Joe Bastardi tackles Gore’s global warming credentials….and rightly so:
I am absolutely astounded that someone who refuses to publicly debate anyone on this matter and has no training in the field narrated a movie where frames of nuclear explosions were interspersed in a subliminal way in scenes of droughts and flood, among other major gaffes, can say these things and then have them accepted… by anyone.
The list of degreed meteorologists, climatologists, scientists, that signed the Manhatten declaration stating their disagreement with Mssr. Gore’s premises grows by the day.
What gets me most is he goes on unchallenged one-on-one on this. Never in all my years of competition have I seen someone elevated to a level that he is, in any thing, without any face-to-face competition to establish credibility.
When someone gets a PhD, his or her thesis is normally attacked, for lack of a better word, in something known as the “orals,” at least it was for those venturing into those waters at PSU.
In other words, a group of people still in a higher academic standing than you, one you want to ascend to, will try to get you to defend what you do in a way where you show what you know, not by some programmed unchallenged remark, but by competition with the people that are criticizing. Why? Because you can defend what you know, if you have worked hard enough. It is typical of the mentality of this person, that he thinks that he should be able to get something for nothing, just go on unchecked, hurling insults at people who have forgotten more than he will ever know.
But you know he DID invent the internet so we have to give him that…..sigh
Meanwhile in other global warming news there appears to still be a few level headed blokes in England:
Today, Andrew Guy Tyrie, Conservative Party Member of Parliament for Chichester, first elected in the 1997 General Election, and formerly a special adviser at HM Treasury, has written an excellent piece in The Times, in which he describes our carbon emission targets as “absurd” [‘A fantasy that will bankrupt us’, The Times, March 27]:
“… drastic reductions in the use of fossil fuels and therefore huge increases in the cost of energy - in industry, for heating our homes and in our cars - would leave us all worse off. It would hit the poor hardest, for whom energy is a larger proportion of their income.
Implementing the [Climate Change] Bill would also, in practice, mean the closure of parts of British industry, only to see them reopen in China and elsewhere. The UK contributes only 2 per cent of global emissions. Unilateral action by the UK, as required by this Bill, would be politically irresponsible and economically disastrous.
Back in the real world these targets are unlikely to be met…”
Mr. Tyrie is to be congratulated - how unusual it is to hear an MP who dares to say what we all know in our heart of hearts to be true; it punctures the balloon of hypocrisy like a bubble bumping onto a thistle.
And finally a new book is out by Lawrence Solomon on the the deniers of man-mad global warming. Born out of many articles he wrote for the National Post regarding those scientists who were labeled “deniers” by the many environazi’s we have all grown to know quite well over the years. The book The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so
Sterling Burnett wrote this about the book:
This book does not attempt to settle the science, or show that humans are or are not responsible for the present warming trend, or settle what we can expect the future harms/benefits of continued warming (or cooling) might be. Rather, the genius of the book is that it shows in a manner accessible to a lay audience that uncertainties concerning each important facet of the “consensus” view on warming abound, and that the dissenting views are at least as plausible (and often more compelling) than the IPCC/Gore camps.
The Deniers, examines what should be the active debates concerning the plausibility of the argument that human CO2 emissions (or CO2 per se) is a driver for climate change, what role the sun may play in warming, what role the present warming trend (and human activities) play in hurricane and tropical/parasitic disease patterns, and the reliability of the climate models, among other issues. In addition, Solomon notes the harsh treatment that many scientists have endured simply because they followed the scientific method, the evidence from their research, and their own consciences, all of which led them to the conclusion that this or that facet of the global-warming consensus view was woefully incomplete or flat-out wrong. This treatment has had the effect intended by global warming scaremongers — to shut down promising areas of research and to silence credible critics.
Though there are many good books on global warming, The Deniers is among the most effective in showing how science is being fundamentally undermined in the current politicized atmosphere of climate research. In addition, like no other book or paper I know, it provides a concise but thorough overview of the myriad weaknesses of the consensus view, the quality and substance of the criticisms of that view, and the stellar qualifications of those scientists labeled derisively as “deniers.”
Certainly appears to be a book you should pick up to better understand how the vitriol and labels of “the debate is over” have effected the debate over man-made global warming.
Print This Post
Trackbacks
24 comments so far
Leave a reply
If you find your posts being held for moderation, sign up at OpenID and login using that. This will avoid moderation.