Why Do Alarmist Always Turn Good News into "But" Scenarios?
Every time a new scientific study comes out that rejects the "Climate Change" theory, or, demonstrates a net positive gain because of "Climate Change", the supporters of AGW always have a "but" scenario. These scenarios always follow good news with predictions of doom and gloom. Not that these doom and gloom scenarios have occurred or are supported by any studies. No, they are just thrown out there in order to keep the lie going. Following is a perfect example. The article is about how the vegetation on the earth has increased 6% over the study period (from 80's to 90's). they also go over how the Amazon Rain Forest has increased, "Owing to the added sunshine, photosynthesis has been rampant. The Amazon basin accounts for 42 percent of the global increase in vegetation.." In a normal world without politics, people (specifically the lefties) would be dancing in the streets to learn that even with us cutting down vast tracks of trees, the rain forest is increasing. This is awesome news. BUT, hold your horses, the article then goes into how in the future, things MAY not be so good. At this point in the article, it really is not worth reading as there is ZERO scientific evidence to support the "but" scenario.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/06/0605_030605_climatechange.html
Because of this "But" phenomenon, I am now officially labeling anyone of these types of people "But Heads". This is not to be confused with the more common name associated with the pronunciation of the word "But" which refers to people's derriere.
So come on everyone, refer to the doom and gloom crowd as "But Heads".
Paul gets added to the "But Head" roles.
BTW, if you want to read about more But Heads, follow my blog at:
http://areyouabuthead.blogspot.com/
JayDax, Excellent observation. However, I contend that this is part of the problem. AGW loonies should be laughed at for their idiotic ways. If actual scientist play into the fear, then the masses will continue to believe the lie.
Richard the Self Proclaimed Scientist,
I am well aware of the cutting down of forests.However, why are they cutting it down? Because of idiots on your side of the argument subsidize the hell out of biofuels (and yes, Bush was an idiot on this also). Thus, people will follow the money. If we eliminated the subsidies for biofuels, then you and I would not have this discussion.
So I think you or maybe your side of the argument are the real Butt heads.
John Sol, You are wrong. AGW is a theory based on science. But, the actual proof is based on science fiction. A theory is just that, until it can be proven. To date, no scientist has been able to prove AGW. The only thing they come up with are models, which are disproved shortly after they are released.
dana, self proclaimed master of science.
I would thin, that by your title, you would at least understand the simple basics of the scientific method. But alas, what is in a name but letters and a dreamer.
Redleg & Antarcti,
I claim both of you as members of the But Head group. The reason, you both state that the 2nd page as any sort of meaning. It does not. The author only stated some possible bad out comes, which NO scientific proof. Stating something bad is not science. It is being a But Head.