ONE IS THREAT REAL, THE OTHER IS IMAGINED.
THE TWO HEROIC US SOLDIERS IN IRAQ WHO WERE KIDNAPPED. TOTURED, MURDERED, AND THEN HAD THEIR BODIES BOOBY-TRAPPED WERE NOT VICTIMS OF AN IMAGINARY FOE.
THE ENEMY IS A REAL ONE; IT IS CALLED AL QAEDA, AND INCLUDES MANY JIHADOMANIACS FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD.
MANIACS WHO PERPETRATE TERROR ALL OVER THE WORLD - FROM THE PHILLIPINES THROUGH THAILAND AND PAKISTAN, AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ, JORDAN, EGYPT, TURKEY, MOROCCO, AND LONDON. TO NAME JUST A FEW PLACES THEY HAVE ATTACKED, RECENTLY.
The other threat "man-made global-warming' - is merely a theoretical danger, one I am skeptical of because it is a FACT that the globe has had many MANY eras of warming and cooling, ALL before SUV's or man-made "greenhouse gases."
And then there's this FACT: As CO2 levels increased from 1940-1970, global temperatures DECLINED; this is DISPOSITIVE PROOF; increases in atmospheric CO2 cannot cause global warming. In fact, many areas where we see OBVIOUS warming are places where the local conditions are the cause - like Kilimanjaro and the Arctic.
People who are more worried about "man-made global warming:" are either DUPES or INSANE; most're victims of a deliberately provoked mass-hysteria perpetrated by politicians who literally and absolutely (and self-admittedly) want to enact laws which give government more control over the marketplace, if not the global economy, and who want to stultify the growth of trade and industrialization - the two economic engines which can actually best END worldwide poverty.
(FACT: China and south Korea have not improved their economies by becoming more socialist, but by becomg LESS socialist; DITTO Ireland, the UK, Poland, Hungary, Russia, India, etc., etc. etc. FACT: We will never redistribute our way to increased wealth, and we need to increase wealth to make more people have a higher standard of living.)
That's why I say:
THE TWO HEROIC US SOLDIERS IN IRAQ WHO WERE KIDNAPPED. TOTURED, MURDERED, AND THEN HAD THEIR BODIES BOOBY-TRAPPED WERE NOT VICTIMS OF AN IMAGINARY FOE.
THE ENEMY IS A REAL ONE; IT IS CALLED AL QAEDA, AND INCLUDES MANY JIHADOMANIACS FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD.
MANIACS WHO PERPETRATE TERROR ALL OVER THE WORLD - FROM THE PHILLIPINES THROUGH THAILAND AND PAKISTAN, AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ, JORDAN, EGYPT, TURKEY, MOROCCO, AND LONDON. TO NAME JUST A FEW PLACES THEY HAVE ATTACKED, RECENTLY.
The other threat "man-made global-warming' - is merely a theoretical danger, one I am skeptical of because it is a FACT that the globe has had many MANY eras of warming and cooling, ALL before SUV's or man-made "greenhouse gases."
And then there's this FACT: As CO2 levels increased from 1940-1970, global temperatures DECLINED; this is DISPOSITIVE PROOF; increases in atmospheric CO2 cannot cause global warming. In fact, many areas where we see OBVIOUS warming are places where the local conditions are the cause - like Kilimanjaro and the Arctic.
People who are more worried about "man-made global warming:" are either DUPES or INSANE; most're victims of a deliberately provoked mass-hysteria perpetrated by politicians who literally and absolutely (and self-admittedly) want to enact laws which give government more control over the marketplace, if not the global economy, and who want to stultify the growth of trade and industrialization - the two economic engines which can actually best END worldwide poverty.
(FACT: China and south Korea have not improved their economies by becoming more socialist, but by becomg LESS socialist; DITTO Ireland, the UK, Poland, Hungary, Russia, India, etc., etc. etc. FACT: We will never redistribute our way to increased wealth, and we need to increase wealth to make more people have a higher standard of living.)
That's why I say:
To make poverty history, we need to make socialism history.MORE HERE.
To make jihadoterrorism history, we need to make Leftism, defeatism, isolationism, pacifism, post-modernism, moral relativism and multi-culturalism history.
4 comments:
A study of how the last ice age ended by Eric Monnin found that temperatures increased before CO2 levels rose, with a gap of anywhere between 400-1000 years. You may find this interesting
If I recall correctly the IPCC used to claim that CO2 was a "temperature driver", which Monnin shows to be incorrect, but they have since softened their stance and now only claim it is a "temperature amplifier". On what evidence they base this I have no idea.
a feller at the planck inst in europe says that periodic shifts in the suns strength (and not the earth's atmosphere) regulates all shifts of temp on earth.
makes sense to me.
everyday I notice it gets warmer when the sun shines, and then gets colder at night...do you think I could get a multimillion dollar grant to explore the connection between the suns activity and the temperature?
Wow, all your same rhetoric that I’ve already addressed. Quick re-summary:
"it is a FACT that the globe has had many MANY eras of warming and cooling, ALL before SUV's or man-made ‘greenhouse gases.’"
Yes, if I go burn down a tree would you deny the man-made cause? Trees have burned down before man ever existed due to natural causes. Just because I specifically set this one on fire with a match is no reason for you to believe that it wasn’t a lightning strike that did it. Just because something happened in the past for one reason doesn’t mean that it can’t happen again for a different reason.
"And then there's this FACT: As CO2 levels increased from 1940-1970, global temperatures DECLINED; this is DISPOSITIVE PROOF; increases in atmospheric CO2 cannot cause global warming."
Wait, didn’t you just say that there have been eras of warming and cooling? Might that make it possible that a cooling trend in 1940-1970 depressed that greenhose gasses might have otherwise had? Looking at the trend between 1900 and 2000, the warming is pretty pronounced. While there is a lull in the otherwise steady increase between 1940 and 1970, the percentage change during that time is clearly within the general parameters of the temperature record before the gases. What is different than before is the dramatic increase from 1900-2000 even with the 1940-1970 period taken into account. First you argue that fluctuations like this are common, then you argue that just this type of fluctuation could not possibly explain the 1940-1970 changes. Perhaps you should think more about which argument that you’d actually like to present before arguing against yourself in back-to-back paragraphs. Here’s the graph again, in case you’ve forgotten:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
Of course, none of your claims in this article have any evidence or links to back them up. They’re just empty assertions. There’s not really anything here at all except rhetoric and faulty logic.
Post a Comment