Click to enlarge image
Richard Black, the BBC's on-line environment correspondent, posed this question in his on-line piece on their website today: COP15: Climate 'scepticism' and questions about sex.
I'm happy to report that my good friend, Don, who has a gift for these measured responses, rendered this typically self-depreciatory rationale by way of a reply:
"Men tend not to believe in Global Warming for the simple fact that we find it hard to face the reality that we might not be able to 'write our names in the snow' if the Earth warms too much..."
And I have to admit, I can't see how anyone might counter that with an alternative rationale.
Posts
How do you account for the ckimate changes of the past including the melting of the Wisconsin Glaciers and the Mideval warming period when there were no SUVs or coal plants? How do you account for the cooling period of the late 1800s, when polution was much higher? Look at pictures of London in that period.
ReplyDeleteHow do you account for the melting of the polar ice caps on Mars in the 1990s, the same period when the polar ice caps were melting on Earth? How does man cused climate change account for this?
How can you discount "climategate"? I am willing to listen to science, but diregard of "inconvenient facts" is not science. Nor is so-called " consensus". After all, scientific consesus once told us the Earth was flat and the center of the universe.
<span style="color: #808080;">Maybe only real men have the balls to question the pap fed by the media?</span>
ReplyDeleteWhich parts of 'Climategate' do you mean Hoose?
ReplyDelete<span>Hoose, if you're just going to be your usual Hick self, then keep it where it might be appreciated - amongst your hillbilly fiends on your site.</span>
ReplyDelete<span><span>In celebration of Hoose proving the very pretext of this blog piece, I thought I'd throw this picture up to illustrate his and his brethren's position - click on the image to enlarge it:</span></span>
ReplyDeleteNo Problem, Dude. I would not want to challenge you to actually think. Just accept what the Government tells you.
ReplyDeletesheep
<span>That comment actually fails on two epic fronts, Hoose - here, allow me:
ReplyDelete1). It's not "the Government" who's being believed here (the fact that you and your don't-let-in-the-light brethren have an irrational & paranoid fear of gov't notwithstanding) - any government can only interpret the information the scientists give them (but I know you prefer Fox News to any actual or accurate science, so we'll allow you to get on with being misinformed-by-choice).
2). The real sheep are those choosing the believe just ONE single-source set of hacked emails </span><span>for their information </span><span>(what you choose to call 'Climategate', because you can't be any more original), while being lead around by the nose by Fox News and other flat-earthers like Limbaugh & Beck - whereas the informed have their information from many corroborated and accredited scientific sources.
All the baahhh-est ;)
</span>
I guess flat earthers are everywhere, even where Fox isn't --
ReplyDeletehttp://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/
<span>From his own, self-penned, bio (so it has to be thoroughly unbiased and reliable):
ReplyDelete"James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books including Welcome To Obamaland: I've Seen Your Future And It Doesn't Work, How To Be Right,.."
Well done Hoose: you've picked one of a handful of journo's in the UK who no one (except himself, and right-whingers like you) takes seriously. Over here, he's widely regarded as a sub-standard nutter in the mold of Charles Krauthammer, only with more hair and a less clumsy writing style.
And you still haven't answered the charge: how can you base your climate change denial theories on one hacked email source alone? Sounds like you're clinging to any wreckage which suits your prejudices mate. Perhaps not unexpectedly.</span>
Oh and, seeing as you've brought him into this, the other thing which you've chosen to overlook, Hoose, is that Delingpole's piece is only a blog, not news. I know you and your brethren see credence and take refuge in just any old right-wing nonsence blog, and choose to see and promote it as 'fact', but you ignore the fact that blogs are only ever opinion -> not factual "news".
ReplyDeleteNext!