No Need for Debate

No matter who you speak to on the liberal side of the fence regarding global warming, they will tell you that it is a fore-gone conclusion that global warming is occurring and that it is man's activities that are causing it. They will tell you that no scientist of note dissents from that view so there is absolutely no need for debate.

Then on almost a daily basis, news such as the article linked above shows up in the news:
"There's a natural cause that may account for much of the Arctic warming, which has melted sea ice, ice sheets and glaciers, according to a study published Thursday in the journal Nature. New research points a finger at a natural and cyclical increase in the amount of energy in the atmosphere that moves from south to north around the Arctic Circle."
Or like this one:
"Scientists have discovered what they think may be another reason why Greenland's ice is melting: a thin spot in Earth's crust is enabling underground magma to heat the ice."
The liberals will quickly reiterate that no "real" scientist of note dissents from the consensus view. Anyone who does is obviously a quack or funded by the oil companies.

Then when the NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin claims:
"I have no doubt that global — that a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with."
They repeat the mantra that debate is no longer necessary. When it comes to the war, debate can continue right up until the war actually ends... It doesn't matter that blood has already been spilled. Debate and dissent can continue and is "healthy" part of the process. But when it deals with global warming, do not even dare debate the "consensus view" or you'll be labeled a member of the flat Earth society or be compared to Hitler.

They continue to rail and whine, but slowly even the very liberal New York Times is beginning to question whether or not global warming is as open and shut of a case as is claimed on the tin.

They will none the less poo-poo this as well. They'll lump ridicule on their detractors but in the end they will be proven absolutely wrong.

This is a pattern my friends it is a pattern that you will see repeated over and over again.
They shriek from the roof tops that the sky is falling and time and time again things are not as dire as they claim. They bellow about how we're losing in Iraq... and what is the end result? We're moving noticeably toward victory... No no no, the jury is out. The war is lost... He's General Betray-Us...

The jury is not out on global warming. The fat lady has not yet belted out her solo. Data is still streaming in and every piece of data begins to paint a very tenuous link between any global warming trend and the activities of mankind.

So when they say that only they are the "real" scientists... Only their findings are the proper ones. One must ask themselves this... Do "real" scientists shun the scientific method of investigation? Observe if you will:
A year ago, British meteorologists made headlines predicting that the buildup of greenhouse gases would help make 2007 the hottest year on record. At year’s end, even though the British scientists reported the global temperature average was not a new record — it was actually lower than any year since 2001 — the BBC confidently proclaimed, “2007 Data Confirms Warming Trend.”
The scientific method is pretty clear. The scientist forms a hypothesis that may explain an observed phenomenon. Then experiments are designed and outcomes predicted based upon the hypothesis. The results of the experiments are collected and then compared to the predictions and used to either prove or disprove the proposed hypothesis. If the predictions ("2007 will be the hottest year on record") do not coincide with the observed results ("it was actually lower than any year since 2001") then the hypothesis is flawed.


Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com