Global warming denial turns to skepticism
10:02 PM, Aug 18, 2012As heat records tumble and weather disasters increase, skepticism has displaced outright denial among those unwilling to accept the idea that humans are changing the air on a global scale.
Global warming denial turns to skepticism | MyCentralJersey.com | MyCentralJersey.com
I wonder if the author is talking about the record low number of tornadoes and hurricanes this summer, or if he is referring to the number of record minimums?
Stupid people have been burning witches or throwing people in volcanoes for thousands of years, based on superstition based observations of weather.
HAMweather Climate Center – Record Events – Continental US View
Can’t we just burn the stupid people? OK, I guess not. People ovens are only used by National Socialist parties.
OH! Now I get it!
This is getting confusing. So now, a denier is no longer a skeptic, but actually a true believer … a believer is no longer a believer but is now a “skeptic”; and a “skeptic” is now neither a skeptic nor a denier, but really a true believer. Got it?
Wow, next they’ll be telling us that cold weather is a type of global warming. Oh, wait….
RTF
You are being a contrarian or will you skeptically deny it?
He he
These alarmists apparently can’t read weather maps or any maps. There should be an IQ test for any presstitute who attempts to put pen to paper. We’re not dealing with newspaper writers; we’re dealing with glorified stenographers who regurgitate whatever news release comes their way. They are not critical thinkers. They are the product of many years of “public schooling.”
Ian Plimer, a well-known scientist from Austraila, puts the human-CO2-causes-warming hypothesis in lucid perspective [not my words]::
Someone whom I was delighted to meet again in Australia was Professor Ian Plimer, a prominent “climate sceptic”, who is one of Abbott’s advisers. In his latest entertaining book, How To Get Expelled From School (by asking the teachers 101 awkward scientific questions about their belief in global warming), Plimer cites a vivid illustration of how great is the threat posed to the planet by man-made CO2.
[Plimer says:]
“If one imagines a length of the Earth’s atmosphere one kilometre long, 780 metres of this are made up of nitrogen, 210 are oxygen and 10 metres are water vapour (the largest greenhouse gas). Just 0.38 of a metre is carbon dioxide, to which human emissions contribute one millimetre.”
Obviously, mankind, not the sun, is changing the planet’s climate, according to the much more brilliant Jim Hansens of the world. Robert Wood exposed the CO2-warming theory (long wave infrared downwelling) nonsense over a century ago. It wasn’t resurrected again until the 1970s, when humankind became more greedy.
This silly and still unproven theory is the equivalent of Lysenkoism, which describes the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives.
Kirk, what articles and textbooks have you read to try and understand why science considers the greenhouse effect to be real? What part of those arguments do you disagree with? Do you, for example, believe CO2 does not absorb and emit infrared radiation?
By the way, do you know what the level is of ozone in the atmosphere? And what would happen if it weren’t there?
David there is no problem with most flavours of the theory. The issue is with extreme versions of the theory that predict catastrophic warming. You know, the version of the theory that the IPCC, some of the media, and advocates love. If you attack imaginary straw-men your position must be weak.
That’s not how Kirk’s reply reads — he seems to doubt the existence of infrared radiation from the atmosphere…. Anyway, what do you mean by “catastrophic?”
In the midst of the sea of blue dots, are two red dots in SW Nebraska. That seems very peculiar to me. I wonder which stations they were and if there are siting issues.
The cold didn’t make it that far west
Thanks to Steve, once again, for cluing us to these media liars and obfuscators. I dropped a comment at MyCentralJersey.com, disputing the CO2 theory. I’ve been trying to counter the standard propaganda every chance I get. The Weather Channel is one of my favorites.
Reading these blogs is great, I do it every day, but I think after five years of analysis we now have to spread our ideas out into the general population every chance we get. Blog comments in the mainstream media are an excellent way to do that.
Only two comments showed on the Jersey site when I got there, one disputing the CO2 notions and the other trying to put it all on methane instead.
Aha, these warmists are getting too ridiculous. Does anyone actually listen to them? Severe storms? It’s been quiet. They’ve been saying the same stuff for years.
And who are these “deniers” they are so keen to label? If “denial”, AKA skepitcism that humans are not “changing the weather” – a typical conspiracy theory notion – is suddenly skepticism, then skepticism is suddenly alarmism, then what is extreme alarmism? Denialism? My, we have a winner!
Greenies are nothing but conspiracy theorists in disguise. They don’t wear tinfoil hats – just hats made of leaves.