Geez – Why didn’t one of us deniers think of that? I just parrot whatever Rush Limbaugh says.
Maxwell Hughes, Vero Beach
Letter: A few questions for global warming deniers
The predicted effects of unchecked global warming are unpleasant, not the least of which are stronger hurricanes impacting my home. Although my mortgage is far from underwater, my physical home may become so.
What worries me is the increasing frequency with which otherwise rational people reject global warming. They reply with some sarcastic comment about how cold it is.
Thomas Friedman has identified three groups of global warming deniers: enterprises with a financial stake, such as oil and coal companies; the few scientists who say black is white on any issue; and those unwilling to deal with the consequences of acceptances (such as believing that controlling carbon dioxide emission will create significant economic hardship).
But my sense is that I am encountering denial based solely on political grounds. Ultimately, the source of the opinion is the likes of Rush Limbaugh, who knows nothing about science. This seems to then be coupled to the horrendous fallacy that if Al Gore promulgated the concern, it must be wrong.
So I want the deniers to ask themselves: Do you think the measurements that say the planet is warming up much faster than any prior long-term cyclical warming and cooling are wrong? Do you believe that atmospheric CO2 is not higher than in the past and that the readings of the data in ice cores are wrong? Or do you believe that atmospheric CO2 does not trap heat, leading to the “green house” effect?
If you believe any of these, are you willing to state that you disagree with the opinions of science academies the world over, and point out their errors? To help you, the web is replete with the opinions of the “white is black” scientists. The web also contains the consensus scientific opinion, but you can ignore that.
http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2011/mar/06/letter-a-few-questions-for-global-warming/
“..my sense is that I am encountering denial based solely on political grounds”
Well Max, you shouldn’t be so political when encountering “denial” 😉
Ok, so let’s humour the questions:
“Do you think the measurements that say the planet is warming up much faster than any prior long-term cyclical warming and cooling are wrong?”
Even if they did, so what? Next question:
“Do you believe that atmospheric CO2 is not higher than in the past and that the readings of the data in ice cores are wrong?”
It has been much, much higher in the past. Next!
“Or do you believe that atmospheric CO2 does not trap heat, leading to the “green house” effect?”
My opinion doesn’t affect the laws of physics, however the question is too broad anyway. It’s a matter of how *much* heat is trapped, if any, and what affect it has on the climate, if any.
“If you believe any of these, are you willing to state that you disagree with the opinions of science academies the world over, and point out their errors?”
It is hard to point out errors in vague questions, other than the ones in which you omit important scientific facts, that are even acknowledged by alarmists.
“To help you, the web is replete with the opinions of the “white is black” scientists. The web also contains the consensus scientific opinion..”
Strangely enough, the web also contains a lot of peer-reviewed scientific material that contradicts that opinion.
“..but you can ignore that”
Well that statement is just dripping with irony.
Another CLB Puppet repeating their master’s fantasies!
The puppet knows how to dance to the music!
It’s fascinating to see that warmist saps think skeptics get their opinions from Beck and Limbaugh. They really don’t understand that we’re not like them in that way. We’re not into “Community” mentality. We tend to be independent thinkers who often don’t agree with each other. We seem to be equipped with a much more sensitive Bull$h*t sensor.
I’m not a skeptic, but a denier. I deny man is catastrophically altering the climate, and I deny the existence of Santa and the Easter Bunny too. Must be my politics.
What’s really going on in Global warming: “I think it’s a classic example of the need for ‘crusades’.”
3:28 video, worthwatching
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rweblFwt-BM
Czech Republic President, Vaclav Klaus, on global warming ideology being similar to communist ideology:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay-amp5XvZk
So, who is Rush Limbaugh?
Rush Limbaugh told me not to answer your question.
So, who is Rush Limbaugh?
Someone that some have irrational hate for and some others have irrational love for.
He is a major political pundit in the US, and often 100% on target with his predictions of what the Left is going to do.
In my opinion on the climate debate, he is the equivalent of the bat-boy in a baseball game. The heavy hitters are the likes of Steven Goddard. Rush just passes the information along to those who want to learn.
“Do you think the measurements that say the planet is warming up much faster than any prior long-term cyclical warming and cooling are wrong?” Yes they are wrong. The Younger Dryas was faster.
Do you believe that atmospheric CO2 is not higher than in the past and that the readings of the data in ice cores are wrong? No to first part. I agree the ice cores show temperature leading CO2 by average 800 years.
Or do you believe that atmospheric CO2 does not trap heat, leading to the “green house” effect? It physically impossible to “trap” heat so in that regard I donot.
WOW! I was wondering why the HEAT Traps I bought last Spring did not catch any heat! The Salesman told me they were impregnated with high concentrations of a well known Heat Trapping Gas , CO2. I bought them to trap and store heat for use this past winter but thought it was because I was using the wrong Bait and I was ashamed to ask any of you what is the proper bait to use for trapping heat! Y’all might have thought I was just to ignorant to know what was the best bait!
I guess you are also going to tell me the 60 meters of Pipeline I bought does not contain Brother Jim and Dr T’s Missing Heat like that sales man claimed! Here I just thought the heat was being bashful in its new surroundings like the repairman said when I reported the heat would not come out to play!
You ought to try those sticky pads with a little cheeze wiz in the middle.
Heat loves that stuff.
Sounds like old Max cannot find any way to nullify AGW –which of course it makes it for him religion, nit science.
“Do you think the measurements that say the planet is warming up much faster than any prior long-term cyclical warming and cooling are wrong?” Yes, they are wrong.
“Do you believe that atmospheric CO2 is not higher than in the past and that the readings of the data in ice cores are wrong?” No, I beleive that atmospheric CO2 is higher than in the past, and the readings in the ice cores are correct.
“are you willing to state that you disagree with the opinions of science academies the world over, and point out their errors?” Ok, I disagree with the opinions of science academies the world over, their error is the beleif that climate sensitivity to CO2 is high, they beleive that the puny amount of GHGs we humans emitt have a measureable effect, this is their error. What I would like them to show is one peer-reviewed paper that rules out natural, internal climate cycles as the cause of most of the recent warming (Remember, global themometer records only go back to 1979, everything before that is not global, so only 30 years of data is considered a trend. Lol!). They have never been able to do that, rule out completly natural causes, you know the causes which were responsible for all climate change before humans decided to blame themselves, science simply assume humans to be the cause and build from that weak foundation.
I understand you have tried to paint us deniers into some logical corner, so that if we admit yes to any of your questions we must then convert to your dark alarmists side, but it failed easily in my case.
So I have answered your questions, now what?
You know, most alarmists believe that 97% of scientists think that human sourced CO2 is altering the climate; they also think that deniers believe it is all a conspiracy. But I personally know a scientist who is a vocal outspoken climate denier, but yet he always finds a way to link his research to climate change so that he secures his funding for the year. His research is not commercially useful so his funding must come from government, that’s simply the way it is. He admits it goes against his principles, he hates to do it but he is a pragmatist, he knows how to play the game and the stakes of game are his career and putting food on the table. It is not a conspiracy, its simply life. Scientists are just like the rest of us, they need to bend a few rules and tell a few untruths to keep the whole ship afloat. If I personally know a scientist who is a denier yet still links his research to climate change, how many more are out there? I think that ‘97% of scientists’ estimate is high, and the conspiracy theory is wacky. It might appear that way, but I think It’s just the result of scientists doing what they must to carry on.
“are you willing to state that you disagree with the opinions of science academies the world over, and point out their errors?”
I’m willing to state any science academies that get massive monetary government grants for climate change studies are the heart of the problem, or should I say they create more imagined problems for more grant money.