Liberals often claim there are no absolute truths …or are there? Apparently Global warming is an absolute truth which must not be questioned. Dissent is not only unpatriotic, it is akin to denying the holocaust. Only an idiot would do so.
According to Ellen Goodman (and many others) it is immoral to deny anthropogenic Global Warming.
By every measure, the U N ‘s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change raises the level of alarm. The fact of global warming is “unequivocal.” The certainty of the human role is now somewhere over 90 percent. Which is about as certain as scientists ever get.
I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future. ~boston.com
According to those who demonize dissenters Global Warming is the fault of immoral human activity and must be stopped. But is this a settled issue? Do we know unequivocally with a certainty of 90% or more that human activity is to blame?
Is it ok to continue research into the causes of global warming now that we know everything we need to about it? Is there any reason to do any more research when we know exactly what’s causing it?
Consensus is a pale substitute for science.
Scientists say that cosmic rays from outer space play a far greater role in changing the Earth’s climate than global warming experts previously thought.
In a book, to be published this week, they claim that fluctuations in the number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere directly alter the amount of cloud covering the planet.
High levels of cloud cover blankets the Earth and reflects radiated heat from the Sun back out into space, causing the planet to cool.
Henrik Svensmark, a weather scientist at the Danish National Space Centre who led the team behind the research, believes that the planet is experiencing a natural period of low cloud cover due to fewer cosmic rays entering the atmosphere.
This, he says, is responsible for much of the global warming we are experiencing. ~telegraph.co.uk
How will liberals treat this research after ‘the certainty’ has already been arrived at? Will they demand Svensmark recant? Will they claim he was paid by Big Oil? Or will they just seek to discredit him in every way possible until he is the subject of ridicule and dismissed out of hand?
How can there be any doubt? How can anyone disagree with established science? Perhaps in the rush to judgement about this issue some have forgotten to check or question ‘the intelligence’, and examine the uncertainties surrounding the methods and evidence used to produce the unquestionable truth.