Quote:
Originally Posted by robertthebard
It is also a catch-all to say, "See, we were right." no matter what happens. I lost my website, so I can't link the photos of snow in April I had posted before. The thing is, despite climate scientist's claims, these kinds of fluctuations have been happening since I can remember. I can remember working in shorts and a t-shirt in January, and needing a coat in May, all in Kansas, and all before all the alarmist science that runs rampant where climate is concerned.
What ever happened to the "worst year for hurricanes ever" that we were supposed to have due to "climate change"? I don't recall there being an abnormally large number of hurricanes since Katrina. Did I miss something? We haven't had an abnormal number of tornadoes here, despite claims that we would. However, climate scientists can point at the tornadoes we have had and say "See, we were right.", despite the fact that there have always been tornadoes in KS. I was in at least one hurricane when I lived in Florida, in the 60's.
They have generalized their science enough that any severe storm that comes up can support their claims, and frankly, that's not science. What I find ironic is that one can bash the source of the article in the OP as having an agenda, all the while ignoring the agendas of science that supports the belief that mankind is the sole cause of climate change. Who pays those scientists? People like Al Gore? How much money has he made being a doomsayer?
The truth is somewhere in the middle of what the extremist on either side would have us believe. We can't help but affect our world, but I sincerely doubt that measuring the length of time it takes a person to blink comparatively is really a good standard to measure climate change against. Afterall, at one time in the not too distant past, the place I live now was an ocean floor. As far as we know, there weren't any people driving around in gas guzzler cars that cause the icecaps to melt, so it must have occured naturally. Let's not forget that at another point in geological history, the ice cap extended to at least as far south as I live, and according to a special I watched on the Discovery or Science Channel, at one time the whole planet was a ball of ice. There weren't any people around to do that either.
Conservation is a good thing. Trying to terrify the masses into doing it with poor science is something else entirely.
|
Your points are undestood but I fear, misplaced. When suspecting an agenda, consider these basic questions.
Who stands to lose more money by global warming, the people who vehemently deny it or those who agree on it?
What would people have to gain by pretending? There are easier ways to pull the wool over people's eyes and make money. Religion or politics, for example. Al Gore has made a fraction from this of what Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee have. If he wanted to cash in on "doomsaying" he coulda just gotten a show on Fox like Mike or Glenn did or stayed in politics. No movies, no research, no writing papers. Environmentalism is largely non-profit.
The best minds in the world have agreed upon this. Science is united on the issue. The only people who are against it are those who feel it somehow bleeds over into their religious views or those who stand to lose money by accepting it. But science has already moved on a long time ago, into looking at ways to sort the issue rather than caring if some people don't believe it. Science does not need to take a poll making sure every single person in the world fully grasps their discoveries. They just get to work making more.
And casually calling something "poor science" may well be a valid term if maybe one or two crackpot scientists are agreed on something. But when the entire body of science throughout on the planet support and agree on it...it doesn't make you look so good vs. the most brilliant minds of our time.
P.S. IDK what you're talking about the worst year of hurricanes. I do recall one period where we definately had a huge spike in them...was it last year or the year before? I posted here about if iirc. But it was idle chatter, I had no raw data, just noting that there seemed to be more than i've ever observed at any given time.