A new video from CatholicVote.org
A new video from CatholicVote.org
As outlined by the Purple Avenger at Ace of Spades HQ, it’s been a rough few months for environmental extremism.
Despite public protestations to the contrary, even the most fanatical disciples of the Church of Global Warming realize they’re losing the battle for public opinion in regards to climate change. What’s a zealot to do?
If Al Gore and the other snake oil salesmen had actually based their belief in climate change apocalypse on now-questionable data, you might expect them to be at least a bit relieved that perhaps Earth was to be spared, rather than doubling down on the stupid. If, on the other hand, they were more concerned with wielding near total control over every aspect of your daily life than in the possibility that Denver might become a major seaport, they might start casting around for a new crisis that could be attributed to rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Thank Gaia for a new cudgel, ocean acidification, which will be brandished to subdue the unruly automobile-driving, electricity-consuming, breathing mobs.
During a December 2nd, 2009, Climate “Science” Hearing, Washington’s very own Jay Inslee recounts a heart-warming encounter he had at the University of Washington with a young man global warming denier, of whom he asks , “Look, if you’re right and there’s no global warming, if you’re so right, what are you gonna do about ocean acidification? What do you say about that?” (If you’re allergic to insufferable, condescending jerks, fast forward to 2:32; living in Inslee’s district, I can attest that the rash is quite bothersome.)
I find it absolutely astonishing that Inslee would treat a tax-paying citizen of the United States with such disdain, while treating John Holdren – a man who, during the 70s, proposed forced abortions; mass, involuntary sterilization; and even compulsory marriage or adoption for unwed mothers as a way to avert another imminent crisis threating to destroy the Earth – as a respected expert. I may be overly critical, but I think Holdren’s creds are in question.
The oceans may be becoming more acid but, just as with global warming, the snake oil salesmen need to show first, that human activity has significantly contributed to the problem and, second, that human efforts can significantly improve it. Until then, keep casting, guys.
Update 1: Stacy McCain explains how, She Puts the Fin in Fine.
Update 2: Jimmie Bise opines that he doesn’t get out fishing nearly often enough.
Wow, what can I add to that? Check out this video.
H/T GOP Lounge
According to yesterday’s London Telegraph (a go-to source for Climategate news), “Leading British scientists at the University of East Anglia, who were accused of manipulating climate change data – dubbed Climategate – have agreed to publish their figures in full.” The story continues:
The U-turn by the university follows a week of controversy after the emergence of hundreds of leaked emails, “stolen” by hackers and published online, triggered claims that the academics had massaged statistics.
In a statement welcomed by climate change sceptics, the university said it would make all the data accessible as soon as possible, once its Climatic Research Unit (CRU) had negotiated its release from a range of non-publication agreements.
Is it just me or does negotiating “a release from a range of non-publication agreements” sound like code for “after we make sure the data supports our position” or possibly “when hell freezes over?” Am I the only one who believes that these people would release falsified data?
Then today we learned that much of the raw data has been destroyed.
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
Well, maybe it has or maybe it hasn’t been destroyed. How could we possibly know? Again, am I the only one who believes that these people would lie to avoid releasing their data?
Why should we believe them? These are people who apparently “improved the truth” to support their theory; withheld information requested under Freedom of Information laws; discussed destroying date to avoid releasing it; joked about the death of an inconvenient colleague and perverted the peer review process – and who knows what else.
These people are not worthy of my trust or anyone else’s, and certainly not to the point where we would cripple our economy on their say-so. Time to take a step back and let some real scientists get to work with full disclosure every step of the way.
But that simple truth has escaped Newsweek’s Eleanor Clift.
On the Nov. 29 edition of “The McLaughlin Group,” host John McLaughlin asked about the prospects of a Copenhagen climate change treaty and its possible impact on the U.S. economy. MSNBC and “The McLaughlin Group” regular Pat Buchanan gave some spot-on analysis on global warming alarmist about former Vice President Al Gore and how it pertains to the climate change issue.
“Well, I don’t think it’s going to have any impact, John, because I don’t think it’s going to get through the United States Senate,” Buchanan said. “And there’s a reason for that John, and that’s Al Gore’s moment has come and gone. The truth is they’re changing the name to climate change rather than global warming for a reason.”
“It was warming, John,” Buchanan said. “It’s not been warming since ’98. Secondly, there’s no known proof it’s because of man and there’s no known proof it’s a great danger.”
However, Clift felt inclined to responded, rather emphatically. She said she believes U.S. policy should be proactive toward the issue. Her view is arguably indicative of the mainstream media’s sentiment on the debate, and she equated it to blind faith when she told Buchanan there’s no proof there’s a God either, which didn’t mean global warming wasn’t a danger.
“It’s no known proof there’s God, either. How much proof do you need, Pat?” Clift replied. “Oh, it is a danger. It’s a danger in many places.”
I believe there’s a God. I can’t prove that; my belief is faith-based. I’m comfortable with that. That’s how religion works.
Science, on the other hand, should never be faith-based. It should be rooted in things like data and observation and testing your hypothesis and other science-y stuff. That what makes it different from religion.
Clift makes a serious logical error by arguing that belief in global warming can somehow be equated with belief in God.
Unless global warming is your religion.