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, October 15, 2007

Global Warming Alarmists Equate Base Hit With Home Run

The Global Warming Alarmists and their sycophants in the media continue to play their shell game when it comes to climate change. When one reads about or views media exchanges like a recent one with Miles O'Brien, you do not know whether to laugh at the lameness of their efforts or cry that such lameness is taken seriously by too many. If you look at this in terms of baseball, you see that the alarmist are treating a base hit with a Home Run. Anyone familiar with baseball knows this is ridiculous. Why do I draw an analogy to Baseball? It is clear when you review my five questions on global warming. These questions are:

1) Has it been proven that Global Warming is actually happening?
2) Has it been proven that Global Warming is caused by man-made greenhouse gases?
3) Has it been proven that Global Warming will cause catastrophic conditions that will result in massive human casualties?
4) Has it been proven that if 1-3 are correct that it is possible for man to prevent #3 by reducing or eliminating their output in greenhouse gases?
5) Just because 2-4 are unproven and likely a crock, does this excuse man's irresponsible polluting of the earth?

I created these five questions when formulating the most time consuming post I have ever created which dealt with the fact that Global Warming is NOT a settled science. The first four questions are designed to tear the thinking person away from the shell game that Al Gore and his followers try to play with us. All four questions must be provably answered before we should even think of sinking trillions of dollars into "fixing". Yet those who play the shell game keep pointing to the only question close to being proven (yes the earth appears to have warmed ONE degree).

So if these first four questions are treated as bases in a baseball field, the best scientists have been able to do is get to first base and they maybe are rounding the corner toward second. Yet the alarmists are ready to change the scoreboard and add a point as if a Home Run has been scored. Instead, the Skeptics have a guy on first and another near second ready to trap and tag the runner between the two bases.

To illustrate my point, here are some quotes from Miles O'Brien (from transcript courtesy of Newsbusters):
"If you go through all of those statements, they, in sum, do not actually go after the central thesis of the film itself, which is that global warming is real and there is a human connection there."

Translation: So what if Gore got sloppy and had 9 major inaccuracies in his film. You can still trust the rest of it.

"So, clearly what we're talking about here is, there isn't much debate in the science. The judge didn't even say that."

Translation: According to Miles since the judge did not spoon-feed us by saying these 9 inaccuracies undermine the GW theory, it doesn't. We can still bury our head in the sand and claim the science is settled.

"And now 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by human beings. So there really isn't a scientific debate anymore on this, Heidi."

Translation: You can get tagged out 5 feet away from home, but it is still a Home Run in my book.

"Really, if you look at those inaccuracies and go through them point by point, they really boil down to exaggerations."

Translation: Exaggerations, but we can still trust our friend Al Gore.

"He [the judge] does say that in some cases Al Gore may have connected some dots that scientists are not ready to connect."

Translation: We are still at the level of unconnected dots, but the science is settled because a base hit equals a Home Run in my book.

Do these people actually listen to themselves? Do they actually think through this before they get on the air? Or do they simply go under the assumption that Al Gore has unquestionable moral authority because they think he should have won in 2000? If he had won in 2000, I do not think the Alarmists would have gained such a foothold that they have. In a final analogy, those of us who have had children know how doting a parent can be. During the baby stage, everything your baby does is cute, amazing, worthy of applause, etc. The same is with Al Gore. Because much of the world views Al Gore in terms of a clash between himself and Bush, they are choosing to dote upon Al Gore like they would a baby. Everything he does or says is wonderful. When he burps, they clap. When he messes his pants, they are spellbound. When trying to walk and he falls, they cheer and help him back up again. Kool-Aid drinking at its finest.

Labels: , , , ,


  • At 12:36 PM, Blogger SkyePuppy said…

    The baby analogy works for me better than the baseball one, but then, I'm not much of a sport.

    Al Gore, the enviro-whackos' beautiful new baby...

  • At 11:42 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    I know that some purists probably cringe when I use more than one analogy in a single post. I just can't help it sometimes.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home