My skepticism of the idea that mankind is solely responsible for the increase in the average temperature of the planet was well documented before the host change that Gribbit’s Word recently endured. That said, I can say that the morons at the Church of Global Warming of Modern Day Idiots have successfully media blitzed the world into believing their modern day flat earth society’s BS. Chalk that up to the only success that former VP and current High Priest of the MDI has ever, and I mean EVER, had. A Power Point propaganda presentation masquerading as a documentary for which High Priest Al Gore was given, not won or earned, but given a Nobel Prize.
In his propaganda film Gore announces that a “consensus” existed in the scientific community that supported his chicken little claims. This is an idea that this past year’s IPCC report tended to support but facts being facts seems to be lacking in truth.
According into a recent Senate Committee report over 400 scientists are debunking Mr. Gore’s claims.
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. SOURCE
I was talking with someone the other day who doesn’t always see eye to eye with me on political issues about another subject and this person said that often times we as a society want to put a policy into place without fully knowing what that policy will do. The discussion was about making the HPV vaccine a requirement for all female public school students. The person I was speaking with stated a concern that the powers that be have no clue as to what kind of long term impact this vaccine will have. This is the same thing only larger.
Game show host and conservative commentator Pat Sajak asks 10 very important questions:
1. What is the perfect temperature?
2. Just what is the average temperature of the earth?
3. What factors have led to global warming in the past, and how do we know they aren’t the causes of the current warming trend?
4. Why is there such a strong effort to stifle discussion and dissent?
5. Why are there such dramatically different warnings about the effects of man-made global warming?
6. Are there potential benefits to global warming?
7. Should such drastic changes in public policy be based on a “what if?” proposition?
8. What will be the impact on the people of the world if we change the way we live based on man-made global warming concerns?
9. How will we measure our successes?
10. How has this movement gained such momentum?
[To See Pat Sajak's explainations why he's asking each question visit Human Events Online]
These are questions that nobody on the other side of this debate can answer and they try to pretend that their lack of ability to answer them isn’t important. Ask yourself… Why?
Truth is if they were to get everything they want and nothing happens except for the fact that life becomes more difficult and more expensive as not only the economy of the United States, but they whole world collapses, they will move on to something else like the earth is entering a new ice age. Which is the exact same place that these same pinheads were at in 1974.
Any time a scientist says he’s certain that he has the answer and debate is over on the subject, that means he’s lying and has no clue as to what he’s talking about. When a liberal says it, it means that he’s lying and has no idea what he’s talking about. Get the picture?
Sphere: Related Content![[del.icio.us]](http://gribbitonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://gribbitonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Reddit]](http://gribbitonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/reddit.png)
![[Sphere]](http://gribbitonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/sphere.png)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://gribbitonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/stumbleupon.png)
![[Technorati]](http://gribbitonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/technorati.png)
![[Email]](http://gribbitonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
Specifically, the “consensus” about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:
1) the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
2) the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
3) the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
4) if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
5) a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.
These conclusions have been explicitly endorsed by …
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed these conclusions:
NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
I’ll take this “consensus” over the 400 “scientists” handpicked by Sen Inhofe for his minority skeptics report.
This reminds me very much of the two controversies over smoking. At first the tobacco industry refused to admit that smoking cigarettes caused cancer, and promoted studies by tobacco industry funded studies showing no harmful effects. Once it became clear to everyone they were lying, they changed the focus to be that of “choice”, and then it was revealed that the tobacco industry was manipulating the chemical content of cigarettes to be more addictive and so on.
Next came the issue of second hand smoke, and the same thing happened: studies were funded showing no harmful effects, and the same spokespeople were hired to go around “debunking” the harmful effects of second hand smoke, until the evidence was so completely overwhelming that even the surgeon general of the Bush Administration had to say:
“The scientific evidence is now indisputable: Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance. It is a serious health hazard that can lead to disease and premature death in children and nonsmoking adults.”
The same pattern of misrepresentation of the facts is now going on, but this time the subject is the threat of global climate change. I recently was forwarded an article listing all of the research against global warming, and tracked down the author’s name to similar “debunking” articles he had written about the health effects of smoking. He was part of a company who is paid to promote whatever point of view industry wants to pay him to promote, which is easy for those who don’t understand how science works. On any topic its easy to find a published study or two which contradicts or seems to contradict whatever opinion you’re working against.