The UN and the “boiled frog”

UN folks screaming about global warming use the tale of the “boiled frog” to warn against indifference. But that tale is an urban legend. Junk science. If they can’t get that right, how do they expect us to trust them on something so big? Two decades ago they were scaring us about global freezing; now its global warming.

I suppose I agree with Robert Frost:

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

10 thoughts on “The UN and the “boiled frog”

  1. It does not automatically follow that just because someone raised the possibility of one (then) likely climate disaster, a different climate disaster with different causes is therefore impossible.

  2. No, but when you have the same group of leftwing politicians trying to make a political issue out of climate, and they blow hot and cold depending upon the political climate, and when they quote non-scientific arguments such as the boiled frog … and when plenty of credible scientists dispute their theories … well, it begins to look and smell and sound like … POLITICS.

  3. What percentage of the total amount of reputable scientists questions global warming? (Note that the dispute over the cause of such warming is separate from the generally agreed notion that it is happening.)

  4. I guess first we gotta see the evidence of what “it” is, and compare it with solid figures through history (kind of difficult) to see if a degree shift is anything significant, and then of course there’s the separate question of causality.

  5. Those on the Democratic party pay roll certainly have. But as noted, as was the point of this post, they were not long before predicting the opposite. Funny, the Democrats talk so much about optimism, but they always seem to be scaring us into something.

  6. “Those who are qualified, however, have already achieved considerable consensus.”

    Beware, argument by consensus is a logical fallacy. Scientists have held “consensus” on a great many things that have been proven wrong. Changes in temperature may be easily observable, but this by no means indicates something that is drastic as folks think, or even something that hasn’t happened before in recorded history — and many times! The causes have not been shown to be definitive. But now it has become more political than scientific, a useful scare tactic, and here comes Al Gore and the Democratic party with all of the answers!

  7. There seems to be little question that warming is happening in the short term. However, there are difficulties matching the actual data with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, especially the quantity produced by industrial processes. There also seems to be a lot of data that long-term cyclical warming and cooling trends have happened naturally, and all this makes it very unlikely that mankind’s influence will make much difference in the cycle.

    In any case, the trend is long-term and gradual, and it isn’t clear that a crisis mentality requiring a drastic immediate solution is necessary or even would have significant effect. In particular, according to an article by Holman Jenkins in the WSJ this week, if the US discontinued burning fossil fuels altogether the effect on climate would be undetectable.

    In the face of an uncertain scientific cause-and-effect solution, the proposed actions, notably the Kyoto treaty, would cause immediate and severe economic privations for many. At least two unfortunate outcomes of this would be that the poor would suffer disproportionately (as they inevitably do in hard times) and there would be fewer resources to study the issue and develop the technology that might ultimately solve the real problem, IF INDEED THERE EVEN IS ONE.

  8. Long term and gradual — one degree in over one hundred years. The graphs show it as a huge jump because they start the graph with a very high figure.

Comments are closed.