About the Post

Author Information

Foregone Conclusions of Global Warming

(My favourite word in this article comes at the end….”climatistas”.  Perfect!  Tip o’ the hat to The Galileo Movement for this find.  — DQ)

Brian C. Joondeph — American Thinker — November 30, 2014

A foregone conclusion is, “A result that is obvious to everyone even before it happens.” Who cares about data, evidence, or thoughtful analysis? Saddam Hussein winning reelection in 2002 was a foregone conclusion. We were told that with 100 percent turnout, he won the election 11 million to zero. Actually counting the voters or votes is unnecessary with such a foregone conclusion.

Global warming is another example of a foregone conclusion. Whatever the weather of the day, the cause is global warming. Seventy inches of snow recently fell in Buffalo. Slate concluded that this is further evidence of global warming. If it was 75 degrees and sunny that week, is there any doubt that Slate would reach the same conclusion? The only difference being that at least warm temperatures and global warming could have a logical connection.

Lake effect snow in Buffalo is not unusual. Cold arctic air picks up moisture over the Great Lakes and deposits it over land. The only thing unusual about the recent snow is its severity. Buffalo residents described it “as the worst in memory.” The Washington Post however already reached its foregone conclusion that we should not believe our own eyes; “Dear snow-trolls: Winter weather does not refute global warming.” Seems that any weather, warm or cold, wet or dry, storms or lack of, points to the foregone conclusion of global warming, just as every single person in Iraq made it to the polls on election day and voted to reelect Saddam.

Blame it on the polar vortex, according to climate scientists. Warming oceans and melting ice are weakening the vortex, causing colder, snowier winters. Huh? This year has given us, “The earliest ice on some of the Great Lakes in at least 40 years.” Arctic ice is decreasing as Antarctic ice is increasing, meaning a shift, not a net loss. How does one reasonably draw conclusions from conflicting and contradictory data? Unless the conclusions are foregone and data is simply window dressing.  (Continue reading here…..)

antarctica-2

 

Tags: , ,

No comments yet.

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

%d bloggers like this: