Thursday, January 22, 2009

Comment re: "Manmade global warming" losing public support

Responding to "Manmade global warming" losing public support,

Anon @ 7:11 said - - -

It is stunning to me that the global warming/climate change cult is largely left wing. These are the same people who ridicule fundamentalist Christians who take issue with the theory of evolution. The lefties can't imagine that anyone would believe that species have not changed over time.

Yet, the global warming cultists insist that variations in climate and temperature are unprecedented -- that things on earth were always the same for eons until the bad humans came along and discovered fossil fuels.

The fundamentalists used to tell me that dinosaur bones and fossils and carbon dating were the tools of Satan, used to sow doubt that the world was a few thousand years old.

I wonder if the marine fossils found far from the NC coast (that prove that the seas were once much higher) or evidence of Greenland once being green are the work of evil "deniers" hired by Exxon Mobil to con us into believing that climate and temperatures have varied over time.

I can think of only two things to add:

1) Amen!

2) Thank you, Anon.


Anonymous said...

In reality, the global warming cult is almost fundamentalist in it's belief. The belief that global climate has a significant correlation to human activity is ego centric in a way reminiscent of the flat earth and the sun revolves around the earth beliefs of the past.

The commenter is very correct in pointing out that belief in evolution and man made climate change are fairly opposed to each other.

The statement that it is surprising that the global warming cult is leftist is not appropriate if you have been paying attention.

There are many articles out on this, easiest ones to find involve the former head of Greenpeace talking about why he left the group.

Basically, when the Soviet Union fell, it became uncool to be in many leftist/socialist/communist groups. As a result, many members of these organizations had to find a new place/way to promote their ideologies. Most of them ended up in environmental organizations of some kind. Much of the agenda of the global warming alarmists is to put schackles on Western economies, primarily for socialist purposes.

Now that some data is coming out that the earth is actually cooling or that there is weak correlation between human activity and global climate, they are all playing cover up as their agenda and/or employment is dependent on there being a global warming issue to solve.

This is a recurring theme that shows up in many places (Union leaders, Save the Manatee club, etc.) where the people in charge of "helping" in some way have to keep creating the crisis in order to maintain/grow their careers and/or power.

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:06, you hit this on the head. When I was in "gradual" school, I took a Sociology class. The prof assumed everyone was a true believer. He basically admitted that environmentalism was a good back door way of attacking capitalism since the direct assault on outcomes of capitalism versus socialism was not going so well. Indeed, the new Green is the old Red.

This professor also talked about the importance of utilizing "cute and furry" mascots as opposed to "cold and slimy" things like snail darters when looking to generate sympathy for environmental causes. This point comes to mind every time I see the stupid polar bears.

Even if you believe global warming is real (I think it is) and man made (I am dubious about that), you must acknowledge that there are a number of things man has done that might be a factor such as deforestation and land use practices as well as "greenhouse gases". And, if we want to focus on gases among many factors, we must also acknowledge that there are many greenhouse gases that might have an impact. However, there is a relentless focus on carbon dioxide. Why?

Because the production of CO2 is strongly linked to economic output. He who controls carbon controls the economy. As my too honest Marxist professor told me 20years ago, the environment is the ticket to defeating capitalism.

I am the guy who commented about the "fundamentalism" of global warming cultists. Actually, I am not surprised that they are lefties but I was mostly commenting on the tremendous intellectual inconsistency in attacking creationists who don't believe anything on the planet has changed while telling us that (until carbon) there was no climate change or on the planet.

Anonymous said...

The Pew research center has also detected a decline in concern over global warming.

As might be expected, things like the environment often get sent to the back burner when the economy is in trouble. However, there is also evidence that the impact of Inconvenient Truth was transient and global warming was on the wane before the economic issues rose in importance.

Too bad they hand out Nobel prizes for fads.

Anonymous said...

Just to show how out-of-touch the Democrat congress is, they have Al Gore scheduled to tell them all about "The Inconvenient Truth" next week. Stand by for more breaking news as Uncle Al astounds the rubes with dire reports about vanishing polar bears, melting icebergs, and rising oceans. Meanwhile, we've just experienced a record-breaking period of cold weather across the land.
P.T. Barnum was right.
Tarheel Hawkeye

Anonymous said...

My favorite part of Inconvenient Truth was when Al showed us the computer simulations of what a 20 foot increase in sea levels would do to Florida, Manhattan, Shanghai, etc.

Problem is, even the consensus estimates of sea level rise coming from the IPCC (who I would consider warming alarmists) are in inches, not feet. Also, their fourth report estimates (2007) were an actual decrease from their third (2003) report estimates of sea level rise.

The problem is, the fake flooding threat is something that is visually arresting and all of the 90-minute "experts" who saw Gore's film cannot get that image out of their minds.

I have also heard that some analyses are still stuck on 20th century data (which included a very hot 1998) but are somehow dropping the last few years. We were told to expect a monotonic increase in temperatures (remember how Al said that CO2 and heat were almost perfectly correlated) but this has not panned out.

Nature is just not cooperating.