from cks - - -
Global warming is out - climate change is in.
I guess Al Gore was getting too many questions about how the world could be getting warmer when the winters here in the US have been getting nastier - - snow in New Orleans, Tuscaloosa, thick ice encrustations in Little Rock and in Louisville.
Here in Cincinnati our latest "dusting" in less than two weeks resulted in another nine inches (on top of the nine inch dusting from the week before).
"Climate change" allows Gore to claim anything out of the ordinary is man's fault for his large carbon footprint!
Anon @ 9:48 - - -
CKS hit it on the head. Gore's "global warming" has been "rebranded" to "climate change" since the warming has not cooperated.
They claim to understand climate, insist they have the ability to model it, and use the prediction of certain doomsayers to stampede us into action. Yet, just a couple of years ago, they were equally certain that we would be experiencing monotonic increases in temperature; and temperature is a factor that is much less complex than climate.
They got the answers wrong on a second grade math test and want us to believe they are ready for calculus.
Scott S. - - -
Well the how global warming/climate change bs has botten a boost in Australia. We've had a record heat wave towards the end of our summer. 46c (around 110f) and some of, if not the worst bushfires ever.
I'm already hearing about 'global warming' being the cause. Of course these same idiots forget that south eastern Australia is one of the most bush fire prone parts of the world and we've had bush fires hear since day one.
Drew - - -
I can faintly recall that a few decades ago, it was "settled science" that the earth was entering a global cooling phase, and that the "problem" was going to be freezing, not warmth.
How did the science get "unsettled" such that it could now be "settled" again on a premise that is 180 degrees opposite of the first?
It seems to me that those who would tell you that there is no room to argue the underlying premise are those who don't have the science or the facts on their side. Rather than rely on the objectivity of facts and science, they stifle examination and discussion by starting mid-way through the process, with an a priori presumption.
Then, it's neither an argument, nor a discussion; it's a lecture.
Tarheel Hawkeye - - -
Rule #1: Never, ever, believe anyone who refuses to allow another opinion to be heard. Period.
and Anon @ 4:59 - - -
I think this article from Reason puts the climate stuff into proper perspective.
Enjoy (especially the question posed at the end)!
are all, IMO, really cool comments.
I thank the commenters.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
from cks - - -
Posted by JWM at 9:23 PM