Thursday, June 22, 2006

Global Warming Lies and Lunacy

Read this article.

Then ask yourself a few questions:

1. How do they know what the temperature was 400 years ago?
2. With relatively little good climate data before 1890, how can anybody make these assertions with a straight face?
3. Why are these people lying to us?
4. Why is the media hyping this insanity, and reporting it as fact when there is more data contradicting global warming that there is that proves it?

Then: engage the debate with the shrub-cuddlers. Get informed, then start arguing with them. They won't listen to you, and hysterically claim all your research is biased because its driven by the terrible capitalists who are bent on polluting the entire planet, clubbing baby seals to death, eating babies, and voting Republican. YOUR agenda is evil, while THEIRS is motivated because they're such caring stewards of mother earth, who don't believe in deodorant or women shaving their legs.

Finally, read Michael Crichton's STATE OF FEAR. Show 'em you aren't afraid of the truth, and are willing to pay money to support people who are speaking out against this lunacy.

2 comments:

Prest0 said...

1. "For all but the most recent 150 years, the academy scientists relied on "proxy" evidence from tree rings, corals, glaciers and ice cores, cave deposits, ocean and lake sediments, boreholes and other sources. They also examined indirect records such as paintings of glaciers in the Alps. "

2. I would imagine that if one correlated all the information information above, you could probably get within +/- 5 degrees. Quite possibly better.

3. Okay. I'll bite. Why? What motivation would unrelated researchers in the US and around the world have for lying?

4. Maybe because the earth is getting warmer? Whether it's because we've been burning fossile fules or because we're spinning dangerously closer to the sun, the climate IS warmer.

Name calling is a great way to start a measured debate and establish your position.

Kyle The Opinionated said...

1. Which prove what, exactly?

2. How, exactly? What does a painting tell us about what the temperature was? Glaciers move and melt, you know. That's the definition of a glacier. There's ample evidence the ice shelves in Antartica are thickening, and the temperature down there is getting COLDER. So how does that prove? The earth is colder? How does that prove warming? Look at climatic data over the last 100 years. Again, read Crichton's books, which have lots of lovely graphs and charts which show there really isn't a dramatic increase at all. In fact, it shows a dramatic decrease in lots of cases. It shows peaks and troughs that our supposed global warming fits nicely into. Just read it, before you buy into what the liberal media wants you to swallow.

3. Globalists, attacking capitalism, which is directly linked to democratic freedom. Can't establish one-world govt. when you've got a loose cannon like the US. See the UN gun ban bs for further info. But I honestly have no idea, though Crichton puts forth a few theories. I don't know, but I hate it when people fib to me to advance a political agenda.

4. It's NOT. That's the problem. They can show 1 degree difference over the last 100 years, roughly. Follow the link and read. Read the book, what you claim simply isn't a scientific reality. Read the links....

Who's starting a measured debate? I'm simply ranting on my blog, which means I can engage in all the name calling I want...:). And they ARE lunatics. At least follow the links, read the controverting research and how shoddy the science behind the global warming is. Why take what Al Gore says, without seeing whether his science backs up. Liberal bias pretty much assures you won't find controverting evidence unless you dig around a bit. That's what Crichton was trying to do with this book. It's worth the read. The story isn't all that hot, but the footnotes and research are the real reason to check it out.