July 11, 2007
Global Warming Update (XXXI)

In today's P-I, contumelious columnist Joel Connelly equates those who question the liberal political establishment's certainty about Global Warming with Nazis:

Bluntly put, climate change deniers pose a greater danger than the lingering industry that denies the Holocaust.
Good thing Connelly's above name-calling!

But more to the point, Connelly, whose own formal education consists of a B.A. in government and an M.A. in political science, reveals his own ignorance of natural science. He is a textbook example of the liberal political establishment's anti-scientific yet totalitarian politicization of climate science.

For example, he dismisses as "rightist"

a recent story claiming that solar output drives climate change, and that sunspots point to global cooling.
The article in question was written by a professor of Earth Sciences, whom I'm willing to wager knows far more about climate science than Connelly does.

Connelly also says that

change has proceeded at a faster pace than even pessimistic scientists predicted a few years ago,
and he gives a few examples. But the first thing that a real scientist would conclude from faulty predictions is that the current science is still far from perfect. One possibility is that man's impact on the climate is greater than previously understood. Another possibility is that the main driver of climate change is an as yet inadequately understood factor that has nothing to do with human activity (e.g. solar output). Real scientists admit they don't know all the answers yet and so they continue to ask questions, challenge assumptions and refine the science.

It's only the totalitarian non-scientists in journalism and politics who seek to impose certainty about climate science and shut down discussion in order to justify massive new state intervention in the private economy.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at July 11, 2007 09:05 AM | Email This
Comments
1. Go get 'em, Stefan.

I wonder if Connelly actually believes cars caused the even greater global warming that the earth experienced in 1000-1400? (Yes, I know there weren't any cars back then, but the way these people think...)

Posted by: Michele on July 11, 2007 09:35 AM
2. Not that there was much doubt, but Connelly doesn't know what he's flapping his gums about. 2 seconds of searching on Google gets you this:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html

You can look at the data for yourself.

The Earth's climate IS changing. We face a choice: Do we want to panic and do something stupid (like invoke the leftist economic agenda, which won't solve anthing) or do we want to do something constructive and useful? Put me in camp #2.

Posted by: Steve in Queen Anne on July 11, 2007 09:52 AM
3. I wonder when Connelly will be taking Robert Kennedy Junior's position that anybody who doesn't agree with him on Global Warming™ is a traitor and should be tied for treason.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=oheG6fTPwyU

I've come to realize fully (before I was afraid of being called some sort of nut) that Global Warming™ isn't about saving the planet. It's about total, ultimate control over everything that we do world-wide by a few chosen socialist (communist?) elitists like Bobby, Connelly and ultimately the UN, who will advocate nothing short of death to those that don't subscribe.

RFK Jr. is after a huge list that doesn't agree with him and is naming names. I wouldn't be surprised of Connelly has the list in his desk drawer. If you want the full scope of Jr's paranoia go here (starts at 3:00):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Heku9oTLysg&NR=1

These are scary times my friends.

Posted by: G Jiggy on July 11, 2007 10:50 AM
4. Newsbusters has a good story about the former chief of meteorology at the Weather Channel publishing an article basically saying the IPCC Report is full of it and why. I'm going to trust him in regards to climate change a lot more than some guy with a degree in government.

http://newsbusters.org/node/13998

Posted by: Mike H on July 11, 2007 10:59 AM
5. "Bluntly put, climate change deniers pose a greater danger than the lingering industry that denies the Holocaust."

To equate the two is outrageous and obscene. It's the kind of charge and demonstration of close-mindedness and ignorance that should force columnists into retirement!

When carbon restrictions are used to suppress struggling economies and oppress people around the world we'll see who are the dangerous among us, and all in defense of grant and politically driven scientific invention. And when this planet cycles back into a cooling trend what will these zealots then claim? Of course, Global Warming causes the planet to cool too.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Posted by: MJC on July 11, 2007 11:05 AM
6. The 2007 piece by Prof. Tim Patterson with its links to the ''Deniers'' series is some of the best information pertaining to the whole AGW debate that I've seen. Everyone should study this.

Stefan, your last sentence in the start of this thread says it exactly right:
It's not about the science:
It's about a left-wing big-government agenda.

Posted by: Methow Ken on July 11, 2007 11:37 AM
7. What's with Libs and using the word NAZIS.


Pot calling the Kettle black maybe.

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on July 11, 2007 12:23 PM
8. Is it my imagination or do Connelly and other climate change zealots sound desperate?

RFK Jr. screamed at one of last weekend's Live Earth libfests that politicians who don't climb on the hysteria bandwagon are "traitors". Now today we have Connelly likening climate change skeptics to the nuts that claim the Holocaust never occurred. Every example of disagreement with the new religion Connelly derided as "rightist".

I think these luddites are beginning to realize that there is a growing body of evidence that the left is lying to us. Given the poor TV ratings for the Live Earth moonbat medicine shows we can expect the left to increase their shrillness. That might not be to their ultimate benefit.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on July 11, 2007 12:52 PM
9. George Bush is Hitler!

Seriously, when even the IPCC says merely that anthropogenic global warming is "very likely" and that it is having a discernible effect is merely "likely," it is nonsense to say we are nearing consensus, and nonsense to say that everyone else should just shut up and go along instead of exploring valid science. It's just scare tactics by people who can't back up what they say with actual facts.

Posted by: pudge on July 11, 2007 01:04 PM
10. Connelly is an ostrich here. He leaves out the fact that warmups have occurred on Mars and Venus, which points directly to the sun having the most impact on this. He also neglects to mention the warmup - more so than today - between 1000 - 1400 AD that was before industrialization. Global warming - the debate about the causes is not over ! It is clearly more about the sun and the IPCC shows their true political allegiance toward the environazis, that Connelly fails to realize and chooses to bury his head in the sand - ridiculous !

The other side is using the predominantly man-made argument in an effort to pursue the Almighty $ and control people. Scare tactics and demagoguery is being uncovered - bring on the debate !

Posted by: KS on July 11, 2007 09:06 PM
11. Another good example of the P-I's decline into total irrelevance.

Joel Connely reminds me both in looks and in character of Milton in the movie Office Space. In the movie, Milton has been laid off years before, but continued to come to work. Similarly, Joel Connelly's shoddy journalism and lack of personal health management suggest a person long overdue for retirement.

Like their brethren in Academia, Liberal Media Journalists seem to have a penchant for tenure, regardless of any maintenance of output quality.

Posted by: Jeff B. on July 11, 2007 11:17 PM
12. Connely suffers from jackboot fetish and chronic projection bias, but it doesn't seem isolated to his unique, uh... style. A couple of corrections/examples:

"The liberal political establishment's anti-scientific yet totalitarian politicization of climate science" could more rightly could be said "the White House and its supporters in the conservative political establishment's anti-scientific yet totalitarian politicization of climate science." This has manifested in the real world as the fixing of CEQ and EPA activities for over 6 years and is well documented. SCOTUS even ended up making a ruling and gave the executive a little wink and a nod to stop interfering and move it along.

"It's only the totalitarian non-scientists in journalism and politics who seek to impose certainty about climate science and shut down discussion in order to justify massive new state intervention in the private economy" should read as "It's only the totalitarian non-scientists in positions appointed by the White House and certain supporters in the conservative political establishment who seek to impose certainty about climate science and shut down discussion in order to justify massive new state intervention in the private economy." This also has a consistent well documented track record.

Posted by: Acid Brain on July 12, 2007 10:44 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?