Goodman Stoops To Name Calling Over Global Warming Debate
Ellen Goodman, writing for Boston Globe has come out and said it straight out: those who do not accept that mankind is to blame for the current warming trend the Earth is experiencing are no better than Holocaust deniers. From her column:
I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.
Those of us who question the validity of the U.N.'s "blame America, er, Mankind" global warming claims are doing so based on the historic and geographic evidence found in ice cores from Greenland to Antarctica and sediment cores from Ireland to the coast of Africa. There are literally hundreds of scientists that question the claims from the Left that it is due to CO2 emissions and it's all Man's fault.
Goodman would be well advised to look at the geological record as Avery and Singer have done in their new book, Unstoppable Global Warming. Some of the researchers analyzing the geological record include Willi Dansgaard of Denmark and Hans Oeschger of Switzerland, who are the first to analyze such ice cores, the first series providing some 250,000 years worth of data.
The Greenland ice core data has been corroborated by data from the analysis of samples taken from other points around the globe.
That the Left is resorting to such despicable name calling tactics is no surprise. It is a clear attempt to squelch real science in order to push threw their agenda that the current warming trend, which began at the conclusion of the Little Ice Age, is our fault. Instead, she is guilty of drinking the Kool-Aid like the rest of the Liberal-Left and the Main Stream Media.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
The science is readily available, in publications and on the net. Perhaps Ms. Goodman should take the time to study the topic of climate change as I am doing. Of course, I seriously doubt she will, as she is focused on replacing her light bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs (she says she has three; I have over 20 such bulbs…most of the lights inside my house are fluorescent lights).
She goes on (and on and on):
This great divide comes from the science-be-damned-and-debunked attitude of the Bush administration and its favorite media outlets. The day of the report, Big Oil Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma actually described it as "a shining example of the corruption of science for political gain." Speaking of corruption of science, the American Enterprise Institute, which has gotten $1.6 million over the years from Exxon Mobil, offered $10,000 last summer to scientists who would counter the IPCC report.
Inhofe is right in his description of the IPCC report. It ignores the research of many scientists in regards to climate change, uses skewed data from ground stations to measure the Earth's temperature, as opposed to weather balloons and satellite data and filtering out the data from heat sinks at airports and large cities. It focuses on computer models used to "prove" it is CO2 emissions driving the arming trend, despite the fact that CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere. It ignores solar activity and the geologic record. It ignores the impact of cosmic rays and other forces in the solar and galactic neighborhood. It ignores variations of the Earth's orbit, which has a 100,000 year cycle. It ignores shifts in the Earth's tilt and its "wobble" as it rotates, both of which have their cycles that influence climate. It also ignores the overwhelming influence of water vapor in the atmosphere which has a greater impact on a greenhouse effect that a trace gas such as CO2.
As for the AEI providing money to any scientist who refutes the IPCC, how is that corrupting science? The U.N. has provided how many millions (or is it billions) of dollars (our TAX dollars at that!) to scientists to claim it's all Man's fault, and for political gain? Especially since the "it's Man's fault" pseudo-science has been disproved as early as 1983, before the current hysteria about CO2 came into focus.
The U.N. for some time now has been a highly questionable organization, plagued by corruption; as such, why should we believe any of their claims where the current warming trend is concerned?