“The debate is settled,” asserted propagandist in chief Barack Obama in his latest State of the Union address. “Climate change is a fact.” Really? There is nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that science is settled, static, impervious to challenge. . .
If climate science is settled, why do its predictions keep changing? And how is it that the great physicist Freeman Dyson, who did some climate research in the late 1970s, thinks today’s climate-change Cassandras are hopelessly mistaken?
They deal with the fluid dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans, argues Dyson, ignoring the effect of biology, i.e., vegetation and topsoil. Further, their predictions rest on models they fall in love with: “You sit in front of a computer screen for 10 years and you start to think of your model as being real.” Not surprisingly, these models have been “consistently and spectacularly wrong” in their predictions, write atmospheric scientists Richard McNider and John Christy — and always, amazingly, in the same direction.
Charles Krauthammer expounds on this topic here.
Of humorous note:
As well I was told by an alarmist that the reason why we are having the the coldest winter in over 30 years, where I live, is because global warming makes that stuff like that happen! 🙂 Sort of like evolution I guess, it predicts everything and can be falsified by nothing.
But the funniest thing this winter was,,,
Here are a few facts you will not hear on the evening news:
Also of note, it seems, in conjunction with the long terraforming of the earth to make it habitable for people (Hugh Ross) and also in conjunction with the privileged planet principle (Denton, Gonzalez) it seems the earth truly is ‘designed’ for with us ‘messy’ humans in mind to a certain extent:
The biosphere, being Intelligently Designed for ‘messy’ humans, is far more robust to our presence than atheistic materialists presuppose as was clearly illustrated by the oil spill a few years ago!
In fact, humans ‘getting in the way’ to try to help clean up the oil spill only made the situation worse:
He has since corrected himself by claiming he intended to say “the debate is settled. Climate change is a fart.”
Why is it, out of curiosity, that Darwinism and climate change politics go hand-in-hand? How often do you see a person who is a radical supporter of Darwinian evolution but opposes the view that climate change is ‘settled’? I can’t think of any prominent persons who hold to such views, which is quite telling to me in the final analysis.
Well, you don’t have to look very far – there’s two mentioned right there in the post you replied to: Dyson and Krauthammer.
OldArmy94:
Liberals tend to be darwinists and environmentalists.
I used to consider myself an environmentalist and think it’s a shame that “environmentalism” is now seen as a radical liberal cause. I grew up near Cleveland, Ohio and remember when there was actual black smoke belching from factory smokestacks — not the backlit steam that they now try to make look as ominous as possible with photographic tricks. I remember sulfurous clouds so thick you could barely see from one side of the Cuyahoga Valley to the other. I remember the Cuyahoga River catching fire. I remember taking a cruise on Lake Erie and competing with my fellow fourth-graders to see how many dead fish we could find floating in the water.
Now that some polluting industries have been cleaned up and the rest exported to China (along with their jobs), the effects of pollution are not so obvious. And like an immune system gone haywire, which has stopped attacking real enemies and has turned against its own body, the agencies originally created to fight real pollution have in order to keep their jobs been forced to invent new “pollutants” like CO2, which is produced by every breathing creature.
I am hoping for “the madness of crowds” to subside and the pendulum to swing back to sanity.
sagebrush gardener, I remember those days to! But we are to be ‘good stewards’ of the earth, not slaves to the atheistic delusion that we are somehow of ‘cancers on the earth’. A term I recently heard mentioned by an atheist professor in the new Documentary ‘The War On Humans”
With that in mind, as to how far the atheistic mindset is from the theistic mindset, in that they don’t think humans are ‘exceptional’ at all, much less made in God’s image, it is interesting to point out the earth seems to be very welcoming, and forgiving, to our presence. As I already pointed out somewhat with the rapid oil spill recovery in post 1, here are a few more notes along that line:
Besides degrading heavy metals, bacteria are now being harnessed to by man to degrade man-made materials such as styrofoam, plastic, and nylon:
What should be needless to say, these findings do not suggest that we are the ‘scourge to the earth’, as some radical environmentalists would have us believe, but that we are meant to be here on this earth for a purpose, and that purpose includes consideration for humans slowly, but surely, learning how to use their resources properly. i.e. learning to be ‘good stewards’ just as the theist holds.
Its a settled fact someone saying, running, and being voted for president because of being a african or any identity is morally and maybe legally not got the right to be president anymore then a citizen not born in the country.
Americans only can be President and never can be denied because of identity especially for the true americans but all citizens,.
Obama being a global wamingolic fits in the equation of error.
@6 sagebrush gardener
Which is why I’ve taken to using the word conservationist. It implies that some movements should be made to protect environments, yet without the connotation of the far-left ideology.