What exactly are we debating?

What good are two sides to an argument when the government has already taken sides and just can keep changing the rules to stay in the game. Take for example an exchange of opinions between two scientists in October 2009, as follows:


Kevin Trenberth: “The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to show that specific global and regional changes resulting from global warming are already upon us. The future projections are for much more warming, but with rates of change perhaps a hundred times as fast as those experienced in nature over the past 10,000 years.”

William Gray: “It is by no means clear that the global warming we have experienced over the last 30 and last 100 years is due primarily to human-induced CO2 rises. The globe experienced many natural temperature changes before the Industrial Revolution. How do we know the recent warming is not due to one or a combination of many natural changes that were experienced in the past? There is no way Dr. Trenberth or anybody else can, with any degree of confidence, say that future global warming may be a hundred times faster than anything we have seen in the past. This is pure conjecture.”

Climate Etc.

by Judith Curry

The climate debate is becoming more complex and sophisticated, and the issues and the ‘sides’ in the debate seem less black and white than they used to.

View original post 2,034 more words

About Wagathon

Hot World Syndrome—fear of a hotter, more intimidating world than it actually is prompting a desire for more protection than is warranted by any actual threat. A Chance Meeting– We toured south along the Bicentennial Bike Trail in the Summer of 1980, working up appetites covering ~70 miles per day and staying at hiker/biker campgrounds at night along the Oregon/California coast (they were 50¢ a day at that time). The day's ride over, and after setting up tents, hitting the showers, and making a run to a close-by store, it was time to relax. The third in our little bicycle tour group, Tom, was about 30 yards away conversing with another knot of riders and treating himself to an entire cheesecake for dinner. He probably figured Jim and I would joke about what a pig he was eating that whole pie and decided to eat among strangers. Three hours later after sharing stories and remarking on a few coincidences that turned up here and there, Tom and one of the former strangers realized they were cousins, meeting in this most unlikely place for the first time. ~Mac
This entry was posted in The Cultural Hegemony of Climate Superstition. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to What exactly are we debating?

  1. Wagathon says:

    At this point, the Little Eichmanns of the Left, with their odd penchant to follow charismatic figures into the immoral abyss with such fascist glee may be drawing unwanted attention to the Left’s other tendencies — e.g., the Left’s failure to recognize and confront evil (they’d much rather confront the issue of the Ten Commandments in US courthouses), the Left’s antipathy toward capitalism (i.e., evil big business and big oil), and the Left’s contempt toward those that embrace an ethic of free individuals taking personal responsibility for their own futures. Instead, the Left would rather address their own shortcomings by stealing the profits of the earners of the world.

    The Left of course hoped to cloak their political and ideological agenda using the banner of eliminating evil CO2 for cover. Instead, they’re having to settle for pointing to an enlightened Europe to justify VAT taxes. However, the Left’s continued denigration of real science and thoughtful scientists and common sense working citizens is an in-your-face reminder of how much the Left’s real agenda is motivated by their hate of Americanism and that there is nothing they will not do to destroy the culture.

  2. omanuel says:

    Climategate has exposed lasting damage to science and society from:

    1. The misuse of energy (E) stored as mass (m) to destroy Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 and 9 Aug 1945, respectively, and

    2. Subsequent blindness to spiritual truths in science, and to scientific truths in spirituality.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

Comments are closed.