1. Don't Look Up. This is the most important rule. Look down and only down. Don't look up and, in particular, don't look around. You'll need to put on the blinders and stuff your ears with cotton if you're to have any hope of avoiding the contamination of legitimate science and the rapidly mounting research on global warming.
If you stare directly at your feet you'll probably find no discernible evidence whatsoever of global warming. But, be careful - you might not be so lucky if you look up, even briefly. If you look up you might get a glimpse of those places where global warming is already going full bore - places like central Africa, the eastern Mediterranean, the American south, most of Australia and Europe and Asia. You don't want to look at those places and you really don't want to even take a quick peek at the Arctic.
2. Don't Be Too Fussy. Another important rule. There are people and organizations out there that'll tell you what you want to hear - that the whole global warming thing is a crock or a conspiracy by the worldwide scientific community. They will assure you that the science is inconclusive or that greenhouse gas emissions aren't the problem or that this has all happened before or even that we're entering an era of global cooling. They'll fill your mind with whatever they can manage to pack in there but - and remember this - don't be too fussy about what they're telling you or who it's coming from.
Aren't you getting tired of all this "peer review" nonsense? Truth is truth after all, whether it's peer reviewed or not. Just because the experts you want to hear can't come up with any research that's actually been reviewed (i.e. "tested") by other experts in their field doesn't mean that they're giving you a big load of hooey. Remember, after all, that global conspiracy by the scientific community.
Don't waste your time looking into the background of these experts. Just because they previously worked for Big Tobacco in spreading doubt about the link between cigarettes and cancer and just because they now take funding from Big Oil to spread doubt about the link between fossil fuels, greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, that's sheer coincidence. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.
3. Stand Your Ground. Sooner or later you'll be pressured by someone from the Looney Left - and that includes all governments and their militaries, all national institutes of science, most industries, the environmentalists, you know, the entire "fringe" group - to learn a bit about anthropogenic global warming by reading the latest research and studies and environmental news. Don't do it. They're only trying to knock you off balance.
Stick with Fox News or NewsMax or the open mouth talk shows - the lower the better. They'll feed you their message until you can't hear any more. If they can't spin something away, they'll just make something up. Either way, you'll get what you were looking for.
4. Be Strong. These past ten years have been tough on Denialists. Truth alone has taken a huge toll on their ranks. Many of the mere "doubters" have already defected leaving only the hard core deniers to man the barricades. The True Unbelievers now tend to be the shills and the cranks but, hey, everyone is entitled to his opinion, eh?
So hang tough, the next decade promises to be so much harder than the last one.
Your article gives no concrete scientific support for your statements any more than those you criticize.
I would like to challenge the assertion that Global Warming is worse than Global Cooling because if you believe that Global Warming is bad, then you would support initiatives that will stop Global Warming and perhaps move us towards Global Cooling. There really is not much logic in that thinking. Global Warming, when you think about it, is much better than Global Cooling. Global Warming will increase, both northward and southward, the latitudes in which food crops can be grown, which will increase the world food supply. Global cooling will shrink the world food supply. Why is that good?
The other supposition I would like to challenge is the idea that man actually CAN control the climate of the earth. Kind of makes us sound like a bunch of mad scientists. Really, it makes us very arrogant. We have NEVER been able to do ANYTHING to alter the earth's climate. Why, all of the sudden, have we gained that miraculous ability? Probably through the "magic" of political wizardry and cinematic drammatization. Congratulations!
I have to give you full points for an utterly inane comment. Global warming will increase world food supply? Only in your mind, friend. The most productive, arable land that is lost to droughts, floods and desertification won't be replaced by northerly and southerly expansion. Have you ever been to the north? Do you really believe that the Canadian shield and our tundra will be amenable to crop production? An incredibly foolish assumption.
Man cannot control the earth's climate but we can inflict disruptive change on it.
You need to read a great deal more and try to learn the basics of AGW and climate change. Your grasp of these issues is feeble at best.
Man oh Man. There is absolutely no viable evidence that mankind is causing "global warming". The world is currently emerging from an ice age and eventually will re-enter another ice age if climate history is to be followed. And yes, please do the necessary research to understand fully what is currently the state of the climate. It certainly does not support your contention that all is lost.
Tom, I've read your fantasist blog and understand you're an electrical engineer. That means you're much too well educated to misconstrue the fact that the 2500 IPCC climate scientists and their abundant research present the "viable evidence that nankind is causing 'global warming'" you seem to find so elusive. You have at least some facility in science and ther's all the "viable evidence" the scientific mind could want - and more - available at their site or in their publications. Ignore it if you like but don't bury your head in the sand and then tell me what's on the horizon. That, Tom, is nothing but foolishness.
Here we go again. There is no such animal as 2500 IPC "climate scientists". Their expertise was quite varied. Also most of this group had involvement in only in a small part of the larger report. Some of the conclusions like the "hockey stick" graph have already been disproved. The models used by the scientists remain very much unproven as to their accuracy. So look further than what is published by the UN group and you will discover vast quantities of new information by very reputable scientists that does not support the IPC conclusions.
Yes, Tom, here we go again indeed. Do you honestly believe that, were the IPCC conclusions refutable as you claim, Big Oil and Big Coal wouldn't jump on it like white on rice? There would be multi-billions of dollars of profits to be reaped if the IPCC findings could be disproved - billions upon billions, we're talking trillions of dollars. So Tom if you have that evidence, I mean if it really exists and doesn't just float about in some skewed minds, you'd better get busy and be sure to get in on the ground floor to reap your megafortune - or not.
C'mon Tom, you're a self-proclaimed Merit Scholar. Surely you can figure out how to follow the money. And then you can explain why there's no pot of gold at the end of your rainbow.
Post a Comment