Saturday, February 24, 2007


This update focuses on "global warming." Liberals are promoting hysteria about global warming. Actual warming has been very small, and scientists dispute whether any of it is due to human activity. Wild disaster scenarios are promoted without evidence. Liberals seek to silence dissenters. The global warming movement has an anti-American agenda. Government prevents energy production and promotes false solutions. A new book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism, addresses these issues.

Dr. Timothy Ball says that "global warming" is a deception.
Jack Langer shows that the global warming movement is anti-American.
Thomas Sowell writes that liberals misrepresent science, liberals smear dissenters, and a number of scientists disagree about global warming.
Ben Lieberman reviews The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism.
Walter Williams shows that liberals seek to silence skeptics.
Mike Franc says some businesses want to use regulations to rip you off.

Dennis Behreandt says that Democrats propose damaging regulations.
Mike Franc writes that government prevents energy production.
Deroy Murdock writes that promoting ethanol causes problems.
Jerome Corsi debunks false notions about energy.

POLITICAL UPDATES are archived here.


Anonymous said...

Timothy Ball, has not published a peer-reviewed article in the scientific community in over 10 years, all he writes is opinion columns. He continues to attack the science behind global warming, but whenever he is pressed for details, he offers no scientific basis for his fanatical denial of Global Warming.

The IPCC report on the other hand was subject to peer review by over 2500 different scientist all experts in their field and not a signal flaw was found in their data.

If Ball actually had any rational reason to believe his claims he'd put his money where his mouth is. He'd publish peer reviewed articles or refer to some research. Instead he skips the actual science phase of Global warming and instead tries to make noise on the talk shows.

By the way, the organization that Ball was formerly the head of, the NSRP, has been accused of being funded entirely by Exxon-Mobil and oil companies. The NSRP has refused to explain where they mysteriously got their money from, but it does sound a little suspicious don't you think? The one scientist who disagrees with the 2,500 of the IPCC report about climate change is also the one with mysterious links to the oil lobby?

Anonymous said...

The other Anonymous makes good points regarding the need to be skeptical of Mr. Ball. The lack of publication in peer-reviewed journals is case-in-point of the type of information so consistently posted by Allan. In light of his re-hashing of the same arguments, I feel it is appropriate to repost my comments to an earlier political update on Environmentalism. Here is an edited excerpt of one such comment:

Time and time again you pull information from political websites about issues related to matters wholly other than politics. It is, of course, possible to disagree on policy programs designed to combat a particular social problem. If your goal is to question the fundamental understandings of the arguments on which that policy is based however, you had better be prepared to offer proof. Where are the studies that supposedly disprove climate change? You have not produced one. So the question must be asked, where are these studies? Where is this proof?

The overriding point through all of this has been that time and time again you only reference political commentators who can do nothing but opine on the horrors of "liberalism." The update on the environment was by far the best example of this. I STILL have yet to receive an answer as to why this blog never cites studies in academic journals. You routinely list the same people over and over (D'Agostino, Novak, etc.). What work have they done in environmental science?

You, Allan (for it is only you who do this), can go on at length about the "tricks" liberals play to avoid discussion of the issue at hand. However, let in be known here and now that you are being challenged. Offer some evidence on this point that does not come from political commentators and is published in a major scientific journal. If you cannot, amend your earlier post and admit that liberals do not all avoid rational debate. You can preach the high-minded ideals of discourse but, when standing among the heaps of pundits, it does not take long for the stench to rub off on you. It is not your conservative bend that is the problem; it is that your evidence does not support your conclusions. For this you will continue to be challenged until you can no longer hide in your room, surrounded by your own walls of ignorance.

Conservative First said...

Neither of the above comments addresses any of the specific facts or arguments in the linked articles. These updates are about political news, analysis, and opinion, not scientific journal articles. Nobody is going to read articles that are dozens to hunreds of pages long, anyways.

The notion that "peer-reviewed scientific journals" present some sort of impartial source of authority is belied by the fact that there is a campaign underway to smear global warming skeptics as akin to holocaust deniers. When such tactics are used to suppress debate, "consensus" cannot be trusted. Anyone interested in the promotion of scientific inquiry should condemn such tactics.

The first comment attampts to smear Dr. Ball with unproven allegations. Since the subject came up, where does the global warming crowd get its funding? What is the agenda of the environmentalist movement and the government it influences? Their agenda is documented in their own words in this article: If you are unwilling to condemn a movement that seeks to wipe out most of humanity, then further debate will be unfruitful.

Anonymous said...

" Nobody is going to read articles that are dozens to hunreds of pages long, anyways."

...What on earth are you talking about? Are you implying that the IPCC report, which was reviewed by over 2,500 climate scientists around the world is somehow not legitimate?

Yes or No?

Are you claiming that there is ANY scientific data that disputes their findings?

Yes or No?

The report is summarraized in 18 pages given to policy makers here:
If it is not specific enough for you, you have only to turn to the 1600 page full report.

A.J. said...

In Allan's defense, I think his comment meant that for the purposes of the Political Update, no one would want to read articles hundreds of pages long.

Anonymous said...


So long as you are defending Allan’s comments, would you care to defend him for refereeing to:

“a movement that seeks to wipe out most of humanity”?

The environmental movement is about the lives of our children, it is about people who want to protect our world so it will be able to sustain future generations the way it sustains us. Allan’s implication that environmentalists (like myself) are somehow in league with this group he found, (whatever it is). Is grossly insulting. And is counterproductive to having a reasonable conversation. Does he really believe environmental groups such as the SSE, which meets on Thursdays in the same room the CR’s do, are all a part of “a movement to wipe out most of humanity”?

Furthermore his comment is, by association, an “Ad Hominem attack” which I understand Allan claims to be opposed to.