August 10, 2007
Well, well, well
You won't see this in the MSM, but I heard it on Rush's show yesterday. //Collective gasp of outrage from liberals.// It seems that some of the data (the critical temperature data) the environmentalists are using to ram human-caused global warming down our throats is -- get ready -- wrong! The hottest year on record is not 1998 as they've been claiming as a sign that the Apocalypse is near; guess what year is the hottest on record?
1934.
Yup. 1934. And these folks, who can't even get the temperature tables right, want us to believe them on global warming. Inconvenient truth, indeed.
Update: Michelle Malkin has tons more on this, right here.
Posted by George Moneo at August 10, 2007 07:51 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.babalublog.com/cgi-bin/mt/hut.cgi/5799
Comments
Come on guys. The overwhelming evidence still supports the fact that the earth is warming. It makes sense. You burn stuff, and things get hotter. Humans start burning fuel worldwide in the industrial era, and things get hotter.
This is only one element of the overall data, and it still shows a warming trend. Just look it up.
Why is this political? We should try to keep our home clean, and make our industry energy-efficient ANYWAY, regardless of politics or if warming exists. Why waste resources? It's bad business, as a long term strategy. Let's keep the politics out of it and listen to 99% of the scientists out there.
Posted by: Dave Sandoval ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.babalublog.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at August 12, 2007 09:08 AM
Consensus is not science. If they can't get temperature tables right, why should I believe them on anything else? Besides, I do not believe that man is capable of the damage the chicken littles tell us we are responsible for.
Posted by: George L. Moneo at August 12, 2007 10:02 AM
I agree that consensus is not science. But if you look at just the science then that still shows that something is going on. To deny that there's something going on with the environment is too dangerous, and any serious scientist must conclude that. Data can be wrong, and we're human and fallible, but let's look at overall trends.
Here's a better question: why SHOULDN'T we stop polluting? Wouldn't it be better to have cleaner air, more efficient energy sources, and hey, while we're at it, lose our dependence on foreign oil? Maybe in the process take away some clout from a certan Mr. Chavez?
Posted by: Dave Sandoval at August 13, 2007 07:49 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
