Posted by
Catmman on Tuesday, May 26, 2009 1:40:00 PM
So I want to ask climate deniers like Andrew Bolt “Do you wear sunscreen?” If you answered ‘no’ to this question then you have every right to be skeptical of climate science, along with other shaky principles like gravity and photosynthesis. However if you answered ‘yes’ to wearing sunscreen then you better make it a secret, as the basic science of climate change is just as solid as your sunscreen use.
I sent a comment which has yet to be posted that if one puts on a jacket outside when it's cold, then that action is proof of an impending ice age. I have yet to receive a response.
The guy is trying to make a bigger point by faulty analogy. He is attempting to say that since the warming affect of CO2 was discovered in 1896 - a true, verifiable sceintific fact (just as sunscreen has been proven to inhibit the absorbtion of certain types of UV radiation), then the assumptions made by green advocates on "climate change" are also true, verifiable facts. He also attempts to use Venus as an example of a runaway greenhouse affect (which it is). There are a few problems with this guys statements:
1. Earth is not Venus. (
For a debunking of greehouse theory alarmism, go here.)
2. The fact that CO2 does indeed have warming affects in the environment is true
up to a point. There are others modalities and processes at work in our environment than simply the presence of CO2 which climate alarmists always manage to disregard. In fact,
one can readily see that increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations does not result in catastrophic temperature increases. In point of observable fact, it results in very llittle (if any) temperature increase.
As with most other assertions from "climate alarmists advocates scientists", this guy can hardly contain his activist and 'green' agenda driven bent. If the best this guy can come up with to prove the theories of climate change is to state that sunscreen use somehow proves it, I would hate to see his other work.