Uh oh: McCain joins global warming cult

Ripped from the wires ... Cal Thomas takes issue with John McCain's recent declaration that humans are influencing climate change and must help fix the problem:

By CAL THOMAS

In an effort to win over those "moderates'' who believe that global warming is about to destroy the planet, Republican presidential candidate John McCain spoke Monday at a Portland, Ore., training facility for Vestas Wind Technology. He claimed, "The facts of global warming demand our urgent attention, especially in Washington.''

There certainly is more "hot air'' on this and a lot of other subjects in Washington, but that isn't what he meant. The era of big government is so not over, as Bill Clinton claimed it was in 1996. It is just beginning and increasingly the political contests seem to be about who will manage its growth, not who will reduce its size, cost and reach.

Despite a recent Wall Street Journal editorial characterizing his position on global warming as "Obama lite,'' McCain asserted, "We stand warned by serious and credible scientists across the world that time is short and the dangers are great. The most relevant question now is whether our own government is equal to the challenge.''

No, the most relevant question is whether global warming is true. Cults ignore evidence and facts contrary to their blind faith. Science should never be blind to opposing views, but the apostle of global warming, Al Gore, and his new disciple, John McCain, want us to believe in a 2008 version of the Pete Seeger anti-war lyric: "we were -- knee deep in (carbon monoxide) and the big fool said to push on.''

McCain would have done better to push back against the global warming cult and conduct a raid on the cultists similar to what Texas authorities did to the FLDS polygamists. Instead of buying into the claims of global warming alarmists who seek more control over our lives through big government intrusion, McCain should demand a debate on the issue. Global warming cult leaders won't debate. Al Gore has refused every debate challenge, asserting the facts are undeniable and that global warming is real. That's another mark of a cult leader; he will tolerate no doubters.

Growing numbers of atmospheric scientists and others with related expertise are emerging from the global warming cult and testifying to their conversions. They are mostly ignored by the media and by politicians who have embraced the cultists' doctrines.

Two years ago, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works held hearings and produced a document quoting anti-global warming scientists. Among the conclusions was this: "Earlier this year, a group of prominent scientists came forward to question the so-called 'consensus' that the Earth faces a 'climate emergency.' On April 6, 2006, 60 scientists wrote a letter to the Canadian prime minister asserting that the science is deteriorating from underneath global warming alarmists: 'Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. ... Significant (scientific) advances have been made since the (Kyoto) protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.''' (http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605)

Among the noted converts is Claude Allegre, a member of the French Socialist Party and a former Minister of National Education. Allegre is also a member of the French and U.S. Academy of Sciences. He once was a believer in the "science'' behind global warming, but no more. He, too, wants a debate and his ranks are growing.

If global warming alarmists are right, they will only strengthen their position by having robust debates, not between politicians who seek votes, but among scientists who seek truth. The issue is too important to allow politicians to decide it for us because it has the potential to drastically change the way we live.

Sen. McCain may win a few votes from some "moderates,'' who mostly are uneasy about having convictions about anything that matters, but if he persists in embracing the global warming cultists, he risks experiencing a temperature drop from the conservative base that could cast him out in the cold when the weather and his election prospects turn chilly in November.

Thomas is a syndicated columnist.

Comments?

Comments

[Richard L. Wolfe]

" Vanity of vanities all is vanity and there is nothing new under the sun. " I think Mr. Thomas is right but I am no scientist. It doesn't matter because if the media says we have global warming then we have global warming.

[Dr. James E. Dunn]

I wonder if Mr. Cal Thomas still believes that the earth is flat, as well!

DrJED

[PREFAB SPROUT]

Global warming deniers have about the same credibility as holocaust deniers.

It's interesting to note that it's always the right wing loonies who object to any science that doesn't fit their narrow twisted view of the world. (see evolution,global warming, etc)

Also its interesting to see how these global warming deniers have modified their lies over the years. First they claimed 'there was no global warming whatsoever." When they couldn't beat the science behind that lie then they switched to the new spin, "theres no MAN MADE global warming"

It would be refreshing to see a "ripped from the wires" post that wasn't written by a hack like Thomas or Malkin or someone of their ilk. But of course that would require the Sun News to run columnists of other views........

[Denney Clements]

Hmmm. At least two of you seem to be proving Thomas' point.

dc

[Jimmy]

with the canditates we have to choose from it is time for a third party to win this election

[PREFAB SPROUT]

Hey Jimmy, Bob Barr is looking for you!

[Richard L. Wolfe]

Prefab, If they are so sure of the science then why do they fear the debate?

[Dr. James E. Dunn]

We really aren't afraid to debate. It would just be like pitting someone who is intelligent against the likes of Jerry Falwell.

The answer is very clear to everyone who believes the earth isn't flat!

DrJED

[rick campbell]

....it's the same crowd teaching school children that the grand canyon was formed by the BIBLICAL flood....science and facts have always had a liberal bias...cal thomas is another pundit set up by the whitehouse to push their agenda just like fox fake news....has anyone seen the video of o'really losing it back when he was on inside edition, you know the show he said won a peabody award but in fact never won a peabody....it shows the real o'really and why he ended up paying a lady 10million for sexual harrassment...thomas is the same type of mouthpiece for right wing nuts....no difference...

[Denney Clements]

Here's a fact: No one has PROVEN that human activity is responsible for global warming. I believe that it could be, but the proof just isn't there yet.

We should rein in carbon emissions anyway, regardless of this little problem with the Gorean religion, as pollution of any kind is never right. Example: the trace mercury emissions from coal-burning. That's why the ongoing research into solar- and wind-based mass-power generation is so exciting.

Also, cutting petroleum-based carbon emissions would be a great way to achieve energy independence and reduce reliance on Mideast oil. Indeed, Thomas himself has made this point in past columns. His point: There's no need for a culture war on this issue, as we need not have the same motivations to pursue the common goal of carbon reduction.

But I can't help suspecting that the real issue with some of you (as masked by your faith in incomplete scientific research) is disapproval of the comfort-based lifestyle that some of us really enjoy -- and have worked hard to earn. You can associate global-warming skeptics with O'Reilly and Falwell if you like, thereby discounting their intelligence and willingness to learn more. But your own stubborn refusal to consider that the theories on which you base your opinions could be wrong -- or incomplete -- is not scientific; it's scienTIStic (having the trappings of science without the rigor). If you really believe in the scientific method, live by it.

dc

[Richard L. Wolfe]

I watched on C-SPAN ( the only non biased news program ) a hearing on global warming. For two solid hours in the Senate testimony was given from scientist around the world as to the incomplete and misleading computer models that have made the mantra popular. Many of the scientists have switched their former pro global warming positions due to the problems with the computer models.

I cannot take a solid position on the issue because there are so many variables in play. In my opinion this subject needs to be studied more and more data has to be analyzed before we make laws and regulations that have the potential to hurt this already fragile economy. I agree with Denny that reducing the carbon footprint can only help.

[prefab sprout]

In point of fact Oreilly is a believer in global warming. And his employer Newscorp (Rupert Murdoch) is a "green" company with active programs to become carbon nuetral.

And Jerry Falwell? Last time I checked he was dead.

So it's really hard to associate global warming skeptics with those two.

[Mad Max]

Lets see...
Evolution...not even a theory. Had you done your research and a little reading (ok, other than the media) you would know that Darwin's work was barely even a hypothesis, and a poorly written one at that. Further, the actual structure and formation of DNA makes his hypothesis implausible. There is no evidence, at all. None.
Global Warming...hmmm...well, lets see, if you believe Fat Al and His Carbon Footprint Fornicators, then you'll believe anything. (Like how Bill Clinton was our first black president). But I digress. The facts, ladies and gentlemen are these...
1. The Earth routinely goes through changes in climate. It gets warmer, cooler, etc. etc.
2. Global Warming would not cause an increase in tropical storms, rather, a decrease because of the influx of COLD water from the Artic.
3. The Polar Bears are NOT dying off. They are NOT running out of ice, or seals, or penguins to eat. They spend over 60% of their lives in water SWIMMING!! (that picture was a hoax).
4. The global temperature in the past 10 years has been DECLINING!! not increasing!
5. Man's contribution of Carbon Dioxide to the atmosphere is less than .003%. Also, if there was too much CO2, then there would be an exponential increase in the amount of plant life on the planet, and therefore an exponential increase in O2 (that clear, tasteless, odorless stuff we bad bad humans breathe.)
6. And finally....The oceans give off over 90% of the CO2 found in our atmosphere. You see, water has to be very very cold in order for CO2 to be dissolved. If the water warms (and it does as it circulates between the polar climes and the equatorial regions) then the CO2 is given off. It is NOT causing global problems. Kyoto was a HORRIBLE piece of travesty that would have given US sovreignty to that bunch of morons we call the UN.
This isn't about the planet guys, this is about a global power grab. it's that simple. It's just like everything in Myrtle Beach is about money, well everything in the liberal world of global warming is about power.
If you chose to believe the garbage spewed forth by the liberal left, then fine. Your choice. As for me and my house, we will continue to be conservative.
And yeah, Bob Barr is looking pretty good since John
McCain is a liberal in RINO clothing.
Prefab - you failed science didn't you?
The basic premise of science isn't the knowledge...it's the ability to think critically and analytically. It's not what you know, it's knowing how to find out what you WANT to know and then studying and analyzing to determined the accuracy of your data (your information). Oh yeah, the story, as you say, has never been changed.
Dr. Dunn - You tend to hide behind your Ph.D. That doesn't make you an expert by any stretch of the imagination. What it does make you is myopic. You only want to believe what your handlers in the "dimocratic" party want you to believe
Yes, we are supposed to be good stewards of the planet. Yes, we need, and have needed for a very very long time to have alternate fuel sources (for no other reason than to tell the Saudis et. al. to kiss off). Recycling and reusing is a good policy. I'm not saying it isn't. What I am saying is that you have to look at ALL the data!!!

[prefab sprout]

I am looking forward to Mad Max's next post where he will explain that we never really landed on the moon, the holocaust is Jewish propaganda, and the attacks on 9/11 were a conspiracy by the Mossad working alongside the Moonies and Scientologists.

[Dr. James E. Dunn]

Gosh mad max, where did you get all your surprising facts?

You seem to have an astounding and vast assortment of scientific knowlege!

What degrees do you hold? You sound a bit like Jerry and O'really!

DrJED

[Mad Max]

Sprout and James -
I wrote a long rebuttal to your poorly planned ad hominem attack. But on review, I decided that it just wasn't worth the effort. However, I do want to address several items...
Sprout -
1. Neil Armstrong landed on the Moon. It really happened.
2. The Holocaust really happened. General Eisenhower had several thousand photos taken as evidence because he knew that in the future some idiotic "SOB" would try to say that it never happened. (Ahmadenijad)
3.9-11 Was caused by Muslims who are hell bent on destroying America. Had you bothered to even read the Koran, you would have found that it is printed there in black and white. I suggest that you read a little more than Time or People for your edification.
4. Finally, I would think that the pot calling the kettle black here is applicable. Lets see, the head cheeleader for the global warming koolaid drinkers is Fat Al Gore. Hmm... "the man who invented the internet" yeah, lots of credibility your head man has.

James - I would call you doctor, but quite frankly, if you choose to attempt to denigrate me even though you have no idea as to what level of education I have then you have sullied the title of doctor of philosophy and should just give your stuff back. By the way, I hold at least one advanced degree and I hold a degree in a HARD SCIENCE (ie chemistry, physics, biology, etc. etc.).
My "facts" came from sources that are indeed scientific in nature and are other than the UN or the mainstream "establishment" in America. I am not going to kowtow to the liberal establishment. They just are not that important to me.
So, in the final analysis, gentlemen (and I use that term loosely), this was somewhat interesting, but not even remotely challenging. If you wish to continue this discourse, then I highly recommend you go and find yourself some facts, some evidence, some scientific experimentation that has been replicated and substantiated. Until then, I bid you adieu.

[Nick]

1 - By that time, technology from the Roswell crash was used to masterfully manipulate the film. Also, standing sets were used, along with possibly puppets.
2 - Easily explained with Photoshop. Sure, Adobe didn't exist, but top secret supercomputers used by the Illuminati and Masons, courtesy of the underground lizard people (yes, I like to combine all the conspiracies, it makes them sound more ridiculous), were used.
3 - Two parts! One, it was used as a plow for a reason to expand the American Empire, and to get control of oil in other parts of the world. We couldn't just attack for no reason, so we created this reason. And two, NYC is an island, lack of new real estate, so destroy a few buildings, and instant available real estate. Also creates jobs.
4 - FakeSteveJobs always talks about how him and Al thought of the internet one day while doing peyote in the JobsPod.

And to note, I don't actually believe anything I just wrote.
And I can say, it's probably the only time so far I agree with Mad Max on most of what he said.
I do believe we should do things to be as "green" as we can. But when they start talking about temp. rising, and I'm freezing that day, no, I don't believe it. And climates do change. They tried to blame the 05 hurricane season on global warming, but I heard or read a report that said 40 years ago, it was just as bad. Just that there was less delevopment, so devestation wasn't as bad, because it didn't affect anybody compared to that season.

[Dr. James E. Dunn]

Mad Max:

I wasn't questioning your intelligence, just your seemingly lack of wisdon. You seem to be seriously deficient in this area.

And I don't consider myself either a Liberal nor a Conservative, but a Pragmatist instead - with some morals, of course.

DrJED

[Denney Clements]

Dueling credentials. I'm impressed, Max and Jim.

dc

[Brett]

Max, in your enthusiasm to "state the facts" in your above post, you seem to neglect one of the most important points of global climate change...

You're absolutely right that the planet goes through warming and cooling cycles. As you look at the levels of dissolved CO2 in core samples from Antarctic ice sheets, we can plainly see that higher levels of that gas in the atmosphere is positively correlated with higher global temperatures. This cycle predates significant human activity on our planet. But the truly problematic issue here is that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere now than at any other time in the last half-million years... it's something on the magnitude of 500% more p.p.m. than would result from the natural cycle. What I find most interesting (as a historian with an interest in hard science)is that this recent spike in CO2 is pretty closely correlated with the onset of the Industrial Revolution. We can go on and on about polar bears and the heat transfer that takes place throughout our planet's oceans, but the simple fact remains... more CO2 = warmer temperatures. But hey, don't let these facts get in the way if you want to continue citing Rush and Hannity.

Since we're also skirting the periphery of the evolution debate, I think it's important to remember that it's foolish to suppose our species' intellectual prowess is necessarily a beneficial trait. It's entirely possible that our abnormally large craniums, which were extremely useful when we were learning to hunt in groups, may ultimately be the same trait that triggers our demise.

[Brett]

By the way... why is evolution not a theory?

As far as I can tell it's an idea based on observable evidence that offers predictive value. Isn't that the essence of scientific theory?

[DanielC]

We used to have the policy and laws that charged the offending companies a price for the amount of pollution they spewed onto the world, but in the nineteenth-century nuisance cases changed that: the courts suddenly decided that a certain level of pollution could be allowed for the sake of the greater good. These cases brought about the allowed practice of private industry to invade the property rights of others thus depriving them of legal recourse.

Let’s imagine a nation (world) where the previous approach to pollution had not been overturned, and polluters continued to be legally liable for any such invasive practices. Experts and I reason that long ago we would have begun enjoying a non-pollution-intensive technology where there were no open-ended smokestacks. Instead, these pipes would have been routed back into containment systems to eliminate the pollutants. This approach would also have encouraged the growth of an environmental forensic industry that would allow us to identify those responsible for pollution by determining the exact source and thus lead us to impose fines on those companies.

This would be more in line with a free market approach to the current problem. I am not sure if the impact of the many years of free rein polluting can be fixed swiftly enough to satisfy the “greens”. However, simply changing a few errant laws from the distant past would lead us back to the fork in the road and then we could head down the other path of charging the offenders. To those that say well it’s another country that is causing the issue, well that’s where tariffs come into play. The newly formed environmental solutions we have developed for our country can be sold and implemented to the others thus allowing the removal of the tariffs on the that country’s products. The installations of the “clean” systems will allow our GNP numbers to thus go upward.

This approach seems simple enough to me.

[Mad Max]

Guys,
My whole point is this... there really isn't enough evidence. Jim, for every piece of hard evidence you can publish to support the premise that it's our fault, I can print evidence contrary, from David Archibald's work presented at the Melbourne Conference in 2007, to the UK Court that found that all 11 of Al Gore's premises to be false or contrived. In fact, a recent article printed in July of 2005 reported that scientists dug up the oldest DNA ever from a Greenland glacier. The result of the testing indicated that the last period between ice ages, the temperature was 5oC higher than it is now (116,000 - 130,000 years ago).
So, lets just agree to disagree. Personally, I think recycling and reusing are great ideas. I don't agree with those who would use the climate change as a political tool, which is exactly what is happening.
Brett, I was not quoting either Hannity or Limbaugh.
Brett, a theory is defined as a hypothesis that has been supported by continual experimentation and replication. Due to the fact that we cannot experiment evolutionarily, then Darwin's work is hypothetical. Now, do not confuse evolution with adaptation and natural selection. Quite frankly, if we humans were placed out in the wilderness, quite a large number of us would never return. (Survival of the fittest) It occurs at many levels, not just physical.
Dr. Dunn, please do not attempt to question my wisdom simply because I do not agree with you. I simply refuse to follow the "party line." Besides, why would you attempt to judge my wisdom or morals when you have never and can never walk a mile in my shoes. I didn't do that to you and would expect that you would refrain from doing that to me. In the end, we are both going to stand before Almighty God and HE will judge.
Daniel and Brett, you both make some great points that are worthy of further research.
It's been fun!!
Maybe we can find something else to argue about later.
Ya'll have a great weekend.

[rick campbell]

i trust the real scientist not the ones backed by exxon shell and bp...do some research and these "scientist" you back are nothing more than paid spokespersons for the oil industry, much the same as the sun news and the MSM used "paid by the pentagon" informants as "independant' MILITARY ANALYSTS...nothing more nothing less...