June 03, 2006

An Inconvenient Truth: Exposing the Global Warming Myth

The inconvenient truth is finally here: Al Gore will never be President of the United States. Well...it's inconvenient to him, but very convenient to those of us in the world who still actually have our sanity. In his new "documentary," Gore pretends to be the compassionate and caring humanitarian concerned with the future of our children living in an environment full of massive category bazillion hurricanes and average daily temperatures in the million degrees range. In truth, this quackumentary has but one goal for the future: get Al Gore elected President in 2008, a notion far more disturbing for our children than global warming. Personally, I haven't seen the film and I don't intend on watching it. Why? How can I protest to criticize Gore and this film when I won't even watch it? The answer is quite simple really: I don't care to watch liberal propaganda based on quack science. The idea of global warming has been debunked many times over the years. It reminds me of that drunk uncle that always shows up at the family reunion. He completely makes an ass of himself and then disappears for a few years, but he never really goes away. For some reason, this still pops up from time to time and with the devastation wrought by Katrina, mostly due to the incompetence of local Louisiana government officials, it has become a talking point for the liberal propaganda machine.

Even as far back as 1997, global warming was debunked. Oh, but that was nearly 10 years ago. Much has changed in the world since then right? Well, as it relates to global warming, no, not really. From the article cited above:

Why, then, is there continuing scientific interest in "global warming"? There is a field of inquiry in which scientists are using computers to try to predict the weather--even global weather over very long periods. But global weather is so complicated that current data and computer methods are insufficient to make such predictions. Although it is reasonable to hope that these methods will eventually become useful, for now computer climate models are very unreliable. The second chart shows predicted temperatures for the past 20 years, based on the computer models. It's not surprising that they should have turned out wrong--after all the weatherman still has difficulty predicting local weather even for a few days. Long-term global predictions are beyond current capabilities.

Guess what...long-term global predictions, to the extent Gore presents them, are still beyond current capabilities. In other words, while the article may be 10 years old, "global warming" is still a myth for the same reasons. A recent article on Fox News which debunks the idea of global warming, written by Steven Milloy, echoes the same rationalization:

So where does all the fuss about manmade CO2 and global warming come from? Not from actual temperature measurements and greenhouse physics – rather it comes from manmade computer models relying on myriad assumptions and guesswork. Many models incorporate hypothesized “positive feedbacks” in the climate system, which tend to amplify model predictions. But no model has been validated against the historical temperature record. So they don’t “radiate” much confidence when it comes to forecasting temperatures.

For some reason, you just can't get liberals to understand these things. Take Roger Ebert for instance; he gives the quackumentary a rave review and even goes as far as to say:

"In 39 years, I have never written these words in a movie review, but here they are: You owe it to yourself to see this film. If you do not, and you have grandchildren, you should explain to them why you decided not to."

Of course, like everything that has the liberal stamp of approval, his review itself is full of contradictions. He begins:

"I want to write this review so every reader will begin it and finish it. I am a liberal, but I do not intend this as a review reflecting any kind of politics. It reflects the truth as I understand it, and it represents, I believe, agreement among the world's experts."

and then towards the end of the review:

"Am I acting as an advocate in this review? Yes, I am. I believe that to be "impartial" and "balanced" on global warming means one must take a position like Gore's. There is no other view that can be defended."

I'm not being political in this review....I am indeed being political in this review. He wraps up the diatribe:

"I did a funny thing when I came home after seeing "An Inconvenient Truth." I went around the house turning off the lights."

Apparently the lights were off when you proofread your review, Mr. Ebert.

Kyle Smith, of the New York Post, offers a much more logical review than Ebert and points out the stupidity in Gore's assertion of a future of catastrophe:

" A sister who smoked and died of lung cancer? The lesson is that those who used to deny that smoking caused disease were wrong, so anyone who doubts catastrophic global warming must also be wrong."

The Democrats are not concerned with global warming. They aren't concerned with minority rights. They aren't concerned about those left homeless after Katrina. They aren't concerned with the American troops dying daily in Iraq to preserve the future security of this country. They aren't concerned with any of the issues they've used as talking points over the years. The Democrats are concerned with one thing: take back Washington D.C. They will stop at nothing to accomplish this goal. "An Inconvenient Truth" only shapes up to be an inconvenient lie with the hopes of putting the Dems back in power.

The following sites contain information on the myths of global warming:

Tags: , , , , ,

Posted by everyman at June 3, 2006 01:21 AM | TrackBack

NO politician is concerned for the social well-being of the people on this planet. If minimum wage is justified by our government, then why can't they survive off of 5 dollars an hour? Aren't they civil servants of the people?? What we have to understand is that this "country" we have was founded by rich, white, slaveowning men. The constitution was written to protect this status quo...so that the minority of rich, white, slaveowning men could stay that way over the years. Look at our leaders today....they look pretty much the same??? The only difference is that the slaves come in the form of loyal "you are with me or against me" absolute people who refuse to even see the middle road. What we have to look at is WHY do we have a two party democracy? The republicans and democrats want you to believe that they are divided....when actually they are in bed together. They change laws so that no other voice in America can be heard....hence the division of citizens as well. "Since you agree with Gore...you MUST be a crazy liberal" "Agree with Bush...you bigoted CONSERVATIVE". How is this democracy??? Why can't people start thinking for themselves? We are now getting to point where judgements are made with no other reason than "you are a liberal or conservative". In the meantime...our rich politicians are laughing at us...knowing that we are once again distracted from realizing that none of them give a shit about this country or the people that live here.

Posted by: me at June 20, 2006 11:32 AM

Quack yourself. Global warming and the green house effect are accepted by ALL respectable scientists. The article you point to claims that the science is based on computer predictions, and that these are not valid because weather exibits is unpredictable. The weather is unpredictable, because it exibits chaos: the problem isn't with inadequete computers, it is with the accuracy of the original data: it can never be accurate enough to produce results that are accurate for long periods of time.

I recently attended a lecture with one of the U.K's prominent sun spot/solar activity scientists, entitled "Chaos, sun spots, and global warming", he ended it with the nice line "As you can see, anyone who says that global warming is caused by sun spots either has their facts wrong, or is an idiot." The graph shown on the other website is horsecrap: it actually exibits relatively low correlation (the temperature changes BEFORE the sun spots in some locations, and AFTER in others).

Anyway, thats besides the point, as the science of global warming and the greenhouse effect is based on observation and experimentation. The greenhouse effect can easily be recreated on a smaller scale, and there is no reason to suspect that it does not apply on a world wide scale. And, if you look at the global temperature records, the planet has heated up considerably over the past hundred years or so.

Setting aside what you think about liberals, as it is unrelated to my point, global warming is happening, and it is caused by the greenhouse effect.

And, to address one of points raised by "me".. I do not describe myself as a liberal, or a conservative.

Posted by: Wayland at June 25, 2006 04:41 AM

You cited the 10 year old "debunking" as translated by DOW CHEMICAL ?!? Wow! Really, find a SINGLE peer-reviewed scientific article within the last 5-8 years that even remotely questions our contribution to global warming.

Bush's own EPA came out with a report confirming man's activities in contributing to it.

Even Bush read it. Keep your head in the sand man. Oh, and go watch the movie. It;s chock-full-o crazy things like "facts" and scientists.

Posted by: Keith at June 28, 2006 11:41 AM

And adding an angry picture of Al Gore isn't propaganda? I guess global warming is debunked because you say it's debunked. Slam dunk for you! Never mind the fair debate, according to you it's a waste of time.

Posted by: Darryl at July 3, 2006 09:54 AM

That was the best example of misdirection and distraction I have ever seen. As far as I can tell, all you did was criticize the words used, ie "greenhouse gas", "reradiate", etc, yet you did NOTHING to argue the points that there is a definite link between elevated atmospheric CO2 and global temperature, and that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere today are WAY above anything in the past 650,000 years. One may say "we have gone through many ices ages, so this global temperature rise is a normal, natural occurence". We are not talking about an ice age here, we are talking about it's inverse, a 'steam' age, if you will, so what do past ice ages have to do with what we are seeing now? And no one has made precise weather predictions .... Gore just pointed out that warmer oceans cause storms to get bigger .... this is a well known fact. And he showed that, in recorded history, there have been more, bigger storms in the last decade than ever before in recorded history. Coincidence? Perhaps, but certainly it merits a long, hard look.

Keep trying to distract people from the real debate by arguing semantics. You will only fool the fools ... which includes yourself.

Posted by: jgold at July 10, 2006 05:03 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?