As with evolution, leftist scientists need no “proof” on global warming. They already have the answers.

Posted on


EPA analyst, Alan Carlin wrote a report that said something the EPA didn’t want to hear: The connection between CO2 and Global Warming is dubious. Oh oh. Guess there’s nothing to do but wage a war of personal destruction. One EPA rep says that Carlin isn’t a scientist, he’s a economist. What a croc. Economists are the best there are at finding associations and possible causations. Read Freakonomics. Not only that, Carlin is an economist who was hired by the EPA. Hmmm.

Advertisements

41 thoughts on “As with evolution, leftist scientists need no “proof” on global warming. They already have the answers.

    kernunos said:
    June 30, 2009 at 8:20 pm

    Skeptics are coming out of the woodwork now…

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html

    Of course we already knew it was all a croc-o- . I don’t know how anyone pushing Global Warming can say they are a serious scientist when the scientific method has been scoffed at in such a neglectful way.

    kernunos said:
    June 30, 2009 at 8:22 pm

    Oh, apparently you are unpatriotic if you do not believe the new energy bill is a good idea. So says MR. Waxman.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/06/29/waxman_gop_rooting_against_country_because_of_energy_bill_vote.html

    magus71 responded:
    June 30, 2009 at 8:29 pm

    The cat’s really out of the bag if it’s in the Wall Street Journal.

    Michael LaBossiere said:
    July 3, 2009 at 12:25 am

    An economist is not a climate scientist and hence lacks the expertise to assess claims about global warming and such. Even if it is granted that being a economist makes a person good at finding associations and causal connections, assessment requires specific knowledge as well as such skills.

    Think about this: if you were sick or injured, would you go to an economist? If your car stopped running, would you get an economist to fix it?

    So why turn to an economist for an assessment of the climate?

    magus71 responded:
    July 3, 2009 at 5:50 am

    An economist can surely make a analysis of causation or association without being an expert on the exact mechanisms. For instance, every time John goes to the bathroom, we hear the toilet flush. Hence, there is an association with John entering the bathroom and the toilet flushing. Do we have to know exactly how the toilet works?

    So an economist could easily track CO2 levels and compare them with global temperatures. He could find a strong or weak association or even inverse associations.

    The idea that only “experts” can figure things out for us is not only wrong–it’s dangerous.

    And apparently many climate experts aren’t climate experts either; they seem to ignore the scientific method some times.

    kernunos said:
    July 3, 2009 at 2:14 pm

    I like Richard Lindzen from MIT.

    kernunos said:
    July 3, 2009 at 2:29 pm

    Bill Nye gets smacked down by Richard Lindzen!

    kernunos said:
    July 3, 2009 at 3:02 pm

    How about John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel, coming out against the Global Warming movement?

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1922411/posts

    kernunos said:
    July 3, 2009 at 3:26 pm

    Another meteorologist retires and whacks at the hysteria.

    http://www.mediamouse.org/news/2008/05/craig-james-retires-from-wood.php

    T. J. Babson said:
    July 3, 2009 at 4:12 pm

    It is natural and healthy for scientists to be skeptical and to try to find holes and mistakes in the work of others. The idea that scientific skeptics are now demonized as “deniers” should make everyone think twice about whether what we are getting from the climatologists is actually science.

    magus71 responded:
    July 3, 2009 at 4:22 pm

    Exactly.

    willfuqua said:
    July 6, 2009 at 5:07 am

    You don’t believe increased CO2 cause problems, well it’s your opinion and that’s fine. But the science behind is actually very basic. Do you believe in the greenhouse effect? If you do, then just understand that the gases causing the greenhouse effect are increasing in amounts which cause the greenhouse effect to grow.

    magus71 responded:
    July 6, 2009 at 11:20 am

    The science behind is definitely NOT basic. There are tons of issues in the global warming equation. See the videos posted by kernunos above. There is some evidence that CO2 density is inversely proportionate to temp increase. Hmmmm.

    And, even if the globe’s temperature is increasing (it isn’t), no one can prove this will lead to disaster.

    Global Warming is a religion. For many, no proof could exist that it isn’t the problem it’s made out to be.

    willfuqua said:
    July 6, 2009 at 1:25 pm

    “…even if the globe’s temperature is increasing (it isn’t)…”

    If the temperature isn’t increasing then how do you explain the retreating ice of the Boulder Glacier, the Easton Glacier, the Athabasca Glacier, the Valdez Glacier, the Furtwängler Glacier, the Whitechuck Glacier, the Bylot Ice Cap, and more?

    And you’re saying it’s not basic science, but maybe that’s to you. Every single detail of the science to understand greenhouse effect and global warming can be understood with only a few basic science courses in college. We’re talking a few biology, chemistry, and maybe a geology class. Even without those classes, the explanation can be explained to everyday people rather simply. The problem is people haven’t learned about it in college or haven’t read literature that has fully covered it.

    About global warming being a religion. That’s really just an absurd statement. That’s like calling believing in black holes before they were discovered but only were proven by math a religion. The science has an overwhelming amount of proof behind these things that don’t require a leap of faith. Why else would the majority of scientists be putting their reputation on the line with this when really they can simply be quiet and avoid looking like fools?

    Well, I’m guessing no matter what I say, you’ll believe it’s all an elaborate hoax or some mistake by the scientific community as a whole, but how will you feel in 10 to 20 years when the proof to this can no longer be ignored? Hopefully you’ll see these people are just trying to help out, look out for their fellow human beings, and let you know what’s happening around us.

    magus71 responded:
    July 6, 2009 at 8:27 pm

    Deforestation, not global warming, is believed to be the reason for ice cap retreat.

    http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/14287/Nature_Study_Debunks_Kilimanjaro_Glacier_Myth.html

    kernunos said:
    July 7, 2009 at 3:44 am

    CO2 gasses have been on the rise but the climates temp has stabilized over the last ten years and could even be on the decline. How do you explain that?

    “Well, I’m guessing no matter what I say, you’ll believe it’s all an elaborate hoax or some mistake by the scientific community as a whole, but how will you feel in 10 to 20 years when the proof to this can no longer be ignored? Hopefully you’ll see these people are just trying to help out, look out for their fellow human beings, and let you know what’s happening around us.”

    Every prediction over the last 20 years has fallen dreadfully short. What is your prediction for 10 years? We can revisit the issue then.

    The fact remains that billions and billions of dollars are given to Global warming/climate change/(whatever it will be called next week). If the money wasn’t there, or even if the money was given towards the study of global cooling then I bet the conversation would be much different.

    It is funny how the missionaries of ‘Global Warming’ come out of the woodwork at the mere mention of doubt.

    magus71 responded:
    July 7, 2009 at 3:57 am

    This post is getting more its than all my others…

    willfuqua said:
    July 7, 2009 at 7:00 am

    I’m thinking it’s probably a waste of my time to pick apart the details of these reports and organizations you’ve been posting and try to show anything. Looking at the title again of the blog, I’m guessing there’s a good chance that you guys also don’t believe in evolution. Is that right? Do you guys believe the Earth is around 6k years old?

    magus71 responded:
    July 7, 2009 at 4:16 pm

    You can argue with an MIT climatologist, not me.

    kernunos said:
    July 7, 2009 at 6:13 pm

    Go right ahead. Pick them apart. I have no freaking idea how old the earth is. I just know that global warming doesn’t care truly in the scientific process. Take Jim Hanson from NASA that has been caught, not once, but twice admitting to ‘fudging’ the numbers because the end justifies the means. You global warmers use his scientific data about the 90’s being the hottest decade on record right? I see the graphs over and over again like bumper stickers on hybrids.

    kernunos said:
    July 7, 2009 at 6:59 pm

    All of these growing(and fast) numbers of scientists speaking out about the validity of the scientific process that links man to climate change get paid NOTHING! They do this on their own time and dime. All of the scientists getting paid to push this product Bush alone gave over $42billion dollars in grants towards the study of global warming(fail). You are telling me that I should believe this big money hungry machine that wants to keep itself fed. Suckling on the teat of a good thing over scientists that are putting their careers and reputations on the line. For what? For the scientific process that’s what. All I get from elevated intellectuals like yourself is consensus……blah-blah………’like a holocaust denier….blah-blah…………I won’t waste my time explaining……….

    When you can tell me (1. what the temperature is supposed to be and 2. when you have your magical temperature rise value-what percentage is from man and what percentage would have happened anyway from nature?) I may be in a little more agreement.

    My biggest problem with all of this though is when the Left decides to teach us what is right and wrong they don’t just stop at education. That would be perfectly fine with me. Instead they legislate how we live our lives. That is when I dig in and start to look into what is being done.

    I am no stranger to global warming either. I went to a Science Symposium back in 1987?(well it was back in high school anyway) on the effects of mankind on global climate. I’ve had questions ever since that have never been answered such as : Wouldn’t larger amounts of carbon dioxide spur on more plant growth that in turn uses up more CO2 and helps fight the problem with world wide deforrestation? Wouldn’t limiting CO2 slow global plant growth. I mean, my crisis helping multitasking skills only go so far. Oh, yeah, that is when there was a consensus by scientists that the largest part of the food pyramid should be breads and cereals. Ouch! Look at all of the fat children science brought us.

    What about the headlines over the last century? It is comical really when the headlines on global temperature trends flip every ten to twenty years. Global heating trend-global cooling trend-global heating trend…etc. Now we may be going into another cooling at the very least the temperature has flat lined for at least 5 years.

    The biggest ire I have though is when one like me asks a question(which is what science is all about) on something that is not scientific law and I get answers that are meant to brush the importance of my question off. Statements like” The scientific consensus is so large that we should not even be discussing this anymore.” goes against everything I believe in science. People that have questions, even scientists much smarter than I are being stiffled and their credibility is being questioned JUST for asking the question. When you are not even allowed to question the science then it just smells fishy to me.

    Even if you are right which I am not convinced if this large Cap and Trade bill goes through it will only do two things in my mind. 1. Idiotic and rich Western countries are the majority that will sign on to the program. This to me is only a way to handicap ourselves economically and redistribute our wealth to other countries. that are poor, sometimes for good reasons. 2. The pollution will increase because countries, like China that will not sign on will ramp up their production that we are curtailing in the name of environmentalism. Who do you think manufactures with cleaner technology and is more responsible with the environment? The U.S. or China?

    I just think you should think for yourself instead of being an easy accomplice for your political party’s ends. Nobody wants dirty air or dirty water but it starts with education and personal responsibility not legislation.

    magus71 responded:
    July 7, 2009 at 7:03 pm

    As far as I’m concerned, if the answer is so obvious we should be discussing it, then we WOULDNT be discussing it. For instance, how many arguments are there over what color the sky is?

    kernunos said:
    July 7, 2009 at 7:07 pm

    Oh, I am not against evolution but I cannot accept it hook line and sinker the way it stands. When a species changes from one to the next where exactly does that change happen? We are told mutation but mutation is fast and we are told the process is very long. When a specimen from that species breaks that threshold to whom will they mate? We are also told two separate species cannot mate with each other. Does a whole large sample break that threshold at the same time on something that takes thousands, millions of years? We are always told the numbers are too large to comprehend and it is easy to not question. I’m not saying it isn’t true but it still has not been sufficiently answered to me. This is a large gray area. This is what science is all about though isn’t it? It is about thinking and never leaving anything behind to pure consensus. The world might still be flat today if we did.

    kernunos said:
    July 7, 2009 at 7:10 pm

    I really am not too concerned about how old the earth is. I just hope it is still around for my children to live full lives.

    kernunos said:
    July 7, 2009 at 7:12 pm

    If you want a successful blog bring up global warming, abortion, Christianity, Islam and now Michael Jackson. If you can fit them all in one cohesively you will have quite the hits.

    magus71 responded:
    July 7, 2009 at 7:15 pm

    Michael jackson and Atheism will get me mad hits. Watch.

    kernunos said:
    July 7, 2009 at 7:18 pm

    Here is another link on falling temperatures in concurrence with rising CO2. I bet you will not see this where you get your news Will. The difference is I see both sides because I don’t have any choice but to see yours.

    http://minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/2009/07/global-temperatures-have-plunged-74f-since-gore-released-an-inconvenient-truth.html

    kernunos said:
    July 7, 2009 at 7:22 pm

    Oh Magus, you can do better than that. I’ll up you the Atkins Diet and dog fighting for a legalized marijuana and a Gitmo puff piece.

    magus71 responded:
    July 7, 2009 at 7:26 pm

    Oh Man. I fold.

    kernunos said:
    July 7, 2009 at 7:36 pm

    How about the EPA burying a report that contradicts the man made global warming hoopla?

    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread477294/pg1

    magus71 responded:
    July 8, 2009 at 5:46 am

    Yes, I believe this is the document my original post spoke of, written by Alan Carlin, the EPA economist.

    kernunos said:
    July 8, 2009 at 11:45 pm

    Yes, lol. I got a little carried away.

    kernunos said:
    July 9, 2009 at 5:23 pm

    Here is the high priest in all of his glory recently.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6658672.ece

    kernunos said:
    July 14, 2009 at 4:51 am

    The Queen needs to put a leash on this guy. Between him and Al Gore I’m glad I’m on this side. Koo-Koo…Koo-Koo.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/just-96-months-to-save-world-says-charles-1738049.html

    magus71 responded:
    July 14, 2009 at 11:39 am

    I’ve noticed that the rich and famous fall victim to the madness of utter boredom. Those who haven’t had to work hard for what they have. I have nothing against being rich–being poor is VASTLY overrated. But just as bad as being the street person who has to steal to get his malt liquor fix, is the Hollywood star who now makes 20 million a movie because he looks metrosexual and was willing to give a producer a blowjob.

    Gary: “Oh, I get it. I’m supposed to get in your car and let you put your finger inside me. Then, if I go down on you, I get a movie part.”

    Spottswoode: “…Nnno, I just want to show you something.”

    TEAM AMERICA: WORLD POLICE

    kernunos said:
    July 14, 2009 at 9:28 pm

    lol, it always goes back to Team America. The rich have a self guilt and hatred, maybe sub conscious but they want to make other people pay for their guilt.

    magus71 responded:
    July 15, 2009 at 4:32 am

    Team America is the codex of wisdom for generations to come. Scary but true..

    kernunos said:
    July 16, 2009 at 3:35 pm

    Coldest day record likely to be set Friday in Madison Wisconsin.

    http://www.madison.com/tct/news/stories/458551

    kernunos said:
    July 16, 2009 at 3:35 pm

    Brrrrrr, more reports out there.

    http://www.kfyrtv.com/News_Stories.asp?news=32084

    kernunos said:
    July 16, 2009 at 3:36 pm

    Here in Maine we have only had a handful of days that even came up to average temperatures. It has been a very cold summer.

    kernunos said:
    July 22, 2009 at 9:13 pm

    Will…..? Are you out there? Just some more anecdotal evidence but I must admit the pile is getting pretty high.

    http://www.whnt.com/news/sns-ap-tn–recordcool,0,4032125.story

    I think you follow a false religion.

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