Did you ever start writing something not knowing where exactly you were going. That's how this started. I knew what I wanted to say all right, I just didn't know what tone I wanted to take and I didn't know what examples I wanted to cite (they are limitless) that show global warming to be a scam.
It's not that all believers are participating in the fraud, some (or most) might just be very stupid as evidenced by the positions and comments of many people here. And while I'm extraordinarily good at identifying such people, it's sad when I see other, seemingly more reasonable, people willing to entertain the ramblings of idiots.
One such fellow wants to debate them, and he worries that I might be coming off as too harsh – that I am turning people off. I wish I really could do that.
Another fellow is willing to pay upfront to avoid some imagined catastrophe. Do you think he understands that those are also limitless, and that the only reason he's willing to pay for this one is because everyone who thinks like him has jumped on the bandwagon?
Picture this: If we found intelligent life on another planet, how long would it be before elation gave way to fear and people -demanded- we pay for "insurance" against such an invasion while not having the slightest clue as to what form such an invasion might take?
You see, with "global warming," it's not the heat, it's the stupidity.
On the same day Al Gore was receiving his prize for his personal contribution to global warming, Neil Cavuto had an "expert" on to talk about the weather, and Mr. Cavuto naturally brought up several examples that might seem to contradict the idea that the Earth was getting hotter such as the current cold snaps and the expanding antarctic ice (bear in mind that this is the same sort of observational evidence warmalarmists use to make their case).
The guest, some climatologist or meteorologist or Gore apologist assured the host that it's all part of the warming scenario – the "erratic" weather. So Cavuto, looking perplexed, came back with, "then everything leads to warming?"
If it's too hot, or too cold, or there's a storm, or there are no storms, if ice melts or expands, it's all because of "global warming."
That's the mentality. You see here on Vox where people are incapable of discerning the difference between observation and evidence, between logical argument and non sequitur, between expert and flim-flam man.
You see it here when someone claims to be tangentially involved in science yet (s)he can only provide far off "examples" to support warming claims, and even those are anecdotal. Yet they are convinced… and you want to debate them?
Dismiss them, laugh at them, mock them, scorn them, ignore them… then you'd be reacting appropriately. Debating only allows them not only to believe they know something you don't (and they don't), but it elevates them and allows them to feel superior – a permission you gave them by countenancing their insane beliefs and positions.
I've alluded to the fact that I've been both blessed with and cursed by the ability I've had all my life to cut through the haze and see people and things for what they are. It's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it – because they can't themselves, and they wouldn't even if they could because they'd never own up to what they are.
But don't get the idea that I think I'm smarter than everybody else. I'm not. There are many fools who are smarter than I, depending on how you define smartness, just as there are many people who are smarter than, say, Rush Limbaugh, and I'm sure he'd admit that too.
But when it comes to clarity, I've seen very few who are my equal, Rush being one, as well as Ann Coulter, Mark Steyn, and possibly James Taranto to name… well… almost all of them. I'd include Michael Savage but only before his chronic rabies inevitably kicks in.
You know in your hearts that the IPCC is, at best, a sham, and that scientists can hardly be blamed for wanting to be cool. I mean, they see movie nerds get "the girl," and they know that real life rarely mimics that, so "warming" provides both an opportunity and a freeway for these people – but you're giving them the carpool lane all to themselves.
But some other scientists aren't, and they may succeed where Limbaugh and Coulter et al can't quite yet. See, up to now, when you hear about scientists vis-a-vis "global warming," you're led to believe they all stand on the side – "man-made." In other words, they're smart and they say we're causing the planet to warm.
Except the cavalry has made it to Bali, and they don't agree that global warming is even an issue. Here's what the good scientists have to say…
Lord Christopher Monckton, a UK climate researcher: "Climate change is a non-problem. The right answer to a non problem is to have the courage to do nothing… The UN conference is a complete waste of our time and your money and we should no longer pay the slightest attention to the IPCC."
And regarding the reception they've gotten from warmalarmists and why…
"UN organizers refused my credentials and appeared desperate that I should not come to this conference. They have also made several attempts to interfere with our public meetings," Monckton explained.
Dr. David Evans, a mathematician who did carbon accounting for the Australian government: "We now have quite a lot of evidence that carbon emissions definitely don't cause global warming. We have the missing [human] signature [in the atmosphere], we have the IPCC models being wrong and we have the lack of a temperature going up the last 5 years."
Yes, that's right, for some reason (I wonder what) Evens felt he had to prove a negative, and, according to the Inhofe blog, "touted a new peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists appearing in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society which found "Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence."
Evans again: "Most of the people here have jobs that are very well paid and they depend on the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. They are not going to be very receptive to the idea that well actually the science has gone off in a different direction."
See, even if they are proven wrong, like other liberals who are fully invested in failure in Iraq, the warmalarmists aren't simply going to admit their error and go away.
Dr. Vincent Gray: "There is no evidence that carbon dioxide increases are having any effect whatsoever on the climate. "All the science of the IPCC is unsound… If you examine every single proposition of the IPCC thoroughly, you find that the science somewhere fails… It fails not only from the data, but it fails in the statistics, and the mathematics."
Evans again: "We have a split here. Official science driven by politics, money and power, goes in one direction. Unofficial science, which is more determined by what is actually happening with the [climate] data, has now started to move off in a different direction… This is always a dangerous time for science and a dangerous time for politics. Historically science always wins these battles but there can be a lot of causalities and a lot of time in between."
Bryan Leland of the International Climate Science Coalition: "I am an energy engineer and I know something about electricity trading and I know enough about carbon trading and the inaccuracies of carbon trading to know that carbon trading is more about fraud than it is about anything else… We should probably ask why we have 10,000 people here [in Bali] in a futile attempt to ‘solve' a [climate] problem that probably does not exist."
Owen McShane, head of coalition: "I don't think this conference can actually achieve anything because… having the same set of rules apply to everybody will blow some economies apart totally while others will be unscathed and I wouldn't be surprised if the ones who remain unscathed are the ones who write the rules."
Professor Dr. William Alexander: "My message is specifically for the poor people of Africa… The government and people of Africa will have their attention drawn to reducing climate change instead of reducing poverty."
So you see, one of the groups is composed of morons, and as history has shown time and again, that won't be proven by size of membership.
There's one thing the warmists and I agree on – that "global warming" is a settled issue. They have utterly failed to make their case, and we should now get back to doing what humans do best – adapt to changing factors and turn them to our advantage. And now you have both reason and permission to shut them off if they won't.