on the program.
Why? Why is the dogma of the environmentalist movement so important to its adherents that scientists must be browbeaten into submission and the documented scientific evidence ignored?
The answer is that today's environmentalist movement is not a scientific movement but a political one. The movement is a front for those with a definite political agenda.
Consider this. The scientists who belong to the environmentalist movement claim that their basis of authority on the subject of global warming is 'by consensus.' They have arrived at their viewpoint that man is responsible for global warming by consensus, that is, most of the scientists in the movement adhere to a viewpoint that is not universally held by the best minds within the scientific community.
And this is the source of the problem. If science is determined by consensus, it ceases to be science. It then becomes conjecture, opinion, and theory. Hard science is based upon one thing alone--the observable facts. Anything that cannot be verified with observable facts remains in the realm of opinion and theory. But it is not science.
Thus, the environmentalist movement has outed itself as a purely political movement. By admitting to the notion that scientific fact can be determined by consensus rather than hard evidence, the movement has immediately taken itself totally outside the scientific realm.
This leaves only one dire conclusion. The environmentalist movement is nothing more than a political movement that is dedicated to the destruction of capitalism, entrepreneurship, and free enterprise industrialism. Thus, Americans are told how horrible they are for driving SUVs. We are told how wicked are the oil companies. We treated to diatribes about how awful are the chemical companies. To express a belief that nuclear-powered energy sources are an acceptable, clean alternative is to commit the unpardonable sin. This is enough to get you excommunicated by the High Priests and Priestesses of the movement. You will surely go straight to hell.
Thus, the environmentalist movement is today the single largest threat to liberty in the world outside of terrorism. In the name of saving the planet from us wicked human beings, its adherents would dismantle American capitalism and free enterprise. Under the guise of 'doing good' the movement would destroy the basis of the American economy and totally change our way of life.
It is for this reason that many of the ex-Communists and Socialists from the Cold War have joined the environmentalist movement. When the old Soviet Union fell as a result of the policies of President Ronald Reagan, who brought them to the brink of economic disaster with our massive military buildup, the comrades were caught without a cause and with no place to go.
These people always have to have a subversive 'cause' to justify their existence.
Thus, they chose the environmentalist movement as the perfect vehicle by which to push toward their goal of destroying capitalism, dismantling the American economy, burying our prosperity, and eventually bringing the complete demise of a Republic that is dedicated to human liberty.
To buy into environmentalist pronouncements as the musings of concerned scientists is a big mistake. The practice of environmentalists to ignore hard science and smear the good names of respected scientists who do not subscribe to their views is ample proof of the subversive nature of this movement.
Thinking people can see right through the ruse. When science is decided by 'consensus' and not factual evidence, it is clear that anything the man-is-to-blame-for-global-warming crowd has to say is to be viewed with a grain of salt. They are not to be taken seriously, except for their massive and single-minded desire to dominate politics and alter the course of a free society.
As for their anti-American and anti-liberty scheme, we should quickly and forcefully repudiate their statements in the public arena whenever we have opportunity to do so.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
MIT Scientist Questions Theories on Global Warming
Washington, DC (TLS). A respected scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who receives no research funding from energy companies, has dared to openly question the current popular theories on global warming.
Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT, and he is taking on head-to-head the shrill voices of the politically correct by questioning their dogma on global warming.
Lindzen states that those who would lay the blame for global warming at the feet of human activity have very little credible ground to stand on when the entire history of the planet is objectively considered.
Further, Lindzen states that the computer models that make projections of what the climate will be like 50 years from now are the very same models that predict the weather from day to day, which are wrong 50% of the time at least.
Lindzen provides ample evidence that current computer model projections are highly flawed and that the earth has been in an overall pattern of warming ever since the end of the last Ice Age.
The Liberty Sphere feels that this is a refreshing addition to the debate on global warming, particularly in an era in which some scientists would mandate a sweeping change of lifestyle for humanity based on computer predictions that can't even get next week's forecast correct.
Read Lindzen's article here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/
Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT, and he is taking on head-to-head the shrill voices of the politically correct by questioning their dogma on global warming.
Lindzen states that those who would lay the blame for global warming at the feet of human activity have very little credible ground to stand on when the entire history of the planet is objectively considered.
Further, Lindzen states that the computer models that make projections of what the climate will be like 50 years from now are the very same models that predict the weather from day to day, which are wrong 50% of the time at least.
Lindzen provides ample evidence that current computer model projections are highly flawed and that the earth has been in an overall pattern of warming ever since the end of the last Ice Age.
The Liberty Sphere feels that this is a refreshing addition to the debate on global warming, particularly in an era in which some scientists would mandate a sweeping change of lifestyle for humanity based on computer predictions that can't even get next week's forecast correct.
Read Lindzen's article here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/
Monday, February 12, 2007
Ellen Goodman is an Idiot
Washington, DC (TLS). If there ever were any doubt that Leftist columnist Ellen Goodman is about three cards shy of a full deck, her latest op-ed in the Boston Globe definitively removes that doubt. Completely swallowing the 'man-is-to-blame-for-global-warming' balderdash perpetrated by collectivists who wish to use climate change as an excuse for implementing socialistic restrictions on human freedom and free enterprise, Goodman stated that those who doubt that mankind is to blame for global warming are modern-day 'Holocaust deniers.'
There was a time in the past when Goodman could be respected as an able and capable foe. Articulate and bright, she was a formidable force within the ranks of Liberals, leading their charge in the op-ed pages of many of the nation's top newspapers. With this single remark, however, Goodman has immediately lost her credibility. By comparing modern scientists who doubt the Leftist spin on the cause of global warming to Holocaust deniers, Goodman is actually suggesting evil intent on the part of ANYONE who raises questions about the set of assumptions that lead certain persons to conclude man is to blame for climate change. Holocaust deniers include persons of such ill repute as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Neo-Nazis, Muslim Jihadists, and other terrorists who pose a threat to civilization. The reason why this rhetorical tactic is over the top is that it is designed to browbeat into silence scientific inquiry, which by its very nature is ALWAYS raising doubts. The very reason why we know most of what we know about the universe today is precisely due to the bold, relentless inquiry of those who doubted the commonly accepted paradigms.
For example, before Galileo, over 90% of the educated world at that time clearly did not subscribe to the theory that led him to discover truths that changed all we know about the world. Yet Goodman claims that because a significant number of modern scientists are 90% certain that mankind created global warming, anyone who doubts that this is true is to be labeled as a dangerous subversive closely akin to Holocaust deniers such as Ahmadinejad.
Had Galileo not boldly walked through that narrow 10% window of doubt, which led to his questioning of ALL of our assumptions about the world, then mankind would still be stuck in the Dark Ages. Advances in scientific discovery are made PRECISELY because individual scientists are willing to question commonly-held assumptions. In the case of global warming, however, the scientific community is far from having a 'consensus,' as some claim. Significant doubt remains among some of the best minds in the world as to the degree to which mankind contributes to the problem. In fact, some of the brightest and best are denouncing the latest U.N. Report on Climate Change, as well as the Kyoto accords, as sheer politically-driven propaganda.
As The Liberty Sphere has reported within the last few weeks, two significant books are due to be published this year on the subject of climate change and how mankind actually has little or nothing to do with it. A mere cursory scanning of the history of the earth will show this fact. The Ice Age and the subsequent warming, the Medieval Warming Period and the subsequent 'Little Ice Age,' and the subsequent warming that has occurred since the end of the Little Ice Age, all point to the fact that man's activity has absolutely nothing to do with these cyclical changes in climate, which are attributable mainly to changes in solar activity.
As for Ellen Goodman, it is actually sad to see an otherwise bright woman fall for one of the biggest scams in human history. I expected better.
Nigel Calder, one of the foremost scientists in the world, writes today in the Sunday Times about this very issue. Calder asserts that hard science demands that the orthodoxy be challenged, particularly when it comes to the set of assumptions that lead some to assume global warming is caused by greenhouse gases.
For this MUST-READ, click here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
There was a time in the past when Goodman could be respected as an able and capable foe. Articulate and bright, she was a formidable force within the ranks of Liberals, leading their charge in the op-ed pages of many of the nation's top newspapers. With this single remark, however, Goodman has immediately lost her credibility. By comparing modern scientists who doubt the Leftist spin on the cause of global warming to Holocaust deniers, Goodman is actually suggesting evil intent on the part of ANYONE who raises questions about the set of assumptions that lead certain persons to conclude man is to blame for climate change. Holocaust deniers include persons of such ill repute as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Neo-Nazis, Muslim Jihadists, and other terrorists who pose a threat to civilization. The reason why this rhetorical tactic is over the top is that it is designed to browbeat into silence scientific inquiry, which by its very nature is ALWAYS raising doubts. The very reason why we know most of what we know about the universe today is precisely due to the bold, relentless inquiry of those who doubted the commonly accepted paradigms.
For example, before Galileo, over 90% of the educated world at that time clearly did not subscribe to the theory that led him to discover truths that changed all we know about the world. Yet Goodman claims that because a significant number of modern scientists are 90% certain that mankind created global warming, anyone who doubts that this is true is to be labeled as a dangerous subversive closely akin to Holocaust deniers such as Ahmadinejad.
Had Galileo not boldly walked through that narrow 10% window of doubt, which led to his questioning of ALL of our assumptions about the world, then mankind would still be stuck in the Dark Ages. Advances in scientific discovery are made PRECISELY because individual scientists are willing to question commonly-held assumptions. In the case of global warming, however, the scientific community is far from having a 'consensus,' as some claim. Significant doubt remains among some of the best minds in the world as to the degree to which mankind contributes to the problem. In fact, some of the brightest and best are denouncing the latest U.N. Report on Climate Change, as well as the Kyoto accords, as sheer politically-driven propaganda.
As The Liberty Sphere has reported within the last few weeks, two significant books are due to be published this year on the subject of climate change and how mankind actually has little or nothing to do with it. A mere cursory scanning of the history of the earth will show this fact. The Ice Age and the subsequent warming, the Medieval Warming Period and the subsequent 'Little Ice Age,' and the subsequent warming that has occurred since the end of the Little Ice Age, all point to the fact that man's activity has absolutely nothing to do with these cyclical changes in climate, which are attributable mainly to changes in solar activity.
As for Ellen Goodman, it is actually sad to see an otherwise bright woman fall for one of the biggest scams in human history. I expected better.
Nigel Calder, one of the foremost scientists in the world, writes today in the Sunday Times about this very issue. Calder asserts that hard science demands that the orthodoxy be challenged, particularly when it comes to the set of assumptions that lead some to assume global warming is caused by greenhouse gases.
For this MUST-READ, click here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)