Early this year, Washington journalist and Yale alum Michael Crowley wrote an article explaining why Michael Crichton’s global warming denials were inaccurate. Crichton was left without any counterarguments, so he threw a tantrum: Crichton includes a Yale educated Washington journalist of the same name and same age as a character in his new book, describing him as a “dickhead,” small-penised, child rapist. Global climate change deniers, like holocaust deniers, simply don’t have facts or logic on their side.
Comments are closed.
Alright, here are my problems with the global-warming industry. Whenever data is (I don’t believe in saying “data are” – sue me) released by Exxon-Mobil or ACME Coal casting doubt on global-warming, the usual suspects wax loudly about how “of course THEY’D say that.” But no one ever seems to question the hysteria coming out of the Sierra Club, Earth First!, etc crowd. I mean, don’t they have just as much to gain in relative terms by an alarmist position becoming the norm? Doesn’t there fundraising and resources go up when people are convinced global-warming is a reality? Where are the jaded skeptics looking at their data?
It’s all so much like these UN-loving NGOs who insist that sovereign nations must cede more of their authority to…. To whom? Well, to NGOs! How conveeeeeenient. Their solution (the only solution according to them) just happens to enrich and empower them! No one’s ever been able to explain to me why I should trust the NRDC more than BP. At least BP produces a product that I require.
I read the other day, in a UN report, mind you, that cow flatulence released far more greenhouse gases (methane, I think) than autos and powerplants COMBINED! If this is true, then, well, WTF?
Maybe we’re just going through a periodic warming cycle. Maybe it’s not worth turning the world’s economy upside down to fix a problem that might not exist. Maybe Newsweek was right 30 years ago when they were preparing their readers for the impending ICE age they said was coming.
Everywhere. Absolutely everywhere. That’s science. It’s a constant race to outsmart the other guys, to improve on what’s come before, to question everything. That was done for decades and decades on the matter of global warming. The scientific consensus only came about in the past 15 years. Doubting global climate change for that reason is like doubting gravity for the reason that there’s not enough research into whether it exists. The research has been done. We know now. We’ve moved on to the why and the how.
You’re thinking of cows as some sort of a natural phenomenon. They’re not. Cows as we know them could not exist in nature. They were bred by and for people. They exist in absolutely vast numbers where they are fed foods that they’re not designed to eat (remember? solely for the purpose of producing milk, meat and leather for us. The fact that the methane that they produce is environmentally harmful is no more odd than that the byproduct from internal combustion engines is harmful, because both are very much of human creation.
:::::Stands up and cheers::::: Someone who is NOT writing for Grist or E has said it in a public forum!
Global climate change deniers, like holocaust deniers, simply don’t have facts or logic on their side.
I find it odd that you are comparing a historical event with a prediction about events in the distant future. There obviously are no witnesses or physical evidence of what might happen in the future. Nor did the holocaust rely on computer modeling to describe.
It is unreasonable to dispute a provably factual historical event, when living witnesses are still roaming the earth. It is not so unreasonable to be skeptical about predictions of the cumulative effect of small long term variations in atmospheric concentrations, their causes, and effects on the environment. This is especially true when the proposed costs of mitigation are high and are to be paid by people who will not see any measurable benefit in their lifetime. It is further true when the same population has been fooled before about all kinds of environmental issues by advocates who somehow gain the power of the government to force their will on everyone else.
mmmm, cows.
Skeptics are welcomed. But the evidence of global climate change is as overwhelming as, say, the evidence that the holocaust took place. The “skeptics” on the matter of global warming are much like the “skeptics” on the matter of evolution: they have an agenda that they seek evidence to support. That is precisely the opposite of the scientific method, and it will yield bad results each and every time.