Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Global “warming” freezes Europe and America

Awesome analysis from IBD:

A cautionary tale? You bet. Prognosticators who wrote the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, global warming report in 2007 predicted an inevitable, century-long rise in global temperatures of two degrees or more. Only higher temperatures were foreseen. Moderate or even lower temperatures, as we’re experiencing now, weren’t even listed as a possibility.

Since at least 1998, however, no significant warming trend has been noticeable. Unfortunately, none of the 24 models used by the IPCC views that as possible. They are at odds with reality.

The indictment:

Karl Popper, the late, great philosopher of science, noted that for something to be called scientific, it must be, as he put it, “falsifiable.” That is, for something to be scientifically true, you must be able to test it to see if it’s false. That’s what scientific experimentation and observation do. That’s the essence of the scientific method.

Unfortunately, the prophets of climate doom violate this idea. No matter what happens, it always confirms their basic premise that the world is getting hotter. The weather turns cold and wet? It’s global warming, they say. Weather turns hot? Global warming. No change? Global warming. More hurricanes? Global warming. No hurricanes? You guessed it.

Nothing can disprove their thesis. Not even the extraordinarily frigid weather now creating havoc across most of the Northern Hemisphere. …

I seem to recall having made this argument before, too:

This isn’t science; it’s a kind of faith. Scientists go along and even stifle dissent because, frankly, hundreds of millions of dollars in research grants are at stake. But for the believers, global warming is the god that failed.

Why do we continue to listen to warmists when they’re so wrong? Maybe it’s because their real agenda has nothing to do with climate change at all. Earlier this month, attendees of a global warming summit in Cancun, Mexico, concluded, with virtually no economic or real scientific support, that by 2020 rich nations need to transfer $100 billion a year to poor nations to help them “mitigate” the adverse impacts of warming.

This is what global warming is really about — wealth redistribution by people whose beliefs are basically socialist. It has little or nothing to do with climate. …

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have some global “warming” to go scrape off of my windshield.

December 28, 2010 - Posted by | global warming


  1. But you see, they have attached a great deal of passion to the idea of global warming, so your flimsy “facts” pale in comparison to their passion. No contest!
    Why think? Soooo much FEELING to draw from!

    Comment by Kevin | December 30, 2010

  2. How can they predict Global weather in the coming Decade when the local forecast isn’t predicted accurately 100% of the time?

    I wouldn’t mind an unusually warm winter. I hate cold weather.

    Comment by SojournerLove | January 1, 2011

  3. Hey I have an idea. Let’s not spend another dime for any aspect of Gloal Warming UNTIL their experts can predict ACCURATELY what my forecast is for this weekend!
    And if they can’t then why believe they can predict years in advance?

    Comment by tnjack | January 2, 2011

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: