The Only Way To Stop Global Warming Is To Give the U.N. All Your Money
February 10th, 2007 at 10:02 am by Preston Taylor HolmesRWN has a pretty interesting interview with one of the few remaining scholars who hasn’t been bought off with grant money by the global-warming-research-lobby. The guy’s name is Dennis Avery and he’s just put out a book called Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years.
He pretty much pinches a loaf onto the whole man-made global warming industry. Some nuggets:
So Mamaw can go ahead and drive down to Revco and get her prescription without feeling too guilty this morning. What is at the core of the whole man-made global warming panic?
Despite all the scare tactics the Old Media wants to throw at you, the planet has had fluctuations in temperature for millions of years. When you compare the length of time mankind has been recording temperatures with the age of the planet, you have to laugh at the “inconvenient truths” they derive from their tiny samples.
The real motivator behind the movement is the U.N.-backed Socialist utopians who want to cripple American industry in whatever way they can – whether through increasingly burdensome regulation or global taxes to redistribute America’s wealth to the turd world. The socialists in American academia, the federal government and the mainstream press are only too happy to do their part in pushing the agenda, as the end result advances their causes as well. It doesn’t matter how they get to the one-world socialist government of their dreams, just as long as they get there. And the fastest way to secure their dream planet is to destroy the world’s only military and economic superpower.
This is why the global socialists come up with bullshit like Kyoto, which only hands down mandates to the U.S. and lets the world’s worst polluters get off scot free. It’s not about saving the planet, it’s about destroying the American economy.
This is also why the scare-merchants viciously attack those who don’t fall in line with their bunk conclusions. Once the left starts equating the dissenters with “holocaust deniers,” you know they don’t have a leg to stand on.
So go ahead and shit your pants like a good little leftist lemming when Al Gore puts out another bullshit eco-mentary. The rest of us will be enjoying life, in spite of your desire for us to do otherwise.
February 10th, 2007 at 11:30 am
This debate is similar to the Evolution/Intelligent Design debate in one major facet.
Whenever you get a Global-Warming-Chicken-Little-Sky-is-falling/burning-up alarmist/”scientist” to answer to all of the “other” climate experts who refute man made causes to this issue, you will almost certainly hear the following:
1. “The Debate is OVER”
2. “The evidence is indisputable”
3. “Any CREDIBLE ‘scientist’ will agree”
In other words, don’t question this or you will be labeled a “crackpot”. Oh…and PUHLEEZE don’t try arguing with stuff like “evidence” or “data” that goes against our viewpoint. We simply don’t have the time to discuss it…
February 10th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
I’ve really tried to stay away from the man-made global warming thing because it’s so obviously politically driven, but you can only listen to so much of this shit before you have to verbally ejaculate.
February 10th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
This was over at the Jawa Report today:
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf
OK, lefty loons. Explain that.
February 11th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Some tools on the local news were touting “the first global warming Winter” this year when the Twin Cities’ temp reached 45 or something for a few days in January. They were running local news stories every day on this topic during the brief heat wave [because, OBVIOUSLY, a week of above-average temperatures in Minnesota is evidence of GLOBAL warming]. The last 2 weeks, the average temperature has been 2 below. I haven’t seen any ‘Twin Cities temps as evidence of global warming’ stories lately.
February 12th, 2007 at 2:00 am
recycling is bs too, according to penn & teller
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24391_Recycling-_Nothing_More_Than_Feelings&only
long but worth the time. via LGF
February 13th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Puleeze. To suggest there’s leftist politics behind the ‘global warming’ issue, without acknowleging the politics on the other side is like tying a blindfold around your head.
The value of federal research grants on climate change amounts to squat when compared to the money behind the fossil fuels industry, which has an undeniable interest in poo-poo-ing the manmade climate change argument.
Sure there’s politics on the left playing a part in all this, but so is there politics on the right. If you don’t want to be a moron about it, consult the science, not the think tanks. Try looking through Nature magazine, for instance. They do wacky things like peer review the science before it gets to be published.
For those of you haven’t read anything other than “National Review” recently, in science, ‘peer review’ means other scientists read the article, challenge its assertions, check the math, and look to see if the data and experiments can be replicated and yield the same results. If it passes a rigirous quality control-type review, then it gets printed.
This is not to be confused with the White House’s “stooge review” of governemnt science, where the unqualified read the articles, and delete and dilute any of the facts that don’t follow the party line.
As for Dennis Avery, a quick Google search suggests he’s a politico, not a scientist, and has his own agenda to push.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7128/edsumm/e070208-03.html
February 14th, 2007 at 1:14 am
Thelonious…
Nice try with the “peer review” theory. Let me go back to the evolution issue to draw the comparison.
Scientists who don’t ascribe to the theory of evolution as iron-clad science, CAN’T GET THEIR FINDINGS “PEER REVIEWED”. Why?
Well gee, for every nail in the coffin of evolution that can be given scientific validity, there’s one less grant and fewer tax dollars awarded to scientists who believe evolution is “iron-clad” science. There are literally HUNDREDS of questions evolutionists can’t answer (many related to the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics for example)…and they don’t have to. See…”the debate is over” and those intelligent design proponents “aren’t credible”.
Now the global warming issue has the same problems. Yes, I agree…there are politics in play on both sides. No doubt the oil companies have subsidized to a great extent research that may prove global warming (if it truly exists)is a natural occurrence.
But the money flowing towards global warming “scientists” actually dwarfs the money flowing towards scientists who may feel otherwise.
And what of the case of Oregon State climatologist George Taylor, who hasn’t accepted money from anyone on the right? He proposes evidence that climatic change may in fact be from solar variations…and is labeled a crackpot by his governor because it goes against the “official position” of the Peoples Republic of Oregon.
I don’t know what the truth is. It is POSSIBLE that Al Gore and his Chicken Littles are correct. But it is typical of the left to close the debate altogether and claim that those who might disagree are the equivalent of holocaust deniers (see Ellen Goodman).
Me? I’m in favor of keeping the debate open while information is still coming in.
Now excuse me while I put a sweatshirt on. I’m freezing my ass off…
February 14th, 2007 at 7:21 am
I’m just glad that Thelonius Fuckface can still bring himself to come here and condescend to us once again. I’m thinking about offering him/her a login.
Tell us more of these “nature” magazines. I hear they have fantastic photos of animals eating one another and mugging for the camera.
February 14th, 2007 at 10:37 am
Please allow me to condescend further….
Billy, “creation science” has trouble getting published in peer reviewed science journals because, well, it gets eliminated quickly through the peer review process. Your reference to the laws of thermodynamics as an unanswered question befuddled me initially, because I couldn’t even understand how you were relating the two. A quick internet review suggests that ‘creation science’ says that these laws of thermodynamics were initiated by Original Sin. The resulting ‘entropy’ acting on biological systems ever since would preclude evolution. That’s the gist as I can gather.
The problem with that is, of course, the fact that biological systems on this planet do not exist as a closed system, which is a stipulation of the second law of thermodynamics. For one thing, the sun continues to add energy to the earthly system on a daily, second-by-second basis. In a peer review context, you don’t have to go much further than that to toss the “creation science” assertions with relation to the laws of thermodynamics. Bam; article doesn’t get published because it is based on a misapplication of basic science.
If you want to stick with “creation science,” please do so, by all means. But to put your money where your mouth is, you should start taking a daily regimen of antibiotics, because without evolution there is no such thing as the rise of resistant strains of bacteria. Proactive use of antibiotics would keep you from ever getting any kind of infection ever again!
For that matter, write the President and tell him to de-fund CDC research on ‘bird-flu’ and other associated flu viruses. For those to ever become a significant threat to humans, mutation and evolution has to occur in the viruses before they can become a human-to-human contagion. Since there is no such thing as evolution, these are no threat to us in the first place, and the CDC research is just a boondoggle.
As for Preston’s citation of Dennis Avery, a deeper look into his history shows his background is in economics, not science, and he has a profound history of misapplying others’ scientific research to back his bogus positions. When the sources Avery cited in his publications on organic agriculture were consulted, they were appalled at his misapplication of their research. The guy puts words in the mouths of his “research” sources, then ties that misinformation together to back up his pre-conceived, politically motivated misinformation. That’s not science, that’s political hackery.
As for global warming, I would be very interested to see actual science that challenges the concept, but it’s really hard to find, especially because most of the work out there challenging it is proffered by loons like Avery, who make political, not scientific arguments.
Your friend,
Theonious
February 14th, 2007 at 11:41 am
Hey Thelonius…
You will note that never once did I mention “creation science”. If you wish to have the evolution vs. intelligent design argument someday we can certainly do that and I will give you a list of 25 questions that even Eugenie Scott can’t answer.
As far as you mentioning antibiotics, that is an example of micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. Nobody will dispute that organisms evelove within their own species. Let me know when you witness bacterium growing legs and walking out of a petrie dish.
Anyway, this discussion was about global warming Chicken Littles.
You certainly know more about Dennis Avery than I do. OK, let’s say he is in fact driven by political motives.
What about George Taylor? What was his motive? And he is a climatologist.
There are at least 200 climatologists in North America holding PHDs who either do not believe that we are in a critical global warming state, or that any warming is due to human causes. I suppose that we should just declare the debate over, discount their credibility and declare the evidence they provide to be null and void because they don’t feel like you do.
Perhaps you can go back to comment #3, open that link, and explain that. That was the last time scientists were so sure we were about to undergo such devastating climatic change. That was front page in Newsweek.
If the scientists didn’t get it right then, is it possible they don’t have it right now?