Hilarious “Scientific” Support Of AGW In SF Chronicle Earns Beatdown

Here’s one from a few days ago I ran across, which already has garnered over 840 comments, most of them seemingly taking the writer, Peter Gleick, to task for his climahysterical article. Let’s see, shall we?

Here is the best argument against global warming:

. . . .

Oh, right. There isn’t one.

There is no good argument against global warming. In all the brouhaha about tiny errors recently found in the massive IPCC report, the posturing by global climate deniers, including some elected officials, leaked emails, and media reports, here is one fact that seems to have been overlooked:

First, it is not an argument against global warming. It is against man caused (anthropogenic, man induced, whatever you want to term it) global warming, or, as you folks call it, climate change, since you, in such a self-described scientific manner, link everything into it. Hot, cold, wet, dry, snow, tornadoes, hurricanes or lack thereof, frogs dying, species being found, allergies, etc and so on. Second, it is not incumbant on us “deniers” to prove our theory, based on 4 billion years of history. You have to prove yours.

Third, those “tiny” errors are not actually tiny. Many of them are primary points within the UN IPCC, used to “prove” their whole position.

Those who deny that humans are causing unprecedented climate change have never, ever produced an alternative scientific argument that comes close to explaining the evidence we see around the world that the climate is changing.

I’ll leave that to the professionals at this moment, but, I did notice something, Pete. Do you mind if I call you Pete? Nowhere in you article do you provide a scientific argument that explains how the current warming period is caused “most likely,” to us the IPCC vernacular, by Mankind. Sucks to be you. Oh, hey, can you explain the “no statistical warming over the last 15 years,” or that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, as told by Phil Jones? How about all the “missing” data? Or that temperature upticks precede CO2? Or…..well, we all know the reality Can we move Peter from stage 1 of the 5 stages of grief?

Here is the way scientists think science works: Ideas and theories are proposed to explain the scientific principles we understand, the evidence we see all around us, and the mathematical models we use to test theories. Alternative theories compete.

Uh huh

Gore, the self-anointed climate change alarmist-in-chief, told supporters on a March 15 conference call that severe weather in certain regions of the country could be attributed to carbon in the atmosphere – including the recent rash of rainy weather.

There’s your “scientific” theory, Pete. If everything can be blamed on global warming, it is no longer science, it is tautology.

Scientists are used to debating facts with each other, with the best evidence and theory winning. Well, this is a bar fight, where the facts are irrelevant, and apparently, the rules and tools of science are too. But who wins bar fights? As the Simpsons cartoon so brilliantly showed, bullies. Not always the guy who is right.

Al Gore is not a scientist, Pete. Nor is Barack Obama, nor are the Democrats (and Lindsay Graham) who are pushing this. Nor are a good chunk of those who wrote the IPCC. Hmmph. Strange, huh?

Anyhow, check out the comments. Great stuff.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

6 Responses to “Hilarious “Scientific” Support Of AGW In SF Chronicle Earns Beatdown”

  1. John Ryan says:

    Yup that’s right Teach there is a massive hoax being perpetrated just like those “moon landings” and “9/11” AND DON”T. LET THEM FLUORIDATE YOUR WATER !! You might not be able to remember the rightwing outrage over THAT scam, but I do

  2. mojo says:

    Gee, nice of him to explain the scientific method to us unwashed lunkheads, huh?

  3. John Ryan says:

    Was there any EVIDENCE that the Medieval Warming Period ws anything other than local ?An ice core from the eastern Bransfield Basin, Antarctic Peninsula, identifies events of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period.[27] The core shows a distinctly cold period about AD 1000–1100, illustrating that “MWP” is a moveable term, and that during the “warm” period there were, regionally, periods of both warmth and cold.
    Oh and mojo sounds like from your self description that you might need a self esteem boost. Or a bath.

  4. John Ryan says:

    The leading climate change denier in the US Senate is that clown from OK Inhofe. That is a man who doubts the age of the earth and thinks that God created everything in a week. And HE is the leading spokesman for the deniers ??

  5. 11B40 says:

    Greetings:

    The San Francisco Chronical, aka the SF Comical.

  6. Otter says:

    The MWP was global And warmer than today. Mindless little johnny can’t be bothered to stop by CO2Science and read over 200 peer-reviewed papers proving it.

    Is it any wonder I don’t have any respect for willfully ignorant people like him?

Pirate's Cove