From contributor Jed L. at Daily Kos:
Remember just a few days ago when the entire Flat Earth Society Conservative Establishment was gleefully cheering on the "heavy" snow to hit Las Vegas and other unlikely parts of the country?
You know how each and every last one of them prattled forth about how this wintertime snowfall proved that global warming was a hoax?
Well, you don't hear much from any them now that a rash of high temperatures is sweeping the country from the midwest to the southeast and threatening to unleash widespread flooding, do you?
Not a peep on Drudge Report, the assignment editor for the Anti-Science Society of America. Not a word from the other wingnuts.
Because the truth doesn't fit their narrative.
Horrible way to argue and something that's becoming a pet peeve. If the "entire Conservative Establishment" is such-n-such, how hard would it be to hyperlink to examples? If you're going to tar your opponents with the "Flat Earth Society" label, how about arguing in a manner that real scientists would be proud of-- producing evidence, for instance?
True, the rest of the article provides hyperlinks concerning the two-day warming aberation, but that's a red herring, a resort to the manner of responsible argumentation while failing to argue responsibly. A two-day weather system tells us next to nothing about the legitimacy of Global Warming claims. In fact, the "Flat Earth Society" opposition has a better argument if, as I suspect, this has been a generally cold winter across the country. At least, they'd have an entire season of data points.
Not that I'd pay any attention to an entire season of data points, either. Claiming that man-made pollutants in our atmosphere (high levels of carbon dioxide and methane) are causing specific weather changes over a decade-- let alone over a season or two days-- is suspicious behavior. Huge amounts of resources go into predicting our economy, which strikes me as less complex than weather, and still our leaders are blind-sided. It's bad enough that people are taking computer models of Global Warming so seriously but even worse when folks like this poster go far beyond what the models claim.
Scientific measurements are indicating high levels of carbon dioxide and methane in our atmosphere. We need to spend some resources making sure the measurements are legitimate. And, while we're doing that we need to find ways of reducing our carbon and methane footprints-- not because we know what these man-made greenhouse gasses will do to us-- but because we really don't know.
Recent Comments