Fortunately, Dr. Salk's Attempt to Eradicate the Scourge of Polio Has Failed

The other day, the Drudge Report linked to an article about an experiment completed by CERN that provides credence to Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark's theory that global warming is caused by the cosmic rays of the sun and not by man.

The website Skeptical Science rebutted with an article of its own.

What I found revealing in Skeptical Science's response was not its attempt to dispel the conclusions of CERN's experiment, but the language it used to do so. I refer specifically to the line that followed the four requirements the author claims CERN's report must meet in order to have validity:

Fortunately we have empirical observations against which we can test these requirements.

"Fortunately"? Shouldn't that read "unfortunately"? After all, if man-made catastrophic global warming is the reality it is claimed to be, untold mayhem, suffering, and death will result. The polar ice caps will melt, oceans will rise, polar bears will become extinct, millions will be deprived of food, and all sorts of other calamities that Al Gore and company have outlined will befall us.

Where is the "fortune" in proving your opponent wrong if it means the suffering of millions?

Why is it that I have never seen the sentiment expressed in the pro-global warming camp that they, like those of us who aren't believers, don't actually want global warming to occur? Why this underlying and barely contained glee that a calamity is inevitable? What I never hear is "Gosh, I surely hope that I and my fellow climate change believers are proven wrong and that the skeptics and deniers are proven right, because that will mean that billions won't suffer!"

Instead, they seem wedded to the hope that global warming is the reality, and they actually get angry at any suggestion that it isn't so. It is the absence of this approach that leads me to suspect, instinctively, both the motives and the credibility of many pro-global warming advocates.

Imagine if, back in the 1950s, upon completion of a study of the first round of Jonas Salk's polio vaccine, it was found not to work. Imagine that the opening paragraph of the study read, "Fortunately, Dr. Salk's attempt to eradicate the scourge of polio has failed."

By all means, global warming proponents must follow their hearts and do whatever they feel necessary to further their cause: conduct studies on climate, advocate for legislative change if necessary, propagate your message. But I must question motivation when said proponents remain closed to the possibility that global warming is a natural phenomenon unaffected by man. It might be nice to have a little more hope that your thesis is wrong -- and that millions won't die -- instead of the bitterness and anger that you direct towards sincere scientists with opposing theories to your own, such as that Danish scientist.

I prefer to take instruction from the late, great George Carlin, who, in this YouTube video, considers it sheer hubris to believe that man can influence the Earth to the extent claimed by environmentalists. This seven-minute video should be required viewing by all of America's schoolchildren (notwithstanding the coarse language).

Tony Kondaks' latest obsession is the national debt debate, which he has reduced to its essence: two pies and one squiggly. You can read all about it at his website.


The other day, the Drudge Report linked to an article about an experiment completed by CERN that provides credence to Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark's theory that global warming is caused by the cosmic rays of the sun and not by man.

The website Skeptical Science rebutted with an article of its own.

What I found revealing in Skeptical Science's response was not its attempt to dispel the conclusions of CERN's experiment, but the language it used to do so. I refer specifically to the line that followed the four requirements the author claims CERN's report must meet in order to have validity:

Fortunately we have empirical observations against which we can test these requirements.

"Fortunately"? Shouldn't that read "unfortunately"? After all, if man-made catastrophic global warming is the reality it is claimed to be, untold mayhem, suffering, and death will result. The polar ice caps will melt, oceans will rise, polar bears will become extinct, millions will be deprived of food, and all sorts of other calamities that Al Gore and company have outlined will befall us.

Where is the "fortune" in proving your opponent wrong if it means the suffering of millions?

Why is it that I have never seen the sentiment expressed in the pro-global warming camp that they, like those of us who aren't believers, don't actually want global warming to occur? Why this underlying and barely contained glee that a calamity is inevitable? What I never hear is "Gosh, I surely hope that I and my fellow climate change believers are proven wrong and that the skeptics and deniers are proven right, because that will mean that billions won't suffer!"

Instead, they seem wedded to the hope that global warming is the reality, and they actually get angry at any suggestion that it isn't so. It is the absence of this approach that leads me to suspect, instinctively, both the motives and the credibility of many pro-global warming advocates.

Imagine if, back in the 1950s, upon completion of a study of the first round of Jonas Salk's polio vaccine, it was found not to work. Imagine that the opening paragraph of the study read, "Fortunately, Dr. Salk's attempt to eradicate the scourge of polio has failed."

By all means, global warming proponents must follow their hearts and do whatever they feel necessary to further their cause: conduct studies on climate, advocate for legislative change if necessary, propagate your message. But I must question motivation when said proponents remain closed to the possibility that global warming is a natural phenomenon unaffected by man. It might be nice to have a little more hope that your thesis is wrong -- and that millions won't die -- instead of the bitterness and anger that you direct towards sincere scientists with opposing theories to your own, such as that Danish scientist.

I prefer to take instruction from the late, great George Carlin, who, in this YouTube video, considers it sheer hubris to believe that man can influence the Earth to the extent claimed by environmentalists. This seven-minute video should be required viewing by all of America's schoolchildren (notwithstanding the coarse language).

Tony Kondaks' latest obsession is the national debt debate, which he has reduced to its essence: two pies and one squiggly. You can read all about it at his website.


RECENT VIDEOS