The Logic Lifeline

A logical approach to sorting out world events. Where logic, opinion and speculation are combined to produce a reasoned, but entertaining reading experience. The unofficial hometown conservative blog of Woodridge, Il

Monday, June 26, 2006

Neal Boortz Global Warming Factoids

Neal Boortz has a very good factoid list on Global Warming in his Nealz Nuze section today. Since many are not likely to click on over there, I will post his list here with full credit:

In the meantime ... here are just a few little factoids for you to play around with, factoids that cause me to doubt that whatever global warming we're experiencing can be blamed on the actions of man.

  1. The sun is hotter. Period. This fact cannot be denied. The sun is going through a lengthy period of increased activity that causes it to radiate more heat into space. Is it really that hard to believe that a hotter sun would lead to a hotter earth?
  2. Our polar ice caps are melting? Sure looks like it. But .. the polar ice caps on Mars are melting also. So, are we to believe that this is caused by man on the Earth but by the hotter sun on Mars?
  3. And while we're talking about ice caps melting, it's worth noting that the ice pack in the heart of Antarctica is actually getting thicker!
  4. Scientific data clearly shows that the Earth has undergone warming and cooling cycles for millions of years. Why, all of a sudden, does a warming cycle just have to be caused by the actions of man?
  5. Scientists who work on government grants are more inclined to blame global warming on the actions of man than are scientists who do not depend on continued government (political) funding.
  6. And just how much warmer has our atmosphere become in the last 100 years? One degree. That's it. Just one degree.
  7. Many of the people who are so involved in promoting the man-made global warming theme are people who are also involved in anti-capitalist movements. So, what is their true goal? Do they want to solve the global warming problem, or do they want to cripple the capitalist systems they so hate?
  8. The U.S. Senate snubbed the Kyoto treaty by a vote of 99-0. This was during the Clinton years! What did these 99 senators know about the Kyoto Accords that we don't know?
  9. Speaking of the Kyoto accords, they would severely impact the U.S. economy, but would leave China absolutely alone! China has one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Since a huge number of Kyoto proponents can also be called anti-American, could this cause you to wonder what the true goal of Kyoto is?
  10. And just how many years ago was it that these very same scientists were warming us about the earth getting cooler?

That's just a start. More to come later. They want to discuss global warming? Fine! No holds barred.


I especially like the one about "one degree". The reminder that the US Senate voted 99-0 against ratifying KYOTO is also something libs tend to overlook in their zeal to stick it to Bush. Speaking of KYOTO, the Texas Rainmaker has a revealing post on just how successful the Europeans have been in keeping their KYOTO agreements. He starts out with some nasty quotes demonizing George Bush at the time he rejected KYOTO. Here is one of them:

French Environment Minister Dominique Voynet said: “Mr Bush’s unilateral attitude is a scandal.”

His behaviour was “entirely provocative and irresponsible,” she added.

Texas Rainmaker then goes on to discuss how the Europeans are failing to keep their commitment to KYOTO quoting AFP:

New data has shown that the European Union (EU) remains embarrassingly off track for meeting its pledges under the Kyoto Protocol, the UN climate-change pact it championed after a US walkout.

Instead of falling, EU greenhouse-gas pollution actually rose in the latest year of monitoring, adding to the task of meeting the Kyoto goals, according to figures released by the European Environment Agency (EAA) in Copenhagen.

I guess it is fine to agree to KYOTO and not keep it, but villainous to not even agree to it. If the US had ratified it, the US would have kept it while others did not. In fact, if we had ratified and did not keep it, the media would be railing on us and ignoring Europe's failure. This reminds me of the SALT agreements with the old USSR. Such treaties are designed to weaken the US and KYOTO is no different.

10 Comments:

  • At 3:07 PM, Blogger SkyePuppy said…

    Ooh! I LOVE global warming.

    Anybody who holds the mirror up to the faces of the GW alarmists / socialists (can they actually see themselves in the mirror, or are they like vampires: unable to have their reflections visibile in a mirror?) is a friend of mine!

    Excellent post!

     
  • At 3:54 PM, Blogger LASunsett said…

    I love Boortz. He is as close to my views as any other talk-show host. He is a libertarian with a high regard for the "rule of law". He is not one of those wacko libertarians that think there should be NO laws.

    I get his show on my lunch hour and often hear him cite these same points, on this topic.

    Good post, sir.

     
  • At 4:49 PM, Blogger Mark said…

    Kyoto was crap. It had to have been pretty awful for all the ninnies on capitol hill to vote and not have one dissent.

    I don't listen to Boortz. Don't think we get him out here in NV. I'd probably like him if he says he's libertarian. But probably a real conservative (unlike washington conservatives), rather than libertarian. I agree with much of what 'real' conservativism is. I'm of that group, LA, that thinks most laws are crap, but believe there are some legitimate ones.

     
  • At 4:53 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Skyepuppy,

    I just salivate over the prospect of Al Gore running for Pres. A national debate on global warming would be so fun. I don't think he has a reflection :)

    LA, I know your time has been tight. I appreciate your giving me a sliver of it with your kind words. I don't get Boortz any more, so I have to be satisfied with his Nuze. It is one of the best daily updated websites of a talk show host. I would say, he, Limbaugh and Hewitt have the best websites. I think Hannity has the worst website, but I like his show.

     
  • At 5:20 PM, Blogger LASunsett said…

    AICS,

    I appreciate your giving me a sliver of it with your kind words.

    No problem sir. You are quite welcome. I appreciate you keeping my blog warm, while I am busy.

     
  • At 11:30 PM, Blogger FKAB said…

    Watching Al Gore on Letterman the other night (at 2 in the morning, mind you) it was quite funny to see that half the audience plus Letterman share your views on Global Warming. Maybe it's not such a huge religion after all?

     
  • At 3:13 PM, Blogger SkyePuppy said…

    FKAB,

    You mean the rest of the world doesn't take Al Gore as seriously as he takes himself?

    Sweet!

     
  • At 7:48 PM, Blogger FKAB said…

    The poor guy just wants to scale the heights of presidential-elect glory. What an ass.

     
  • At 12:19 PM, Anonymous Yos said…

    I saw this posted on a forum I frequent, and I was wondering if anyone has a response to the following two studies:

    This one shows that of all peer reviewed papers on GW in the past 10 years, not a single one suggests it's not true (out of 928 academic papers).
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

    This one shows that, in the same period, journalists regularly question whether or not it's true, suggest it's all fabricated, etc.
    http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978

    So if you take those two studies as true, the picture your left with is every single scinetist agrees, but many journalists don't.

    Comments?

     
  • At 2:16 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Yos,

    Welcome to LL. I looked at the sciencemag link. ( I don't really care what journalists think so I may look at the other later). I find the whole approach interesting: finding what people think based on the scientific papers written.

    The first question I ask is if anyone has much incentive to write papers denying anthropogenic climate change? The burden of proof would be on the proponents. To write a paper would be attempting to scientifically prove a negative. Or to simply write a paper saying they have not yet been convinced does not seem to have much purpose.

    I also happen to believe that there are political/financial downsides to championing non-consensus scientific opinions. You can lose your reputation, or your job or your funding. The article both admits that there may be some who reject it but have not written about it and also admits the consensus might be wrong saying:

    The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

    I would also point out that it is still a leap from man-caused global warming to catestrophic man-made global warming. Just because it is a few degrees warmer does not mean we are headed for disaster.

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home