Log in

No account? Create an account
Thoughts Online Magazine
Collected Articles on Culture & Politics
Global Warming Alarmists: the Screamers. 
13th-Feb-2011 02:37 pm
As it turns out, there is now a point-by-point refutation (PDF) of the major hysterical claims of the global warming crowd, citing peer-reviewed research showing that the claims are wildly overblown.

Not, of course, that I expect those whose political party needs global warming to justify an expansion in the government to acknowledge scientific argument. They haven't so far. Since doing so might argue for dismantling the inflated staffing set in place to deal with this, and since the point for them is that there be no check to their officious intermeddling in daily life, they could simply argue that the report is a threat to employment. They would be right. Their employment.

UPDATE: Fuller Treatment here. The claims of damage are wrong. From a letter protesting the alarmists:

These are just two recent compilations of scientific research among many we could cite. Do the 678 scientific studies referenced in the CO2 Science document, or the thousands of studies cited in the NIPCC report, provide real-world evidence (as opposed to theoretical climate model predictions) for global warming-induced increases in the worldwide number and severity of floods? No. In the global number and severity of droughts? No. In the number and severity of hurricanes and other storms? No.

Do they provide any real-world evidence of Earth's seas inundating coastal lowlands around the globe? No. Increased human mortality? No. Plant and animal extinctions? No. Declining vegetative productivity? No. More frequent and deadly coral bleaching? No. Marine life dissolving away in acidified oceans? No.

Quite to the contrary, in fact, these reports provide extensive empirical evidence that these things are not happening. And in many of these areas, the referenced papers report finding just the opposite response to global warming, i.e., biosphere-friendly effects of rising temperatures and rising CO2 levels.

Let's spend our money, borrowed as it is, on something that either preserves or expands our country and its resources.
14th-Feb-2011 10:39 pm (UTC)
20th-Feb-2011 08:23 am (UTC)
Of course it's already circulated by the alarmists that you can't trust the information because Exxon gave them $25,000.


If that's the way we're supposed to judge everything, then we rally can't trust *anything* we read that cost any money to produce. Of course, they say we can trust *them*, because they're not evil (or something like that).

*another sigh*

It's like when communists insist that communism would've worked if all those other guys had done it right.
20th-Feb-2011 03:08 pm (UTC)
So in response, I would be logically obliged to point out that they had put something in a recycling bin, and therefore could not speak objectively about this and be believed for the rest of their lives?

And they want to say that their nonsense is science?
This page was loaded Sep 20th 2017, 2:00 am GMT.