Saturday, December 22, 2007

How Many Disagreements Does it Take Before it's No Longer a Consensus?

A report by Sen. James Inhofe contains the names of over 400 scientists who dispute many of the claims about global warming made by Al Gore and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In fact, many of these scientists were members, or former members, of that very same panel. The report also states that many of the scientists keep silent due to fear of retribution for speaking their own disputes of the supposed "consensus".

And they say Republicans use politics of fear...

In a display of typical left-wing response, an Al Gore spokeswoman tried to claim that 25 to 30 of those scientists were or are funded by ExxonMobil. That claim has since been dismissed.

French climatologist Marcel Leroo described the enviro-activist movement by people like Al Gore very well, "Day after day the same mantra — that 'the Earth is warming up' — is churned out ... Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen is bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless acceptance."

Nobody has yet to explain why Mars has been warming up at a similar rate as the Earth over the past 40 years, but yet the enviro-activists want to disconnect and/or ignore the global warming that occurs on Mars because it goes against their agenda. many scientists does it take to stop a consensus?

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

We had a showing of the Al Gore video at the University of Richmond followed by a short speech. The speaker turned out to be a political activist, not a scientist. When I asked him to reconcile the Mars warming issue in the absence of SUVs, or cow flatulence, he claimed to have never heard of warming on other planets. He then said that it would be "impossible" to know the temperature on Mars, since we have not been there.

I explained that we had, in fact, landed probes on Mars and that we could also deduce thermal changes on Mars and other planets using remote sensing technologies.

This presentation was a typical leftist indoctrination session held at the University of Richmond, where diversity is welcomed, as long as the views presented are left-wing, socialist, and liberal.

The point that should be kept in mind is that even if our planet is not warming due to your SUV, or all of that dog poop in your yard, we seem to have a trend of rising temperatures, so it is prudent to examine what the ramifications are, should the trend continue, regardless if the source is solar or geothermal, or something else.

If this is just another climatic cycle, then perhaps we can mitigate the effects by reducing man-made greenhouse gases. Perhaps not. However, good science demands that we examine these ideas and test the theories that we can develop.

The likely outcome of the pursuit of the global warming question, is that we can begin to develop more environmentally friendly technologies, reduce our energy footprint and perhaps lay the groundwork for our children to live in a healthier world.

While the actions of Man may have not been a factor in global warming, to me the point is moot; it is a good idea for us to move toward energy conservation, clean technologies and a balanced ecology for our own sake and for the sake of our children.