RSS
Home
It's alive, again!
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
.jpg)
Zombie Lie: Metaphorical reference to a claim repeatedly debunked by facts or data only to be ressurected, usually by those with an ideological or political agenda, over and over.Poorly crafted, reactionary regulations of any kind can have adverse economic effects and fail to remedy the problem they were intended to address. But this was also a refrain popular long before the Clean Air Act[s] and restrictions on chlorofluorocarbons. Not only did they not cripple the economy, they directly and indirectly encouraged new technology and created jobs while reducing the impact of harmful substances on the biosphere. Using those examples as a guide, new regs could be phased in over time and financial incentives made available to avoid the more adverse consequences and still produced the desired effect. Note -- this prediction made by those who dismiss the empirical evidence for anthorpogenic climate change is a textbook example of a double standard.
We can’t afford to invest in renewable energy technology.
Why believe scientists about predictions decades away when they can’t even predict if it will rain next week?
Excellent question. Weather and climate are not the same thing. The local weatherman can’t say if it will be sunny or overcast on Christmas Day, 2050, in Bismarck, North Dakota. But climatologists can predict with great confidence it will be on average colder in Bismarck on Christmas Day than it is on July 4th over a number of years.
Why are climate scientists so certain that greenhouse gases are causing warming or that those substances are man-made?
The earth’s temperature can be taken, greenhouse gases concentrations can be measured, carbon and other substances liberated from ancient fossil fuel deposits carry specific radiological signatures and come in known, measurable ratios to other chemicals, there is a known mechanism of solar trapping by those GHGs, at this time there is no other explanation that unites all the data under a single explanatory framework as well as anthropogenic climate change.
How is anyone supposed to trust ‘faith-based’ computer models with a gazillion variables?
By comparing the predictions to actual events and building up a track record over time, no faith required. One of the most worrisome things in the last decade or so is that changes on land and sea have outraced all but the more aggressive models.
Climate researchers like James Hansen are part of an alarmist/liberal agenda motivated by grant money and fame.
Related Articles:
Comments
