PJ Media

@253. dave:

According to Creationists life is evidence in support of God. Similarly, according to Green Armageddonists (like you), modest rises in temperature over the past century are evidence that humans are wrecking the environment.

You ignore the fact that AGW studies an observable and testable hypothesis. The Creationist hypothesis is not testable.

The modest historical rise in temeperature is not in dispute.
But that’s a trivial definition of global warming.
However, “Global Warming,” the theory that industrialised society is causing the atmosphere to warm to dangerous levels, is in dispute.

I am glad you are informed enough to realize that temperatures are rising. AGW is a very good fit for the data. Do you have an alternative hypothesis? That would be the scientific response. Simply denying the AGW hypothesis does not get us closer to understanding the process.

the Green Solution (TM) is remarkably similar to Socialism. Therefore, part of dismantling this nonsense is to show that there is a political agenda behind the scientific one.

Actually, the Green Solution is 100% compatible with our current economic system. Just take the subsidies we currently provide to polluting fossil fuel industries, and provide them to sustainable and environmentally responsible industries instead. No additional socialism required.

“If you support public parks, roads, schools, police, fire, wastewater, etc, then you, too, are a socialist. Welcome comrade!”

not true, but this is beside the point. Whether socialism is good or bad is irrelevant to whether it has grafted it on to modern-day environmentalism. But good luck convincing the local denizens of PJ of the wonders of socialism!

I’m pretty sure you are happy to take advantage of socialism in the forms I mentioned. No need to deny that socialism is part of our nation’s success.

@254. dave:

And yes, I am aware the the argument can be reversed.

That’s why the anti-AGW propaganda is being generated by folks with a vested interest in the fossil fuel economy, not objective scientists.

by the way, in the news: Hansen’s supervisor at NASA is a skeptic. Did you catch that one Dave S? Did you notice that like many scientists, he only “came out” as a skeptic when he retired? Why would that be, in a free-flowing intellectual environment where everyone can speak their minds?
(rhetorical question alert)

Yes, his supervisor who retired fifteen years ago to sell out to industry. Am I supposed to be surprised?

The only folks arguing against the AGW hypothesis are folks with a financial stake in fossil fuels. I wonder why that is?

Peace.

DS