Now, part of what’s unique about climate change, though, is the nature of some of the opposition to action. It’s pretty rare that you’ll encounter somebody who says the problem you’re trying to solve simply doesn’t exist. When President Kennedy set us on a course for the moon, there were a number of people who made a serious case that it wouldn’t be worth it; it was going to be too expensive, it was going to be too hard, it would take too long. But nobody ignored the science. I don’t remember anybody saying that the moon wasn’t there or that it was made of cheese.Wait. Dinosaur flatulence? Who the heck said that? It was Representative Dana Rohrbacher (R-CA):
And today’s Congress, though, is full of folks who stubbornly and automatically reject the scientific evidence about climate change. They will tell you it is a hoax, or a fad. One member of Congress actually says the world is cooling. There was one member of Congress who mentioned a theory involving “dinosaur flatulence” -- which I won’t get into.
Yea, T-Rex farts. That's the reason.
Rohrbacher seems to be saying that since we don't know that it wasn't dinosaur farts that raised the temperatures millions upon millions of years ago, then we can't say for certain what NOAA says is undeniable.
You know what else hasn't been disproven regarding the current rising climate cycle?
- The Illuminati
- Bertrand Russell's orbiting teapot
- The Harvest Goddess, Demeter, is now approaching middle age and is having hot flashes
- God is punishing the world for being just so nice to teh gays
Look each of them up. You'll find nothing to disprove any of those theories (and remember, climate change like evolution is only a theory) anywhere. So therefore, climate science can't be trusted.
Or...or you can go with science and rational thinking.
You write of "climate change evidence", yet there is none.
ReplyDeleteThere are computer models, which are projections -nothing more. As to evidence there has been no more 'warming' in the last 12 years or more.
The climate change 'game' is all about control, so that some bureaucrat can control Americans.
Pleas euse researched facts
So all the data at the NOAA website and all the temperature graphs I have seen, that's all just speculation, is it?
ReplyDeletePerhaps our Mr Sour should just click on the word "undeniable" in the blog post.
ReplyDeleteThere he'll find the science (aka the "researched facts" he's so blithely denying exists.
This brazen dismissiveness is the tool of those with ulterior and self-serving agenda. How else could even the mildest humanitarian so flippantly disregard even the suggestion of a cataclysmic future for their own?
ReplyDeleteThis counter argument is rooted in the sparing of wasted time, energy, funding, or the fear of overbearing and unjust legislation. It's just another of the "throw it all at the wall and see what sticks" approach of homo-erectus businessman-icus.
Sun, wind, water. Why can't we harness them? Because there's not enough money in it. The argument starts and ends there. Anything else is mud in the water.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete(wish I could edit)
ReplyDeleteAny argument that starts and ends with a single statement deserves at least a second look.
I guess since public health issues like poisoned air and poisoned water don't appear in the exact instant drilling or burning starts, we can safely dismiss those concerns. It is only the little people who suffer, and the little people are already really whiny.
And the fact that fossil fuels are inherently limited, and will (possibly have already) start to cost more and more until only the wealthy can afford energy ... I guess that is just mud in the water.
Legislation is imperfect only to the extent we allow it to be. We can tut tut at how foolish a proposal is, or we can take the ultimate risk of being wrong ourselves and make proposals and work with political opponents to see those proposals through to legislation.