2/2/2007
Global warming idiocy propped by the UN
Nobody said they were all that bright, either. Look at Kofi’s denials about the oil for food program. Why we are looking to the UN to save us is beyond me. Why we are members is even further beyond me, and why the HQ is in the US is astonishing: what other nation was founded on the principles of freedom besides us? Most of them are communist dictators.
I’ve been seeing news reports stating it as fact: global warming is indeed caused by man. But where is the proof? As Bill at Pirate’s Cove mentions in this post, the UN has come out with some stupid report that was produced in France. Let’s not forget Meyssan’s the communist’s idea of what happened to the Pentagon. I take little that comes out of France; including Jean Francois Kerrie as something factual, other than the fact that mold grows on their famous cheeses. Perhaps there is something to the notion that the latte sipping communists in the cafes there let a little bit of that mold seep into their brains.
My fascination with this is growing, based in part on the legislation posed by the democrats within Pelosi’s first 100 hours, and hysterical moonbats who enter into my comments section, completely convinced they can throw their thought control waves in my direction.
There is no clear discernible effect of human activities on global temperatures. Chart from Geologic Constraints on Global Climate Variability (a powerpoint presentation), produced by Dr. Lee Gerhard of the Kansas Geological Society.
This is a very revealing pie chart, because for some strange reason, in spite of the fact that humans are contributing such a small portion to the environment, environmentalists in their hysteria are claiming that restricting our input is somehow going to manipulate the environment. Wouldn’t it seem that even if we completely eliminate our CO2 input to the atmosphere it will have little if any effect overall? If you take this chart in addition to the idea that the environment is totally dynamic and corrects itself, that gives further pause to the ‘global warming myth’ that they’re using to increase the number of government restrictions over us. You can see a lot of this myth completely exposed over at Junk Science dot com. Things like - the earth simply doesn’t behave like a greenhouse. We don’t live in a terrarium. In addition to that, CO2 is not pollution:
There seem to be a few things that your informant forgot to tell you — like carbon dioxide being an essential trace gas that underpins the bulk of the global food web. Estimates vary, but somewhere around 15% seems to be the common number cited for the increase in global food crop yields due to aerial fertilization with increased carbon dioxide since 1950.
My dad said…plants LOOOOOVE carbon dioxide, so the more that’s put into the atmosphere, the more plants will thrive.
This increase has both helped avoid a Malthusian disaster and preserved or returned enormous tracts of marginal land as wildlife habitat that would otherwise have had to be put under the plow in an attempt to feed the growing global population. Commercial growers deliberately generate CO2 and increase its levels in agricultural greenhouses to between 700ppmv and 1,000ppmv to increase productivity and improve the water efficiency of food crops far beyond those in the somewhat carbon-starved open atmosphere. CO2 feeds the forests, grows more usable lumber in timber lots meaning there is less pressure to cut old growth or push into “natural” wildlife habitat, makes plants more water efficient helping to beat back the encroaching deserts in Africa and Asia and generally increases bio-productivity. If it’s “pollution,” then it’s pollution the natural world exploits extremely well and to great profit.
Oh, it’s very much a political issue; but I also agree that environmentalists aren’t very moral, either, since they think a man is a dog is a bug and can’t distinguish between any of them, and don’t elevate man any higher than the spotted owl or a mosquito. They subscribe to the methodoligical materialist evolutionary theory; that man was not created in God’s image.
Bottom line is, they use junk science to make government bigger. And how is that not political? Particularly when some of us are striving to cut back on the size of government in order to preserve our personal freedom, as our founders taught us? Thomas Jefferson said, “Government that governs least governs best.”
But that isn’t what the Greens are trying to achieve. Jane Chastain wrote at WND that Ralph Nader is more red than green, and that is the truth;
Both the Democratic Socialists of America and the Green Party have long histories and red, or communist, roots. The July 2000 Green Bulletin states, “For those of you not familiar with us, The Greens/Green Party USA started in 1984 as the Committees of Correspondence.” Alan Caruba, the editor of the National Anxiety Center’s publication, Warning Signs, has traced this history for us. “The Communist Party that took over Russia in 1917 began as ‘committees of correspondence.’ In 1989, its name was changed to Green Committees of Correspondence and, in 1991, to The Greens/Green Party USA.”
And Ralph Nader has long been fighting ’social injustice’, but you have to take a good luck at the Greens and where they came from. From Alan Caruba, the editor of the National Anxiety Center’s publication, Warning Signs:
“The Communist Party that took over Russia in 1917 began as ‘committees of correspondence.’ In 1989, its name was changed to Green Committees of Correspondence and, in 1991, to The Greens/Green Party USA.”
To make the devastatingly stupid statement that the environmental movement is not ‘political’ is to completely ignore the facts. Michael Moore is a ‘Green’, and we saw how ‘nonpolitical’ he is with his schlockumentary, Fahrenheit 9/11.
As so much of the real evidence suggests, humans are not altering the atmosphere because the earth corrects itself. Even if things continue as they do for the next 100 years, and we do all we can to limit our contribution to C02 in the atmosphere, it will only have an effect of less than .05 degrees.
One of the funniest things about the global warming myth is ‘cooling is due to warming’. The very essence of the debate is we are not to accept any scientific data which is not government funded, and which does not support the growth of government bureaucracy. And to me, that doesn’t equate to science at all; which postulates and tests new theories. Shouldn’t science be open to doing that? Not where global warming and evolution are concerned! Instead of calmly and rationally discussing all points of view, like true scientists would do; in those two instances, other points of view are completely shut out in view of blind hysteria to push through completely unnecessary legislation.
Thanks to Pirate’s Cove, Basil, Bullwinkle, The Pink Flamingo, Woman Honor Thyself, The Hill Chronicles, Adam’s Blog, Is It Just Me?, Ferdy, Phastidio.net, , stikNstein…has no mercy, The Amboy Times, Right Celebrity, The Random Yak, The Renaissance Blogger, Third World County, 123 Beta, Right Voices, A Blog For All, Pursuing Holiness, Right Truth, The Right Nation, Outside the Beltway, Big Dog’s Weblog, Stuck on Stupid, Maggie’s Notebook, Sujet Celebrities, Right Pundits, Conservative Thoughts, Diary of a Mad Pigeon, Jo’s Cafe
123beta linked with SuperBowl Trackback Weekend
February 2nd, 2007 at 6:33 pm
More proof that the US needs to succeed…
February 2nd, 2007 at 6:34 pm
SuperBowl Trackback Weekend
Welcome to another open trackback party! Pull up a chair, kick off your shoes and relax. Can I get you a beer or snack…
February 2nd, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Oopss… I meant to write: secede instead of succeed… Sorry.
February 2nd, 2007 at 7:22 pm
I get a kick out of you.
Thanks for the correction, I wasn’t quite sure what you were driving at.
February 2nd, 2007 at 8:08 pm
I’m reading all the doomsday headlines today. Global Warming is ALMOST certainly caused by man.
Scientists say they are 99% sure…
What scientists? Who are these people? Who do they work for? Who funds their so called scientific research? I want to see the studies- the reports and what method they used to come to these conclusions. Using computer models is not scientific and I hear that is what MUCH of this is based upon.
I want to learn more about this as it’s going to be something we hear about a lot. And yes- we’re going to be asked to pay outrageous amounts of our hard earned money to save the world when it doesn’t need to be saved.
February 2nd, 2007 at 9:49 pm
You’re right, Raven. It’s all just too much. I love what the guy says over at the press democrat forum:
Or how about this little gem:
I like this part, too:
It isn’t only me that is saying this stuff, most people are realizing that we’re about to be had.
February 2nd, 2007 at 9:57 pm
February 2nd, 2007 at 11:04 pm
I know GM writes a lot about this topic. It baffles me how these supposed SCIENTISTS can stand up to this stuff. Science is real, or when it’s theory based, THEORY is always tested and re tested until it’s either ruled out or proven. Science isn’t about making educated guesses. Not at all.
February 3rd, 2007 at 4:23 am
It seems to me that this is more represntative of a blind religious dogma. This fits in with how they treat Darwin’s theory of evolution, which has slipped into medical ethics. We saw this with how they treated Terri Schiavo’s family during our struggle to point out that she was not PVS.
It is denial, based on emotions; and it seems totally irrational to me. This is a secular religious dogma that doesn’t include compassion or humility, thinking of others, or sacrificing for people you love, which is what Christ taught. To my way of thinking, these people really need a ‘higher power’, because they think they’re all powerful. These are people who want to be the ‘ruling class’, who don’t think the rules apply to them, and want to dictate what we think, what we print on our blogs, and how we behave in public. Most peculiar; they identify quoting the bible as a hate crime.
The thing that particularly bothers me about the CO2 hysteria is the fact that it actually feeds plants, and we have been using it in agriculture for its positive effect. Plants clean the environment; even of nasty things like formaldehyde and other things which ARE pollutants (CO2 is not).
February 3rd, 2007 at 6:18 am
The report actually gets worse. I slogged through the rest of it last night, and I just love their version of science. The word “likely” crops up quite a bit. I always thought that science involved hard facts. I wonder what would have happened to Galileo if he said “gravity is likely to cause things to fall.”
February 3rd, 2007 at 6:25 am
Their version isn’t science at all; it’s hysterical hyperbole; meant to draw attention-getting headlines and motivate congress to legislate, legislate, legislate!
And that doesn’t even take into account how totally incapable the UN is of doing anything productive other than work toward globalization and the New World Order.
I keep thinking about Silent Spring and how that ended up bringing about the deaths of millions from totally preventable malaria; an epidemic that continues today!
February 3rd, 2007 at 8:52 am
There is a 90 percent certainty the cause is fossil fuel emisions. The scientists have finished their job. Only a fool waits for 100 per cent certainty of an impending and irreversible disaster. :::[Global Warming Watch]
February 3rd, 2007 at 9:01 am
How about if we just got sources who could give us hard science instead of opinion stated as fact? That’s not 100%, I’m just asking for something that doesn’t look as though it’s manufactured with a specific end in mind. You know, like paid pundits; or paid researchers who are ‘looking’ for a specific thing, and will get paid if they manufacture it.
Cite the sources of your impending disaster and show me who paid for the research. And please don’t link to a site called ‘global warming watch’ and then call me a fool. That’s a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black.
I know it’s asking a lot, but try thinking; God gave you a brain, it would behoove you to use it. Making sweeping generalizations citing idiotic sources that promote the propaganda doesn’t fly here, so remember that if you continue to follow me and harrass me in comments, your comments will not be published unless you can back yourself up with research and stop calling me an idiot. I am being very specific in my reasoning, and the science behind it. You would serve your argument better if you didn’t appear quite so defensive and hysterical.
CO2 is not fossil fuel. You’re talking about methane, so let’s see the data.
And neither is water.
90% to 95% of “Global Warming” is generated by water. See also
Roberta Barbalace. CO2 Pollution and Global Warming. EnvironmentalChemistry.com. Nov. 7, 2006. Accessed on-line: 2/3/2007
http://EnvironmentalChemistry.com//yogi/environmental/200611CO2globalwarming.html.
Already an error was discovered and acknowledged in the BBC Climate Change Experiment. So now even they know they’re wildly over-guess-timating. The BBC is advising those they dragooned into the project that their model runs will be restarting here. Meanwhile, Red Tops like The Inquirer are mischievously postulating “With around 200,000 PCs running the experiment non-stop for two months, it looks very much as if the BBC experiment is making more of a contribution to global warming than scientific knowledge.” Fortunately, the real world, and those of us who live in it, are not so easily swayed and/or perturbed.
Global warming’s omitted variable
Global warming scientists are not practicing science, they’re practicing propagandists with an end in mind that has nothing to do with science.
Alec Rawls concludes:
These lies are intentional. The goal is to have a grounds for demanding the curtailment of human activity. That is the founding stone of environmental religion. Environmentalists see man as displacing nature, and in this contest, they side with nature. As the self-appointed representatives of a natural world that cannot speak for itself, they see all human impacts as by definition bad, and the interdiction of human impacts as necessarily good, regardless of whether the pretext for curtailing human activity is honest or dishonest.
February 3rd, 2007 at 6:32 pm
I hate this…using “science” that isn’t real science. They should be ashamed of themselves- these people.
GW is quickly going to turn into an urban legend if they keep citing these unscientific facts. (good)
February 3rd, 2007 at 7:21 pm
It blows, doesn’t it? And I keep wondering to myself; why is it that it’s so obvious to me, yet the elitist thought police keep coming here as though they have the right to tell me what to do on my own blog?
Raven, did you see this? There are over 100 comments on that thread. These people are hysterical! Remember the frenchie days? That’s what this is reminding me of; only I’m better prepared.