The only thing 'man-made' about global warming is the hoax created by Al Gore. Climate changes. Always has and always will. Ice melts, then it refreezes. The sea level rises, then it falls. Polar bears will adapt to whatever climate comes their way. And so will we.”
- Jay Galt
▼
Thursday 3 December 2009
Quote of the day: What’s ‘man-made’ about global warming?
16 comments:
We welcome thoughtful disagreement.
But we do (ir)regularly moderate comments -- and we *will* delete any with insulting or abusive language. Or if they're just inane. It’s okay to disagree, but pretend you’re having a drink in the living room with the person you’re disagreeing with. This includes me.
PS: Have the honesty and courage to use your real name. That gives added weight to any opinion.
What’s ‘man-made’ about global warming?
ReplyDeleteOh i don't know the scientific consensus maybe?
Anonymouses comment - I cant seem to read it - it just looks like baabaaabaaaa....
ReplyDeleteShould have stopped after "I don't know".
ReplyDeleteThere was a consensus about the earth being at the centre of the universe once too, with all the smartest minds of the times believing it, and all the models of the solar system showing it.
Don;t be so harsh on Anon, they hadn't completed their statement about the scientific consensus, which is a concerted effort to obsfucate and alter results to manipulate those in power to continue funding the gravy train set up by Maggie T as a reason to smash the coal unions
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html
ReplyDeleteFringe dwellers or a prestigious scientific journal
Now who you gunna believe?
Please, give us a break anon. Many "fringe dwellers" (Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin) have proven themselves right.
ReplyDeleteWhat matters are the facts behind an idea. No matter how prestigious a scientific journal is, it does not have a monopoly on truth.
Callum said...
ReplyDeleteit does not have a monopoly on truth.
Yep, correct there 110% Callum. Einstein submitted his 3 papers on special relativity, brownian motion and photo-electric effect to Nature (one of the few established peer review research journals he tried to submit his work to for possible publication) but were rejected for the ground that his idea (on special relativity) was absurd.
Hehe, but the great unknown young scientist (about 24, 25 at the time) managed to send his papers to Max Planck (a great physicist at the time - Nobel Laureate) to take a look, and Prof. Planck convinced the editors of the largely obscure/unknown physics journal (by worldwide standards), named Annalen der Physik. What happened? Yep, Annalen der Physik exploded when the great young Einstein's papers were published, because they were ground-breaking theories.
Who was the loser? Yep, Nature. Why? Because, they don't have a monopoly in publishing ground breaking scientific theories. So, if Annalen der Physik journal could do it, so as any other lesser known journal and that's a fact. Worshiping a supposed to be prestigious scientific journal is irrelevant. The contents of the articles being published in a journal are more important than the reputation of the journal itself.
I love the way you guys compare yourselves to Galileo, Copernicus and Darwin (ie scientists and visionaries, not religious adherents to the one true Rand). Intelligent design proponents do the same thing. You two should get together and discuss how oppressed you all are.
ReplyDeleteJudge Holden
Baaaah, baaaaah, baaaa...
ReplyDelete"The Netherlands is afire today over a Dutch study concluding Mount Kilimanjaro's snow melt — used as a symbol of AGW by Al Gore — is entirely natural."
ReplyDeleteThe Dutch MSM is running this story (source Pajamas Media Blog)
Enough scientific consensus for you anon?
Yay, the idiot "Judge" Holden makes another idiotic assertion!
ReplyDeleteOh i don't know the scientific consensus maybe?
ReplyDeleteThing is, we now know how that "consensus" was manufactured.
Lets pick three great controversies
ReplyDeletewhere peoples views are extremely polarized and discussed widely on the internet
9/11 structural/controlled explosion
Intelligent design/Darwin
Agw warmers/deniers
How do we form an opinion?
look at both sides?
examine the science?
listen to the experts?
look at the agendas and belief systems of the protagonists?
for example
Can we can reject the conspiracy theories of the 911fortruth people?
and not reject the conspiracy theories of the AGW deniers?
Do we accept the scientific evidence for the theory of evolution
or the rather large body of opinion of creationists ?
Do peoples political beliefs affect their ability to be objective?
Graham
ReplyDeleteAvoid arbitrary beliefs.
Demand that anyone who makes assertion provide proof for that assertion.
Stick to real evidence and fact.
Apply your faculty of reason logically.
Be consistent.
LGM
Well Callum, if we're talking about idiotic assertions, you're the one who compared yourself to Galileo, Copernicus and Darwin. I made no assertion, I pointed out that ID proponents also do that.
ReplyDelete"Do peoples political beliefs affect their ability to be objective?"
Callum admitted openly they affect his in another thread.
Judge Holden
"Well Callum, if we're talking about idiotic assertions, you're the one who compared yourself to Galileo, Copernicus and Darwin. I made no assertion, I pointed out that ID proponents also do that."
ReplyDeleteCan you point out the place where I compared myself to Galileo, Copernicus and Darwin?
""Do peoples political beliefs affect their ability to be objective?"
Callum admitted openly they affect his in another thread."
You quoted me out of context, and refused to acknowledge the change I made when I admitted it didn't convey what I meant to say.
Congratulations. You must be feeling proud of yourself.