Debunking Doherty's Bogus Rubbish

To paraphrase Bob Dylan, "Doherty don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows". He needs a scientist. Doherty has been making his life's work to debunk global warming for the last several years. While some other members of his party recognize the dangers imposed by global warming, Doherty continues to stick his head in the sand. Juan Melli is right on: slick, under-informed politicos like Doherty are the real danger to critically thinking people every where. Last year, I attended a 'debate' on global warming between Assemblywoman Linda Stender and Doherty. Doherty claimed then, as he does now, that global warming does not exist. While Stender brought with her Dr. Alan Robuck of Rutgers University, Doherty had at his side a lawyer/spokesperson, a Mr. James Taylor, from the Heartlands Institute. The fact that the Heartlands Institute is funded in large part by big oil companies makes one question the credibility of their motivation herein. The final kicker was when an audience member asked Doherty if he believed in evolution. Doherty's response: “It does not matter. Evolution or creationism. It just does not matter.” So it goes. Perhaps Doherty also can defend his own dissertation on "Why The Earth is Flat", and add his research to the Flat Earth Society at www.theflatearthsociety.org.

Science is evolving every day. New findings are coming out and alot of this stuff is still unsolved. The left spins just as much as the far right using scientist who agree with them. So don't say that Mr. Doherty is dangerous when you have loons like Al Franken spouting off crazy jibberish. No queston polution needs to get under control, but the US is way ahead of nations like India, China, and Russia. 3 years ago after Katrina we were told by the "Chicken Little Crowd" that super Hurricanes caused by global warming would be hitting hit us again and again. Well??????

So Melli is smart enough to get a PhD, but dumb enough to believe all the unprovable science and left wing spin on global warming.
There is abolustely ZERO definitive proof global warming is man made. Since the average temperature of the Earth has been consistent since 1978, there is nothing to discern the current situation with a fixed period of warming. What caused the ice age?
Melli has his PhD in mechanical engineering, and that's terrific. Too bad he hasn't gotten out of Pre-K when is comes to disseminating left wing hype.

Compare the two methods of coming to a conclusion: Doherty checks no sources and merely patches together junk science statements from non-experts to promote his luddite view on global warming vs. Melli checks his sources, looks for scientific consensus, and uses his own expertise to come to a conclusion. When one considers what has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, combined with the empirical data involving man-made pollutants significantly contributing to global warming, the conclusion is an objective one: Global warming is a real and a threat to the earth and its ecological systems.

What I can't discern is how acknowledging the reality of global warming is a "threat" to the junk science naysayers' worldviews. Perhaps because it would necessitate a change in behavior (moving away from an oil-based economy; perhaps more regulation, the boogeyman of conservative economics)? I can see how evolution threatens some theological worldviews, even though I don't see belief in divinity and evolutionary biology as being necessarily mutually exclusive terms. But why resist global warming?

It seems like some on the right (not all, hopefully, since we will need to come together to combat global warming collectively), as with Doherty, are appropriating the language of social theorist Gerald Graff, who mentioned "Teach the controversy" as a pedagogical aim in one of his works, for their own twisted purposes. There is no "controversy" with global warming.

So; when does the debunking begin?

Let’s grant that increased CO2 produces some warming effect; how much? All – that is to say every – estimate is based upon nothing more than supposition. Educated guesses, yes, but guesses nonetheless. Given the repeated, demonstrable changes in Earth’s climate over the course of human history, let alone geologic time, what would make ANYONE conclude that a minor, short term temperature change is anthropogenic? Indeed, it requires more than a little hubris for the human race to claim, on such thin evidence, that something which has happened numerous times before MUST, now, be the result of human activity.

And is it not interesting that the “party of science”, which declares all skepticism about the causes and effects of “global warming” completely out of bounds – the “science” being “settled” – contemporaneously asserts that the humanity of an unborn human child is an open – probably religious– question?

Climate change alarmists commence their argument with a Panglossian view that we live in the best of all possible climates and that any change thereto will, perforce, be disastrous. Nonsense. As Lundberg demonstrates, even assuming the possibility of anthropogenic climate change, the rational course may be to manage the consequences, infinitely less expensive and disruptive than attempting wholesale changes to modern existence. Besides, if warming increases NJ’s winter temp, this is a bad thing ... why?

Finally, even assuming that we decide to act, locally or nationally (despite the likelihood that such actions will have absolutely no effect upon global climate), the left consistently opposes essentially everything which might actually help. Few of them support nukes, the only technically feasible, economically rational short term solution. (Rutgers is funding attorneys to combat Oyster Creek’s reauthorization) Essentially none of them support hydroelectric projects (might tick off a few fish). They happily support windmills – somewhere else (witness Martha’s Vinyard) – but oppose the construction of the transmission lines necessary to move the power from where it is generated to where it is needed.

Put simply, there exists essentially no evidence that any likely climate change will be “disastrous”. We have absolutely no idea what circumstances or technology might be like 100 years hence, and given that the left rarely considers problems beyond the next election cycle, why the present panic? Sure, reduce emissions; start by opening (say) 100 new nukes around the country, expediting their approval and banning lawsuits against them. Dam up a few more streams; build windmills in Teddy Kennedy’s lagoon. Let Pickens build his windmill farm, too. Wonderful.

“Politicization of science”? I’ll wager, right now, a cold Sam Adams that in 2025, global temperature has not increased significantly. (I’d take it out 100 years, but neither of us would be around). I will further wager that the only certain affects of the Global Warming Response Act will be massive new taxes and fees, an increase in the size and scope of government (especially the DEP), substantially increased energy prices, and a further constriction of New Jersey leftist-crippled economy. Got a bet, Juan?

No one said that common sense solutions shouldn't be used. We should absolutely move away from an oil-based economy, but we cannot until the technology can provide enough energy. There are other common sense measures we can use without destroying our economy.
The left is hellbent on making sure they drastically change our behavior with no definitive proof. They also want to negotiate and adhere to treaties that are disproportionately unfair to the US and also negotiates away our soveriegnty.
Just like Obama wants to re-distribute more of our wealth to a "world fund", it's moronic policy like this that give the "looney left" it's name.

"Isn’t this debate so over in real scientific circles?"

No, it's not. You know when the Debate on Global Warming will be over?.. When it goes the way of the Dodo like all the BS about the "Hole in the Ozone". Remember the Ozone hole that's going to kill us all in ten years? Remember how it was supposed to get so big that the earth would fry?

NEVER HAPPENED
Remember all that crap about not using areosol cans ?
Today it's lightbulbs, then it was areosal.
Limbaugh, to his credit defeated Al Gore in a debate about the hole in the Ozone long ago.
The Ozone hold expands and contracts naturally, that's why no one talks about it or trys to scare you with it anymore. Today the ozone hole should be covering the United States, according to Al Gore.

The wackos dropped the ozone hole, and took up Man Made Global warming. When that gets shot to pieces, (and it currently is)they'll start some other new age environmental concern.

"Most of you who deny GW here do so because you believe the crap you hear on partisan hackery like Fox news and Rush Limbaugh"

Oh, and we should listen to YOU because you're NOT a partisan hack? Get a clue, everyone is a partisan hack. If they say they're not, and they're on a political forum, they're lying.

I don't believe in man made global warming because there is no proof that temperature changes are anything other that natural occurences.

Humans are made up of cabon dioxide! Our own bodies release it into the air. So if you're so concerned about CO2 destroying the planet, LEAVE!

If anything is warming the earth, it's that glaring ball of fire called the sun. You could fit roughly one million earths inside the sun. So if the sun's temperature changes a degree,earths temperature is going to change too. The little spit of CO2 in the atmosphere ain't got nuthin to do with it. That's why Mars is also warming. It's solar warming.. not man made warming. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

We've a better chance of being destroyed by a comet... THAT has happened in Earths histroy. THAT IS REAL. If you had any idea how violent the universe is, the last thing you'd be worried about is Global Warming. You actaully have more reason to worry about getting killed by a gama ray burst.

http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:Kltw8wS2U0sJ:www.geocraft.com/WVFos...

Run for your lives, it's DDT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Regardless of the substance of the argument, this Melli writes like an arrogant little turd.

You call yourself "fact stater" but all you can do is use a cheap shot ad hominem.

Why?

Maybe because you don't have any "facts" to counter Melli?

Please, now go ahead and call me a nasty name! From you it's a compliment.

What you don't understand is that your ad hominem doesn't win anyone over to your side; it just exposes your own intellectual inadequacies and temper-mental shortcomings.

Please go get some education and come back in a few years......you people are becoming boring.

From Frederick Douglass

If there is no struggle there is no progress......Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.

Just as they don't talk about the ozone because the hole shrunk in 2007
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071003100537.htm

They'll soon have to come up with a retort for why 2008 is the coolest year in 5 years. Sorry if yer greenhouse bs was true, it would square with reality, and it don't.

read this instead of believing all you were taught in grammer school... that's part of your problem. It's colder because of sun spot activity has gone down.. GET IT? THE SUN!

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/august2008/082108_five_years.ht...

While the Chinese are singing all the way to the Chinese Bank, Poor Joe and Jane American must go back to the cave just because Limo Liberals like Al Gore say so.

God help American education if they throw PHDs out like candy

www.burlcodems.com

in the 19 hundreds you were an old man at 40.
In the 21st century you are only considered middle age at 60.
That is progress