This is the first National Geographic article that I've ever seen that expresses this viewpoint. Buahaha, the liberal monster admits its folly!! ....sort of.
This story is just about one guy whose ideas are out of phase with mainstream science. The fact is, people have been changing the earth's climate ever since we discovered fire; without human activity, the earth would be a lot colder and less hospitable. But that doesn't mean it's a good idea to burn fossil fuels indiscriminately and pour even more carbon dioxide into the air.
Regarding Mars's supposed warming, see this article; we've measured the sun's output directly via satellite for years now, and there's no direct correlation between solar activity and the temperature on Earth or Mars; obviously more sunlight means a hotter planet on the large scale, but both planets have big weather systems that dominate on a smaller scale.
Bottom line: there is really strong empirical evidence for global warming, and it fits with common sense about the greenhouse effect too. People who claim it's a hoax usually have some agenda other than just following the evidence.
I was going to make some similar points to David, but he saved me the trouble. ;) I would point out, though, that science is a peer-reviewed process, and when your peers are saying stuff like, "[His views] contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report," and "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations," you probably have not discovered anything worthwhile.
Whether or not humans are responsible for climate change (gasp!)or GLOBAL WARMING (O my gosh!) is not as alarming as those hypocritical pinheads who whine and cry about saving the planet while they blast by you in their fossil-fuel burning, pollution belching, green house gassing VEHICLES, expecting the rest of us to do something about it. Wake Up, you CAR loving liberals! Besides, it might just save a tree when you don't need those enviro-wacko bumper stickers any more.
See, this is what confuses me. I don't understand the conversion of this into a political issue, like if you're conservative you can't believe global warming. Yeah, everybody could do more. Yes, there are plenty of stupid liberals who are anti-global warming but also against nuclear power, one of the few reasonable alternatives to coal burning power plants that currently exist.
But how can anybody be against higher fuel efficiency standards and funding research into alternative energy sources? Using less gas helps us all: our cars put less pollution into the air, we put out less carbon dioxide, we spend less money on gas that costs more than $3.00 a gallon now, and we send less money over to Saudi Arabia and Iran to fund terrorists and anti-American regimes. And, of course, when alternative energy sources become economically feasible, the decreased demand for gasoline will cause prices to drop again.
But instead, it seems like a lot of people prefer to just pretend it's not happening and/or ridicule people who think maybe we should work on alternative before gas prices go up to $20/gallon. I don't get it.
8 comments:
This story is just about one guy whose ideas are out of phase with mainstream science. The fact is, people have been changing the earth's climate ever since we discovered fire; without human activity, the earth would be a lot colder and less hospitable. But that doesn't mean it's a good idea to burn fossil fuels indiscriminately and pour even more carbon dioxide into the air.
Regarding Mars's supposed warming, see this article; we've measured the sun's output directly via satellite for years now, and there's no direct correlation between solar activity and the temperature on Earth or Mars; obviously more sunlight means a hotter planet on the large scale, but both planets have big weather systems that dominate on a smaller scale.
Bottom line: there is really strong empirical evidence for global warming, and it fits with common sense about the greenhouse effect too. People who claim it's a hoax usually have some agenda other than just following the evidence.
That article was put there just for you :)
I was going to make some similar points to David, but he saved me the trouble. ;) I would point out, though, that science is a peer-reviewed process, and when your peers are saying stuff like, "[His views] contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report," and "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations," you probably have not discovered anything worthwhile.
I would just like to point out that I was excited that National Geographic posted this because they always put the mainstream view. That's all...:)
Whether or not humans are responsible for climate change (gasp!)or GLOBAL WARMING (O my gosh!) is not as alarming as those hypocritical pinheads who whine and cry about saving the planet while they blast by you in their fossil-fuel burning, pollution belching, green house gassing VEHICLES, expecting the rest of us to do something about it. Wake Up, you CAR loving liberals! Besides, it might just save a tree when you don't need those enviro-wacko bumper stickers any more.
See, this is what confuses me. I don't understand the conversion of this into a political issue, like if you're conservative you can't believe global warming. Yeah, everybody could do more. Yes, there are plenty of stupid liberals who are anti-global warming but also against nuclear power, one of the few reasonable alternatives to coal burning power plants that currently exist.
But how can anybody be against higher fuel efficiency standards and funding research into alternative energy sources? Using less gas helps us all: our cars put less pollution into the air, we put out less carbon dioxide, we spend less money on gas that costs more than $3.00 a gallon now, and we send less money over to Saudi Arabia and Iran to fund terrorists and anti-American regimes. And, of course, when alternative energy sources become economically feasible, the decreased demand for gasoline will cause prices to drop again.
But instead, it seems like a lot of people prefer to just pretend it's not happening and/or ridicule people who think maybe we should work on alternative before gas prices go up to $20/gallon. I don't get it.
Sorry if I offended anyone. I was referring to pinheads such as Al Gore and the Clintons. And maybe Alec Baldwin.
go grumpy old man!
Post a Comment