Thursday, November 16, 2006

Is human-induced climate change real?

Today's post is a series of links for the Global Warming Kool-Aid drinkers. I would normally have posted this in "comments" for the previous post, but I want it to get the proper attention. Enjoy.

http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm

National Review Online

http://www.globalwarming.org/index.php

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/734749/posts

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/prog1.htm#suspend

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/iceage.htm

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/pointlss.htm

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/hot.htm

http://www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php?id=294

The fact is, this is a political issue and most people will believe what they want typically along political lines. Myself: I'm an evidenced-based guy. I DO have a vested interest in the earth's future and if I saw evidence of human-induced climate change, then I would be first in line demanding action. But, the evidence just isn't there, and I am not going to be bullied through fear.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

I would just like to point out that a majority of those sources are 1.) biased, and 2.)out-dated. Even the EPA acknowledges the link between human activity and climate change.

pdaddy said...

Allisoni, where do you get the evidence that his sources are biased?

Just curious.

Dan Trabue said...

As does Bush's science advisors. As does Bush.

Anonymous said...

I looked at them...

John said...


Great subject, John.

I've ranted on this subject a bit at my site, and nobody ever seems to agree with me that there's just no viable evidence to support this quack theory of Global Warming. As you say, folks will inevitably believe only what they want, according to they're politics.

And they're favorite liar politicians.

There's just no absolutely solid scientific evidence to prove that Global Warming is real. If Global Warming does indeed exist, it exists solely in the minds of politicians and any other group or person who has an agenda to keep.

This theory, and that is all that it really is and ever will be, is a major lie that millions of Americans and other people have bought - hook, line and sinker. Thank God we aren't involved in that damned Kyoto Treaty.

Dan Trabue said...

John - just John - said:

"There's just no absolutely solid scientific evidence to prove that Global Warming is real. If Global Warming does indeed exist, it exists solely in the minds of politicians and any other group or person who has an agenda to keep."

John, there's actually no debate from anyone - ANYONE - that global climate change and global warming is a reality. Those on the Right and Left and unaffiliated all agree with this.

The only questions are: Do humans impact global climate change, to what degree and, if so, what ought we do about it. The science appears to be divided on the question of whether or not humans impact global climate change.

President Bush's science people have said Yes, it looks likely, as have most scientists, according to what I've read. But I don't think any scientists are saying that this is a definite - just that the evidence points to that likelihood.

What IS clear and factual beyond debate is that humanity DOES negatively impact our own living environment - we're pissing in our own cistern, to quote Wendell Berry - and that we are living at an unsustainable pace.

Neither actions particularly wise.

John The Patriot said...

Allison, I find it interesting that I, and others who don't buy human induced climate change, are criticized for "ignoring the evidence". We are told to "wake up". Yet, anytime someone presents evidence that conflicts with what you believe, you quickly dismiss it as "biased" and "dated". Which begs the question: Is there anything that would change your point of view or are you 100% committed to this theory?

You cite the EPA and the UN, and of course there is no way they could be biased. You cite statistics that are just as "old" as mine, but they are not dated right? And I wonder how you determine my references are biased? Who's biased? The satellites that measure tropospheric temperatures? And what about the article that presents some evidence of the UN "doctoring" their numbers. The UN was one of YOU'RE references. Does that do anything for the confidence you have in this theory? Or are you accepting it as truth no matter what?

John, you're right about Kyoto, it would have killed our economy, which is why I argue against human induced climate change. I don't care if people want to believe in black helicopters and little green men, as long as it doesn't affect me. But when those beliefs threaten things like, say, the American economy, then I'm gonna argue adamantly that there are no little green men.