"Those who are concerned that a real problem is being left unaddressed have called for a change in the way that green groups talk about climate, which has traditionally been heavy on warnings about drought and stranded polar bears. Instead, researchers suggested a new set of back-door appeals, designed essentially to fool people into serving their own -- and the planet's -- best interests."
-- David A. Fahrenthold, proving these cultish idiots can attempt anything - other than confronting their critics directly - and it will always get applause from The Washington Post.
[Blue Mountains Gazette, wednesday 9th December 2009]
"... Katoomba recorded its warmest November overnight average at 13C, topping the previous record of 12.6C in 1959.
According to a spokesperson from the Bureau of Metereology, an average November night in Katoomba is 9.8C, making last month's minimum more than 3C above average.
Maximum average temperatures in Katoomba were 24.4C, the second highest ever recorded.
The record is still held by November 1957, but only by half a degree.
The Blue Mountains sweltered with the rest of the State last month, with Sydney having its hottest November in 150 years and many places both inland and on the coast of NSW experiencing their most blistering November on record."
I would further note that this is a fairly conservative little rag just reporting the facts. There's no mention of global warming or fudged emails or what-have-you. But god knows why "cultish idiots" would read anything into it, eh?
Give it up, dude:ReplyDelete
Warming isn't evidence we caused it, or we can cure it, or buy our way out of it, or should pay for it, or even have anything to pay for.
Except for dangers posed by AGW hysterics, warming isn't even compelling.
The '60s are over, man.
I see, so by 'confronting their critics directly', you don't mean actually producing data to back up their claim. You mean the kind of bullshit conjecture you're always accusing your political foes of making. Well, there's one for the books. Kind of 'damned if they do'eh?ReplyDelete
Only that weakens your case considerably because you're the man with the facts and now suddenly you're not. You have no right to criticise people for looking at the hard data and drawing a credible conclusion from it, where all you have is vague wishy-washy denialism.
It would be perfectly easy for me to gather data from around the world that would show other data pointing in the same direction yet you still make the astounding - and wholly unsubstantiated - statement like 'warming isn't even compelling'. Hottest temperature ever is not very compelling? Ice shelf that has been frozen for thousands of years melting and cracking not compelling?
It strikes me that no matter how much evidence one brings to the table, you're just going to sit there with your arms folded and refuse to believe it. You have no more credibility in your stance than the most addled New Ager.
Had you and your reactionary mates been able to read a weather map in the first place, maybe people would listen more to what you had to say, but you all started off saying there was no global warming. Now it's "yeah maybe it is getting progressively hotter but that's not caused by human activity". I'm pretty sure when there's incontrovertible proof that smokestacks and exhaust fumes and all the rest do actually warm the place up (staggering thought I know), you'll just back into another little fantasy position.
Hard to believe you call yourself a rationalist.
Aussie, you're an idiot, dude:ReplyDelete
There is no original "hard data" - they lost and/or destroyed it, remember?
So all you're looking at is what those liars want you to see. (And, no, I don't have to look at their data to know they're liars: I've got a lifetime of experience with such people to know all the signs,...) Look, man, let me give an analogy to this current crop of NewAge-sucking "scientists" that might work for you:
Long ago, Kings hired these guys called "alchemists",...
Or let me try to relate it to you this way:
Tonight I'm going to see David Cameron's movie, Avatar - probably the most technologically advanced film ever made. But the price I'm going to have to pay (along with my $11.00) is to endure a message that technology is bad, George W. Bush is ruthless and stupid, and I really should be yearning for a pristine planet.
Now, are you seriously going to tell me that I - a critical thinker - need some special education to know that A) if technology is so bad, then David Cameron is a major hypocrite who really shouldn't be making mega-budget movies, or B) without George W. Bush being smarter than David Cameron, and taking the fight to the enemy, David Cameron may not have been able to even make his movie, and C) on a pristine planet David Cameron wouldn't have the technology to make movies in the first place?
I don't think so - and the same applies to Global Warming:
When you've got a brain - and can use it - some things are just obvious. Guess what? It's cold out!!!
Oh - and two more things:ReplyDelete
"I'm pretty sure when there's incontrovertible proof that smokestacks and exhaust fumes and all the rest do actually warm the place up (staggering thought I know), you'll just back into another little fantasy position."
You said "when", which means you're admitting it's not here, now. See how easily thinking works?
And I don't know how much you've traveled but I've been doing it my whole life and, man, this is one big planet. Anyone foolish enough to believe that we tiny specks on it have the power to change it's climate should look up the word "Hubris" before speaking.
I gotta go.