Obama’s newly announced science advisors have an agenda. John Holdren and Jane Lubchenko are two of the nation’s most prominent advocates for extremist actions to reduce the threat of global warming, and the fact he selected them tells us a lot about where we are headed. WaPo
Does Al Gore have it right? Is the debate over global warming over? In this clip he explains to a German audience recently that the complete polar ice cap will be gone in five years, totally ignoring data indicting ice melt has been caused by a change in winds rather than temperature, and also ignoring recent record gains in ice coverage.
What’s with Al Gore? I realize he isn’t a scientist, but neither am I. I’m guessing he can read as well as I can, though, and one would think he would feel a responsibility to speak logically and factually, and stay current on information relating to his topic of interest.
Perhaps his real interest is in cap-and-trade projects, and this has given him an incentive to see climate change through a glass darkly.
If the debate over global warming is over, it’s not because the science of the argument has been settled but because there can be no honest discussion. Proponents of the theory constantly change the rules, refuse open debate, and alter their hypothesis to fit the facts rather than follow those facts to a logical conclusion.
In other words, it isn’t a debate, rather a soliloquy where one side uses emotional manipulation to confound skeptics into ignoring the facts presented by the other. Isn’t that what our society is all about now? Emotional appeals? We also have to factor in a complicit media, without whose influence the national intelligence level might just rise by a significant degree.
So, coming soon to a TV near you, check out this rubbish:
Who pays for this kind of advertising and why? The question always has to be What’s In It For Me? In this case, what’s in it for advocates of global warming? And as always, follow the money.
For scientists - professional reputations and grant funding are at stake. For politicians - power over the economy, thus over the electorate. The first want to get money and prestige, the second want to control it. Nothing, NOTHING, will gain politicians as much leverage as a policy to control the economy by “controlling” the environment.
The original hypothesis for climate change, back in the 1970′s, was that the earth was cooling rapidly and we would soon be entering a new ice age – all thanks to mankind’s activity. Something had to be done! When the earth stopped cooling and started warming again the hypothesis was changed (isn’t it funny how they can get way with that?), and they began scaring us with theories of an incinerated earth.
Unfortunately for the warmists, the earth appears to be cooling again. It does that, you know – cools and warms, with long term trends and short term variations. It always has and it always will, and nothing anyone can do will change that. What arrogance to think otherwise.
Do they give up and admit climate changes are caused by forces beyond their control, even beyond their ability to explain? Of course not. Now they have a theory that cannot lose, because it is totally illogical and completely incomprehensible.
Long term global warming is causing short term global cooling, and weather is not climate.
Yep, that’s their theory now. Weather doesn’t count, because if it is getting cooler it just proves that long-term global warming is causing earth to cool in the short term.
If it is getting warmer, it is getting warmer. If it is getting cooler, it is getting warmer. Yep, you can’t argue against that one. Literally. I mean, how do you argue against a theory that says no matter what happens it proves the theory?
This latest hypothesis is a violation of the most basic of the laws of logic: the principle of non-contradiction. Something cannot be both A and not A. The weather cannot get colder while the climate gets hotter anymore than the earth can be flat while the world is round. This is not science, or logic; this is unabashed nonsense.
Yes. Climate science has come to this: We are now being told, in effect, to ignore the data and believe the hypothesis. I have recently written that global warming is not a science — it is a religion. I take it back. Global warming, aka climate crisis, is now a crisis of logic. In other words, it is insanity. Larrey Anderson