Hilarious “Scientific” Support Of AGW In SF Chronicle Earns Beatdown
Here’s one from a few days ago I ran across, which already has garnered over 840 comments, most of them seemingly taking the writer, Peter Gleick, to task for his climahysterical article. Let’s see, shall we?
Here is the best argument against global warming:
. . . .
Oh, right. There isn’t one.
There is no good argument against global warming. In all the brouhaha about tiny errors recently found in the massive IPCC report, the posturing by global climate deniers, including some elected officials, leaked emails, and media reports, here is one fact that seems to have been overlooked:
First, it is not an argument against global warming. It is against man caused (anthropogenic, man induced, whatever you want to term it) global warming, or, as you folks call it, climate change, since you, in such a self-described scientific manner, link everything into it. Hot, cold, wet, dry, snow, tornadoes, hurricanes or lack thereof, frogs dying, species being found, allergies, etc and so on. Second, it is not incumbent upon us “deniers” to prove our theory, based on 4 billion years of history. You have to prove yours.
Third, those “tiny” errors are not actually tiny. Many of them are primary points within the UN IPCC, used to “prove” their whole position.
Those who deny that humans are causing unprecedented climate change have never, ever produced an alternative scientific argument that comes close to explaining the evidence we see around the world that the climate is changing.
I’ll leave that to the professionals at this moment, but, I did notice something, Pete. Do you mind if I call you Pete? Nowhere in you article do you provide a scientific argument that explains how the current warming period is caused “most likely,” to us, in the IPCC vernacular, by Mankind. Sucks to be you. Oh, hey, can you explain the “no statistical warming over the last 15 years,” or that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, as told by Phil Jones? How about all the “missing” data? Or that temperature upticks precede CO2? Or…..well, we all know the reality. Can we move Peter from stage 1 of the 5 stages of grief?
Here is the way scientists think science works: Ideas and theories are proposed to explain the scientific principles we understand, the evidence we see all around us, and the mathematical models we use to test theories. Alternative theories compete.
Gore, the self-anointed climate change alarmist-in-chief, told supporters on a March 15 conference call that severe weather in certain regions of the country could be attributed to carbon in the atmosphere – including the recent rash of rainy weather.
There’s your “scientific” theory, Pete. If everything can be blamed on global warming, it is no longer science, it is tautology.
Scientists are used to debating facts with each other, with the best evidence and theory winning. Well, this is a bar fight, where the facts are irrelevant, and apparently, the rules and tools of science are too. But who wins bar fights? As the Simpsons cartoon so brilliantly showed, bullies. Not always the guy who is right.
Al Gore is not a scientist, Pete. Nor is Barack Obama, nor are the Democrats (and Lindsay Graham) who are pushing this. Nor are a good chunk of those who wrote the IPCC. Hmmph. Strange, huh?
Anyhow, check out the comments. Great stuff.
Email This
Posted by William Teach on March 16, 2010 9:30 am
» Filed Under AGW hyposterics, Agenda based science, Collapsing Science, Fraud/misrepresentation, Global Warming, Government corruption, Government malfeasance/misfeasance, IPCC, Journalistic incompetence, Liberal Media/Bias, News, Science/pseudo-science, UN, man-made science
Trackback URL:
Comments
4 Responses to “Hilarious “Scientific” Support Of AGW In SF Chronicle Earns Beatdown”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
What’s encouraging here is to see the huge numbers of people standing up to say, “ENOUGH! We’re not sitting quiet any more while you talk crap!”
You’ve misspelled “incumbent,” but otherwise an excellent post. I’ll just observe that if AGW is responsible for everything, it is God. Whether that constitutes tautology or not I will leave for clearer thinkers.
Do you know when your scam is going south? When Britain shuts it down. Already they are having visceral reactions over there. I want to say I saw an article where a “green” commercial was banned because the statements it was making to children were unproven. We are talking in less than a year things have unraveled. And as I have said before, put one criminal charge on one scientist and he’ll puke up all the dirty little secrets. Eggsheads don’t do good in prison, unless they like wearing dresses and pumps.
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the King’s horses and all the King’s men
Couldn’t put Humpty together again!
(Even with the help of the UN!)
http://just-me-in-t.blogspot.com/2010/03/when-walls-come-tumbling-down.html