"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." ~ George Bernard Shaw
After almost two years of blogging, I am beginning to figure out what issues tend to draw the most attention and generate the most comments from readers. My opinions (or, as Lone Ranger says, my convictions) on homosexuality, abortion, and environmentalism are generally the hottest topics here at my place.
And curiously, a mere mention of Rush Limbaugh appears to make the Liberals blood boil. I once wrote a post where I only mentioned Rush's name once and I received a veritable fountain of angry comments concerning him, and the post wasn't even about him.
Yesterday, I mentioned a recent study that determined Rush is right 97.4% of the time when he made predictions of what the left or the Democrats (not necessarily synonymous) would say or do.
In light of the recent claims by some "scientists" that human activity is definitely the cause of Global Warming, Rush has had quite a bit to say on the subject lately, and naturally, he doesn't agree.
Well, he's no scientist, so how would he know?
For the record, he doesn't say that there is no such thing as global warming. His position is that there is just no scientific evidence to support the theory.
Well today's post is concerning two of the above topics. Rush Limbaugh and Global Warming.
Rush has made the point that in order for there to be a determination of fact on any scientific discovery, first a theory has to be advanced based on observation, then it has to be tested and proven before it can be stated as scientific fact.
And Global warming has yet to be proven. In other words, there is no factual evidence that global warming exists, let alone caused by human activity.
Now, one commenter has suggested Rush doesn't know this is true, he just pulls these tidbits out of his nether regions and presents them as fact to his listeners. I believe the exact words used were, "Rush is a clown who simply blabs descriptions of what he is pulling out of his ass."
It would seem that some of my commenters deny that Rush has the capability to do research, even though he, as well as his staff, have the entire world wide web at their disposal.
Well, I've stumbled, accidentally, across a couple of articles that appear to prove that Rush is right again. And again, I will state, for the record, that neither Rush nor I deny that global warming exists, but rather, we doubt the evidence provided for it by the Liberals favorite global warming scientists, like...uh...you know...Leonardo DiCaprio and Al Gore.
Anyway, here are the articles. Read them:
"Al Gore is a Greenhouse Gasbag"
Here is an excerpt:
"Not Bob Giegengack. He has described Al Gore’s documentary as “a political statement timed to present him as a presidential candidate in 2008.” And he added, “The glossy production is replete with inaccuracies and misrepresentations, and appeals to public fear as shamelessly as any other political statement that hopes to unite the public behind a particular ideology.” This from a guy who voted for Gore in 2000 and says he’d probably vote for him again."
And, from the Canada Free Press.
Here is an excerpt from this one:
"Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets."
The one thing both reports have in common is they agree with Rush Limbaugh's conclusion that global warming is not a scientific fact, but rather an untested theory. And a poor theory at that, based on their own scientific analysis.
Again, I say, Read them!
I know it is a pain for the Liberals to admit, (so, of course, they won't) but again, Rush is right!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
How can their theory be tested when they have little to no data befor the beginning og the 20th century?
BTW, I still believe that ALGORE will be the 2008 Democratic nominee.
"homosexuality, abortion, and environmentalism are generally the hottest topics here at my place."
Could it be that these are the areas where you pass on the most incorrect information and misinformation and, being concerned citizens of the same society, we like to address misinforation so that folk base support or opposition to policy based upon actual information?
Could it be that we don't actually hate anyone, but rather, that we value correct data? That we love America and our fellow citizens and want us to dialog together to work out our differences to the extent that is possible and to encourage agreeable disagreement when we can't come to consensus?
Dan, No. It couldn't. it is because we disagree. Now what say you about the articles? Are these scientists wrong?
Global warming is a reality. That is, it is scientifically known that the mean surface temperature is warmer today than it was 100 years ago.
No one is debating that notion.
What has been a matter of debate is whether human activity is contributing inordinantly to global warming.
Many studies - including the just released one - indicate that a good number of scientists believe that the data supports the theory that human activity IS contributing to global climate change.
This is what I've read. Are their other studies out there that debate human activity's impact upon climate change? Sure. It's not an exact science.
But if Rush or anyone is saying there is no such thing as "global warming," I don't believe the data upholds that notion. Most of those who make that claim seem to be doing so for political, rather than scientific reasons.
As to human activity and the environment, we know that humans can and do negatively impact the environment anytime we dump toxins in the air, water or ground. And we do this on a systematic, regular basis.
Don't believe me? Come to Louisville and catch some catfish out of the river and eat 'em. But do so at your own risk because science shows us the data that those fish have toxins that would make them unsafe to eat.
So, knowing that humans DO negatively impact the environment and that many scientists think there's evidence to support the notion that human activity is also contributing to climatic change, is it not prudent - conservative! - to approach these problems with the attitude that we ought to not proceed with increasing toxic waste to our air and water until we know at what levels we can do so safely?
It's the conservative concept of prudence that urges us to proceed with caution.
Sorry so long, but scientific data can be difficult to discuss in one sentence or less.
Dan, I absolutely refuse to debate with you until your comments start reflecting that you are actually reading the entire post and subsequent links. Neither of the two previous comments you left demonstrate that you read the post.
Mark, I was taught that science starts with the establishment of a hypothesis (a theory needing investigation) and that the correct process was to prove the hypothesis wrong. Failure to prove a hypothesis wrong in essence should lead to a repeatable scientific fact. Has that changed in the last 45 years?
A cursory review of recorded temperatures will reveal highs and lows that are somewhat cyclical. There were periods of warming many years ago when the human population was significantly less and our industrial impact was significantly less. The global warming “scientists” have not adequately addressed that phenomenon that I have seen.
I will certainly agree that man does have a significant impact on his surrounding environment and that we should be prudent and responsible where possible; however I do not subscribe to the Chicken Little sky-is-falling wagon that Al Gore is peddling. (I doubt if Al’s pitch would be well received in Chicago right now.)
Scientists do not have a good track record of looking at evidence and drawing the correct conclusion. Their conclusion is only an opinion until they can repeatedly produce the same results.
Do I recall a mini ice age was headed our way a few years ago? That was based upon “scientists” examining evidence, too. So, who really has the better track record; the “scientists” or the skeptics?
Mark I read 'em, or at least enough to get the point.
And I commented, responding to a particular remark that you made:
"His position is that there is just no scientific evidence to support the theory."
THAT was one of the main gists of your essay. I responded to that saying:
"Global warming is a reality. That is, it is scientifically known that the mean surface temperature is warmer today than it was 100 years ago."
So, I don't know what you're saying when you say:
"I absolutely refuse to debate with you until your comments start reflecting that you are actually reading the entire post and subsequent links."
Don't debate with me, I don't really care. It's just that you brought up the topic, made an incorrect assertion, which I corrected. (Also validating another point I made IN RESPONSE to your comments about why people comment here).
Do with that what you will.
If I recall correctly, one of the leading advocates of global warming wrote a book in the '70's warning of the coming ice age. Guess he kinda invalidated himself.
Global warming & global freezing have come & gone thru the ages. In the geological scheme of things, any global warming now is more likely a result of that cycle.
One good Krakatoa can change earth temperature more than six billion people. In fact, the Chicken Littles can probably be blamed for all the hot air they're spewing.
Liberals value data skewed to their own ideology. Truth is irrelevent.
"If global warming is a sure thing, how come the Chicago area and farther North there are experiencing some of the coldest weather recorded for 30 years."
Global warming refers to the mean surface temperature around the world. It doesn't mean that some areas aren't cold - just that, on average, the surface temperature has been increasing over the last century.
The fact of global warming (which is not disputed by scientists - the only thing up for debate is whether humans are impacting climate change and to what degree) can contribute to global climatic change in general around the world, some scientists think.
lol, global warming isn't a theory nor is it referred to as such in the scientific literature.
saying that CO2 added to the atmosphere won't increase temperature is like saying that adding NaCl to water doesn't lower it's freezing point.
Dan, you say ,""Global warming is a reality." and you say, "The fact of global warming (which is not disputed by scientists)...) and you say, " many scientists think there's evidence to support the notion that human activity is also contributing to climatic change..."
Global Warming is a theory. It most certainly IS disputed by scientists. Even you admmit that many, not all scientists agree. That makes it only a theory. The only time science is fact is when all scientists have consensus on a theory that has been tested and proven. Global warming has not been proven, as the two articles I linked to have stated. There are many other articles about and by scientists who say the same thing. Hence, it is only a theory.
It has to be proven beyond a doubt to be considered fact.
You Liberals remind me of Petruccio and Kathryn in "The Taming of the Shrew" by Shakespeare. You could actually be convinced the sun is the moon if it fit into your agenda.
The fact is that the earth is warmer now than it was 100 years ago. THAT part is the data with which scientists agree.
That human activity is causing it is not fully settled but a large number of scientists believe it.
I'm distinguishing between the fact that the earth is warmer and the theory that humans are causing it. The known or factual part is that the earth is warmer - Global Warming is a reality.
The theory part is that human activity may be responsible.
By the way, Bush and his scientists not only agree with the facts about global warming, but with the theory that humans are contributing to it:
http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/airenergy_warming.asp
Look at those stories and you will see that there's no debate about the facts that the earth has warmed in the last 100 years, just about the cause.
From the wacky wonderful folks who brought you Darwinian Theory: Global Warming! Yikes! But wait, now they're calling it "Climate change" --could it be that they're hedging their bets because they're not sure which way is up?
I find it hard to believe these morons can predict that the earth is going to get way warmer quickly when they can't even tell me if it will snow tomorrow or not...
OK, Dan. You are right according to these two articles I linked to. The Earth has warmed apparently since the 1600's, but there is still no consensus that it is caused by human activity, in fact, the evidence suggests rising CO2 levels are the result, rather than the cause of it. It is caused by our eliptical orbit around the sun, and normal warming and cooling natural cycles.
That's all I was saying. I was just trying to point out that those who say the earth isn't warming are not listening to/looking at the data.
That human activity is contributing to it is a matter of debate.
I would differ from you and say that there appears to be a consensus that human activity is likely contributing to it, based upon what the latest reports from the world's leading climatologists:
In 2007, as part of its Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] concluded that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability.
"The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, is very likely caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries, ... . The phrase very likely translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame."
http://www.ipcc.ch/
That a goodly number of scientists and specifically scientists in the field of climatology seem to be in agreement says a lot. It doesn't say that human activity is the cause beyond all doubt, but it says a lot.
For me, climate change as caused by humans is not even the main point, though. Rather, the question of whether or not it is responsible for me, as an individual, or all of us as a society, to throw our toxic waste into our common air and water is the pertinent question.
I don't see much difference between dumping toxic waste via our automobiles, homes and businesses (which is a legally and culturally accepted way) and going right out in the back yard and dropping toxic waste in my neighbor's yard. It's a personal responsibility issue.
The climate change topic is just another consideration in the broader issue of personal responsiblity.
Hi Mark,
Excellent post. I love the fact that there is so much faith on the left in these scientist, showing the environmental movement is one of faith, and not science. But not true faith mind you, just people believing what they want because it meets their agenda.
Good post.
If Rush said "The sky is green." he would not have a 97.4% chance of being right.
Putting the fact that someone (uncited) did a survey and found his predictions of "liberal" actions right 97.4% of the time. Then placing it beside the fact that he disagrees with a hypothesis supported by a majority of the world's meteorological scientists and a majority of the world's governments and a super majority of the world's public, does not invalidate the hypothesis. It doesn't even make the idea of human driven global warming more skeptical when you add in two medium sized newspaper columns.
If you want to talk about global warming, then read some actual scientific reports. Learn the intimate details about how arctic ice core samples are taken. examine graphs of global sea temperatures through the past century. Then when you know WHY you disagree with the idea that people could be raising the average temperature of the earth speak up.
We can examine the ice that was frozen centuries ago into glaciers to know how much CO2 was in the air at any one time. Somewhere in the last century the amount in out current atmosphere began to skyrocket. There are very few natural sources for so much CO2 and associated gasses. Unless someone has missed a new continent of vegetation rising from the sea then the most likely sources for these gasses is humanity.
Scientists have investigated what these increased levels of CO2 would do to the atmosphere. Extra layers of these gasses in the atmosphere act like "green-house glass" They let sunlight/heat in and trap it.
The reason global warming is still called a theory by some is because it can't be replicated. We can't create another earth and people it with 3 billion people for 4 millennium. We also can't create another universe to see if we can replicate gravity. Most people still see it as part of reality.
Now we're just debating how to deal with the mess we've made unknowingly for our future. If temperatures rise to far then the polar caps will melt to a point where they can't retain ice through the summer. Once that happens sea levels will rise to a depth of possibly up to 50 feet. That means no more Caribbean. No more New York. No more New Orleans. No more Indonesia. Good bye to lots of the Mediterranean.
That's the basic science lesson.
1. Truth can't be quantified.
2. Global warming is reality.
Bent, you have just proved my(and Rush's) point with your own words, "...hypothesis supported by a majority of the world's meteorological scientists..."
A hypothesis is not a scientific fact, but merely an unproven theory. a majority of scientists is not a consensus of all scientists, which is required before one can say a theory is scientific fact.
As Rush has said repeatedly, The third requirement for a theory to be a fact is still unproven, thus Rush is right.
And I'm sorry. I do not know who determined that Rush is right 97.4% of the time. All I know is I heard about the study and I have nothing to back it up. But I never said I knew for a fact he was. I myself have heard him make a mistake a couple of times, but that would still be within the 2.6% of the time he is wrong.
I do not say global warming is not real, I simply say that it is unproven, thus, it is a THEORY!
There is evidence to suggest the Earth's temperature has been gradually warming since the 1600's, as I have mentioned, (the three decades in the 2oth century that were so cold, some scientists predicted a coming ice age, notwithstanding) but there is still no evidence that man has caused it, which is exactly as Rush says.
And by the way, Bent. Rush would not say the sky is green, unless of course, it was.
"but there is still no evidence that man has caused it, which is exactly as Rush says."
Mark, again, there IS evidence that says humanity is contributing to it. That's why so many scientists believe that it's likely true.
It's not a proven fact, but there IS a substantial bit of evidence.
I think part of the problem here is that there's a misconception about the word, "theory."
In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality.
In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition.
Dan: Stop eating those catfish! It's clear that the mercury levels in the fish are affecting your mind.
What a condescending socialist prick!
Manmade global warming is being presented as absolute, indisputable fact no matter what your chief socialist has to say.
Any scientist who disagrees is labeled as somehow "not crebible" whereas Al Gore can put out a left wing propanda film with all the intellectual integrity of a Michael Moore blame-America epic and be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
The science here has become polticized to the point that the advocates of the manmade position are able to intimidate other scientists who might wish to research the issue further.
And of course we had the case just last month of some Weather Channel babe insisting that those who disagreed with her should have their accreditation revoked which would mean the loss of their job.
With the $TRILLIONS that would be required to totally restructure ONLY the Western economy (and assume that only the US complies, as there is evidence Europe is currently cheatin on Kyoto) we could fund poverty, health care, nutritition and literacy programs all the children the world over.
The people pushing this radical, unproven and dangerous scheme have motives other than concern for the environment.
Scratch the surface and what do you have? A Socialist or worse.
A theory can reach such a preponderance of evidence supporting it that it becomes accepted fact. There are people who disagree with Einstein's THEORY of relativity. They think it is wrong when dealing with micro-sub-quantum distances. Lots of ballistic computer models do not use Einstein's theories. They use Newton's. Not because Einstein is wrong, but because Newton's calculations have enough precision for their needs. In the same vein there is speculation around global warming. As average sea temperature rises does that produce enlarged plankton blooms producing more CO2? That's a research paper I read recently. It could certainly be used by someone who fights against the idea of man-made global warming, but that would be a distortion. Just as your words are distortions.
[I really shouldn't respond to this sort of childish rhetoric, but...]
Mike said:
"What a condescending socialist prick!"
I love you, too, Mike.
Condescending: To talk down to.
I merely pointed out the facts and the theories and differentiated between them. That's "condescending"? Would you prefer erroneous information be passed on?
Mark was fine with the corrected information (that is, that I pointed out that it is not a theory that the earth is warmer, but a known and accepted fact). If you're concerned about someone dealing with facts, Mike, it might do your blood pressure better if you stay in your own world.
As to your love affair with calling people you disagree with vile names and "socialists" (and "commies" and "traitors" and all manner of words used incorrectly), one has to wonder what's going on?
Is it that you have a crush on me and this is your equivelant of dipping my ponytail in the ink bottle? Are you sweet on me and trying to get my attention? Did your daddy not pay enough attention to you when you were a boy? Did Reagan molest you when you were a page in his office?
What's going on, Mike?
I have listened to Rush on a daily basis now for 10 years and he is right 99% of the time. Love him or hate him he's right!!
Interesting analysis, Mark. Global warming? Here...in Çhicago? You gotta be kiddin' me!!! It's not that I don't devoid the theory, but I also don't devoid Darwinism. So if I'm a Christian American what does that make me? Uh...can we all say the definition of theory:
theory; a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained : Darwin's theory of evolution. • a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based : a theory of education | music theory. • an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action : my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged. • Mathematics a collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a subject.
Good Grief, said Charlie Brown!
Post a Comment