*After a famous Monty Python sketch ("Anne Elk")-- by Horatio Algeranon
I have a Theory
And it is mine,
It serves me well
Most all the time.
This Theory I have,
It goes like this:
(And if you're smart,
You won't dismiss)
My Theory presumes,
That CO2,
Is "saturated"
Through and through --
So just between,
The you and me
It didn't warm earth,
Over last century.
My brilliant Theory,
On the other hand,
Is oh so very,
Very grand:
It presumes
The warming's natural,
And humans can't,
The warmth forestall;
The solar flares
Are causing spots,
The effect on earth?
We know not what;
The Cosmic Rays,
Are all-pervading,
Ever present
And space-invading**,
Which means they make
The temperature rise,
Though "precisely how?"
We're not that wise.
But let us not,
Belabor "how?"
That's not "Sound Science,"
Anyhow.
But instead enjoy,
The warming climes,
Ignore the Al-armists,
Celebrate good times.
**Some believe cosmic rays look and behave like this.
Watch Monty Python's "Anne Elk" sketch here.
The average person who is ignorant of physics would never dream of challenging the expert consensus on Quantum Theory or Einstein's General Relativity Theory -- or even something as basic as the "Theory of Capillary Action."
But for some reason, when it comes to climate science, every Tom, Dick and Henrietta with a blog has his/her own pet "Theory" on what is warming the earth*** -- other than CO2, of course. (***Not long ago, some of these same people denied that the earth had even warmed and still others are now chiming "Global Warming stopped in 1998".)
But for some reason, when it comes to climate science, every Tom, Dick and Henrietta with a blog has his/her own pet "Theory" on what is warming the earth*** -- other than CO2, of course. (***Not long ago, some of these same people denied that the earth had even warmed and still others are now chiming "Global Warming stopped in 1998".)
These folks regularly challenge the expert consensus on the "Greenhouse Gas Theory" of warming, which far more often than not just makes them (certainly not the scientists) look foolish -- but only to those who are actually informed on the science.
With a little help from Fox News, the nonsense actually fools a lot of people a lot of the time, because most members of the public simply do not know enough about the issue -- and science in general -- to separate the wheat from the chaff (to put it nicely).
The general public -- especially those who call themselves "skeptics" -- would be best served by listening to the experts, like those in the IPCC.
