Sunday, October 11, 2009

I wonder why we don't see stories like this in American news outlets?

The BBC has a story up questioning--honestly questioning--whether man-caused global warming skeptics might have a point. The article fairly covers both sides: the skeptics who believe that solar output and ocean temperatures play a greater role than man could dream of; and the humanocentric global warming activists who say that their science is solid and has accounted for natural explanations, and that humans have a greater impact than all natural explanations.

To be honest, I think that the humanocentric global warming "science" is fundamentally flawed by their sincere religious faith that humans are a nasty parasite, not part of the natural biosphere. And Al Gore and George Soros are their high priests. I think that the idea that humans have a greater impact on world-wide climate than solar output or ocean temperatures is arrogant: yes, we do have an effect, but we are not bigger than Nature.


  1. And once upon a time, an Oldcatman blamed global warming on both MAN & Mother Nature--to what degree
    each contributes is always the discussion with no hard core
    evidence either way.......

    The only true fact is THAT IT IS HAPPENING.....

  2. I never said man didn't contribute; just that I think it's arrogant to categorically state that man has a bigger effect than all of nature itself.

    And of course it happens. Warming happens. Cooling happens. It's a cycle. We even have recorded evidence of a warming trend in the 400s AD, then cooling in the mid 1300s, then warming again in the mid 1800s.


Sorry, folks. A hundred plus spam comments in an hour equals moderation on older posts, so until further're gonna have to wait for your comments to be approved before they show up.