I browsed the website. I looked at the various different sections for the reasons why I am skeptical. I saw very few. The first one that took my notice was about the hockey stick graph. Since I have read the article that discredits the entire study, I was curious as to what this website could possibly say to refute such unmistakable error and possible outright manipulation. The hockey stick graph, although claimed as unimportant by the web site's author, is very important. Nearly the entire global warming movement began as a direct result from this study. As I expected, the dumb ass author of this website had not even taken the time to read the article, and not only professed his ignorance and lack of understanding, but claimed reading such an article is only for those "without lives". I should have closed the web site at this point, but I continued looking.
The next "skeptic argument" link I clicked was the one about false predictions of global cooling in the 70s. Aside from the extreme assumption from the author that back then, "you could find a greater consensus on the coming alien invasion", I found the only rebuttal against this argument was that it wasn't nearly as successful as this current doomsday theory is. I wonder why that is? What is the biggest difference in life today and life in the 1970s? Oh? Computers and internet technology you say? The internet, which provides anyone with a semi-functioning brain to put out information, to write a blog, to make a message board post, to start a web site, to spread any type of information or misinformation they wish to spread? Is that the difference? Oh yeah, it probably is.
The final section I read about was against the argument that humans emit very little CO2 compared to natural emissions. What I expected were facts: humans emit this much CO2 and nature emits this much CO2. What I got instead was pure conjecture that the natural CO2 emissions are in perfect balance, and that humans have disrupted this balance. I don't buy that crap. If you pour 10,000 gallons of koolaid into a massive lake of fresh water, and take a drink of that water, it's probably goiing to still taste like nasty lake water. Perhaps that's a shitty analogy, but the point is that humans emit less than 1% of CO2 into the atmosphere. I just can't see how that little amount is the cause to the end of the world.
As far as that comic strip goes...you're never going to convince any global warming skeptics with left wing propaganda.
When global warming, and the subsequent apocalypse, never comes to fruition, one of two things will happen. The first is that the entire notion, and movement, of global warming advocacy will disappear completely. No one will ask questions, no one will speak of it again. Personally, I do not believe this is the likely outcome. As the author of the above website pointed out, global warming doomsday theories have been far too successful to simply disappear as previous doomsday theories have. That is why I believe the second outcome is much more likely. That is, in the coming future there will be some type of radical legislation proposed, supported, and passed by environmentalists and "scientists" with the sole intent of "stopping global warming". It will likely have serious implications for business and industry, and it will likely cause serious economic hardship, possibly even a recession (but that point is merely speculation on my behalf). The point is that once global warming never comes to be, proponents of the apocalypse will refer to such legislation as their "victory over global warming". And as such, it will be viewed as a triumph for the environment, environmentalist groups, and climate scientists, many of whom will receive highly prestigious awards for their efforts to save humanity. When in reality they probably hurt more people than they ever helped. This is how global warming will end, and it must end that way so the road can still be paved for the next doomsday theory to take hold of the population.
|