A short observation and then I must go.
A common critique (which I actually agree with) that the left dishes out of "global warming deniers" is that they "foolishly" use examples of record cold temperatures in specific areas and ignore the overall macro-empirical evidence of global temperature trends. This is usually couched in a phrase such as;
"Those stupid right-wingers no doubt are going to use a snow storm in Spokane to prove that globally the planet is cooling. Those morons!"
However, by the same logic, and assuming they are adult enough to adhere to intellectual honesty, wouldn't every anecdotal bit of evidence that "proves" global warming be equally worthless?
Things like;
"Glaciers in this particular mountain range are eroding."
Or
"Polar bears in this particular area are less populous than they were before."
Or
"Global warming will kill this particular group of frogs."
I mean at least the "dumb-moronic right wingers" are talking about temperatures directly and therefore are at least speaking directly to global warming, not hypothesizing about the theoretical indirect, tangential effects, 6 times removed having some adverse effect on some endangered species according to a computer model that failed to pick up this recent trend of cooling.
Just a thought.
6 comments:
They never let a hot or dry day or hurricane go by without invoking GW.
Sauce for the goose.
Even if AGW existed, we would not be able to observe ANY difference in daily weather patterns. Even throughout our lifetimes we'd observe changes so minor year to year we'd likely adjust with minor changes in lifestyle and development of technology.
That's why they have to conjure tall tales of cataclysm: Waterworld, The Day After Tomorrow, Avatar, Inconvenient Truth, etc.
They suffer from Chicken Little Syndrome.
Note how "global warming" has become "climate change", and any news about abnormal warm temps is evidence of climate change, whereas abnormal cold temps is normal weather.
The press never writes about the benefits of warming, but focuses on the problems.
What a lot of (methane producing) B.S.
Well, I guess the producers of the History Channel's "Ice Road Truckers" didn't get the memo as in it's second season with trucks still hauling 20 plus tons over lake and river ice in the North West Territories like they've been doing for the last 30 years.
Unless they've employed Lucasfilm to provide the visual wizardry necessary to pull it off.
Seen this?
http://www.statepolicyindex.com/?page_id=143
this is very cool too:
http://freedom.robocourt.com/
It is all such insanity. The AGW cultists will, in the face of all evidence contrary, continue to believe. They will scribble their beliefs on a scrap of recycled paper, fold it up, put it under their pillows and wish, wish, wish.
And still, the output of the sun will dictate planetary temperatures. Always has, always will.
"That's why they have to conjure tall tales of cataclysm: Waterworld, The Day After Tomorrow, Avatar, Inconvenient Truth, etc."
You realize that Avatar has nothing to do with global warming or climate change or even widespread habitat destruction, right? They were worried about blowing up a tree that happened to be a network node. That's it.
This blog is like a go-to spot for people saying stupid crap about a movie they apparently didn't watch, or didn't watch sober if they did. Morons.
The rest of the movies you listed are obviously outrageous apocalypse stories. But Avatar? Don't be stupid. Might as well list The Matrix because they say something about a blackened sky at one point.
Post a Comment