Definitions for the global warming fanatics who can’t tolerate disagreement with their views


Lorrie Goldstein

Sun, February 10, 2008
Finding the right words

Definitions for the global warming fanatics who can’t tolerate disagreement with their views

By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN, TORONTO SUN

Despite repeated appeals to reason, decency and common sense, global warming fanatics continue to disparagingly refer to people who disagree with them as “global warming deniers” or as part of the “global warming denial industry.”

Their absurd, disgusting and juvenile attempts to suggest anyone who doesn’t bow down before their half-baked ideas, self-righteous prattle and mindless propaganda is comparable to a Holocaust denier, have gone on unchallenged for too long.

Enough is enough. It’s time those of us who do not believe New York is going to be wiped out by a 20-foot rise in sea levels caused by global warming either next Tuesday, or 50 years, or 1,000 years from now — they’ll get back to us on that — struck back with some mocking terminology of our own.

Ready? Here we go.

Feel free to borrow as many as you like and come up with your own. Fun for the whole family!

fctAdTag(“bigbox”,MyGenericTagVar,1);

STEPHANE DION DISEASE

Definition: A medical condition in which you can’t decide whether to pull Canadian soldiers out of Afghanistan by February 2009, but are confident you can predict the climate of the planet 100 years from now, based on computer models.

JACK LAYTON SYNDROME

Definition: Obsessive concern about the negative impacts of global warming on Taliban prisoners captured by Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.

GILLES DUCEPPE DISORDER

Definition: The belief that global warming will stop when Quebec separates from Canada.

ELIZABETH MAY FEVER

Definition: A chronic condition in which the subject spends large amounts of time and energy explaining that the last time she said something really dumb and incendiary about global warming, or anything else, it wasn’t actually as dumb and incendiary as it sounded. Either that, or it was all Stephen Harper’s fault. Take your pick.

AL GOREITIS

Definition: The mental state of anyone who piously lectures everyone else about reducing the size of their carbon footprint on the Earth, while personally living a luxurious, high-consumption, high-flying lifestyle that they condemn for anyone but themselves. Also known as “celebrityitis” and “Hollywooditis”.

DAVID SUZUKIITIS

Definition: The belief that everyone is entitled to their own opinion about global warming … as long as it agrees with yours and that if not, they should be jailed.

WEATHER CHANNEL PSYCHOSIS

Definition: Anyone who simultaneously holds the beliefs that last year’s mild winter and this year’s harsh one are both evidence of global warming. Possible symptoms include having your head explode because of all the BS you’ve jammed into your brain. More generally speaking, a term used to describe any self-proclaimed expert on global warming who doesn’t understand the difference between “weather” and “climate.”

KYOTO ACCORD SYNDROME

Definition: Delusional belief that the same political geniuses who keep promising to “fix” medical wait times can “fix” the climate.

SCHOOL BOARD SICKNESS

Definition: The belief that global warming can be solved by opening up a black-focused school in Toronto, which, come to think of it, seems to be the Toronto District School Board’s “solution” for solving pretty much every crisis it faces these days.

GREEN RIGHTS FEVER

Definition: A relatively new disease among Canadian human rights commissions, causing them to believe any journalist who writes about global warming is likely to expose minority groups to hatred or contempt. They just haven’t figured out how … Yet.

MEDIA MADNESS DISEASE

Definition: An affliction common among journalists who pontificate ad nauseam about what Canada’s policy on global warming should be, without ever having read a book on climate change or even knowing the difference between the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Possible cures include reading a Grade 8 science textbook.


• You can e-mail Lorrie Goldstein at lorrie.goldstein@sunmedia.ca

• Have a letter for the editor? E-mail it to torsun.editor@sunmedia.ca

Advertisements

One thought on “Definitions for the global warming fanatics who can’t tolerate disagreement with their views

  1. Climate obviously has changed and will continue to change. The observation that ice is melting, which can look dramatic on TV, does not show that human activity is the cause. The assertion that humans are or ever can have a significant influence on climate by limiting the use of fossil fuel (a.k.a. limiting human production of carbon dioxide) is not supported by any historical record. The only implication that carbon dioxide level has a significant effect on climate comes from huge but still incomplete computer programs that attempt to predict future climate.

    Avoid the group-think and de facto censorship by Climate Scientists. Directly interrogate official government data from ORNL and NOAA as follows:

    If the carbon dioxide level from Law Dome, Antarctica http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/lawdome.combined.dat is graphed on the same time scale as fossil fuel usage from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm it is discovered that the current carbon dioxide level increase started about 1750, a century before any significant fossil fuel use.

    If average earth temperature since 1880 from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html is graphed on the same time scale as fossil fuel use it is discovered that there is no correlation between rising fossil fuel use and average global temperature at least until 1976.

    The asserted hypothesis that, since 1976, increasing carbon dioxide level has caused the temperature to rise is refuted by the carbon dioxide level from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.html and temperature from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/temp/vostok/vostok.1999.temp.dat determined from the Vostok, Antarctica ice cores. If these are graphed on a higher resolution time scale it is discovered that the change in atmospheric carbon dioxide level lags earth temperature change by hundreds of years.

    If Law Dome and recent carbon dioxide data and Vostok and recent temperature are plotted on the same graph since 1000 AD (or before) it is observed that temperature oscillates up to plus or minus 1.5 degrees Celsius (half pitch about 100 yr) while carbon dioxide level remains essentially unchanged (between 9000BC and 1750AD). This will also show that the average global temperature 200 years ago was about the same as now, 400 years ago was significantly higher than now and current rate of temperature change is fairly typical. Recent measurements show that average earth temperatures in 2006 and 2007 were actually lower than in 1998.

    For most of the history of earth, as shown at http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf , carbon dioxide level has been several times higher than it is at the present.

    The conclusion from all this is that carbon dioxide change does not cause significant climate change. Actions based on the human-caused global warming mistake put freedom and prosperity at risk.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s