CAVEAT: THIS BLOG CONTAINS (albeit often very childish) ADULT-CONTENT. DISCLAIMER: Entries at this blog are akin to good old-fashioned campfire chats; I offer no opinion on what you should or should not purchase, or what you should be using or doing. What does or does not work for me could be long country-miles away from your tastes and your needs. Any products, places, and / or whatnots that I review for this blog are purchased at retail price by me. I do not accept payment, gifts, discounts, freebies, products on loan, demon alcohol, drugs, plea-bargains, probation, parole, Presidential Pardons, or sexual favors for doing any review. TRACKING COOKIES: Google et al sticks tracking cookies on everybody. If you are online, you are being spied on; 'nuff said. You may be able to minimize your online footprints by using Tor and Duck Duck Go. Vive la liberté! Vive all y'all! Ante omnia armari. To each of you, thanks for stopping by!

Monday, November 30, 2009

Climate change skeptic

I am one not joining in on the hysterics of our news organizations, our politicians, or our self-aggrandizing scientists. Why am I so hard to convince of “inconvenient truths?” Age; I have lived through it all before. Attached is a link to a
1975 NEWSWEEK article on global cooling. Yep, you heard that right, GLOBAL COOLING. Hey, NEWSWEEK could not be wrong, ‘eh? Yeah, scientists back then said hell was indeed freezing over. Some scientists said we needed to melt the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot.

I’m all for science, I am all for studying climate, and I am all for debate. I am not for acting on the pseudo intellectual pontifications of politicians and pundits! The science is not settled, in fact, there are indications that the science may be as corrupt as a Chicago election.

CLICK HERE and browse through Borepatch’s pages.

CLICK HERE and browse the “Climate Debate Daily.”


Steve said...

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on this one.

If it were just one or a few scientists, like the Newsweek article, I'd have the same attitude that you do. But over the years, the idea of climate change has slowly been accepted by the majority of scientists. I don't see that they have a lot to gain, so the idea of a conspiracy or corruption doesn't make much sense to me. I suppose it gives them attention, and we all like attention and the approval of our peers, but that in itself does not seem to me to be sufficient motivation to abandon the ethical basis of their profession.

The other reason I believe the prognosticators is the simple fact that it makes sense to me. Yes, the earth is a huge system, but humankind has become pretty powerful over the past century or so. After all, if we have the ability to destroy ourselves using powerful weapons, it follows that we have the ability to destroy ourselves more slowly by belching huge quantities of pollutants into the atmosphere. While I'm not willing to accept any specific scenario on what will happen when, my gut tells me that it can't be good to shit in your nest.

Frankly, I know that it won't affect me much. But I feel a sense of responsibility to my grand daughter and her kids. Our descendants did some pretty awful things to people and to the environment, but they lacked the power to doom the entire planet. Given the relatively minor things that are being suggested, and the relatively major ramifications if we continue down the road we're on, it makes sense to me to take some action now even if we cannot be 100% sure what will happen. The alternative -- continuing to shit in our nest -- is convenient but does not appeal to me as a long-term solution.

Borepatch said...

Steve, I urge you to read this, about the scientific consensus. Ignore the snarky title; I've tried to make it information rich.

Net/net, ignoring that much of the "consensus" comes from stifling opposing views, there are very disturbing things to be found in the data used by essentially all climate scientists.

I'm not saying that the Earth isn't warming, or even that we're not responsible for some of the warming. I am saying that the data underneath the science is very shoddy.

Thanks for the link, James.

Steve said...

I do not deny that there remains controversy on global warming, but when you cut to the chase, there's a very simple decision that we (the current population of the earth) must make right now. Do we do anything to try to change global warming?

I think that there is enough evidence at this point to justify action. Unfortunately, motivating society to address a problem that they cannot see is doomed to failure. Thus I do not expect any meaningful change in my lifetime.

Many of the things that would address global warming are issues that need to be addressed anyway. When I observe highway traffic in the US, I see lots of big American Land Boats, most of which have one overweight person inside. When I make the same observation outside the US, I see much smaller vehicles carrying more people per vehicle. Things like this do not make me proud to be an American, and we're exporting this attitude all over the world. After all, global warming doesn't exist so we don't have to worry about such excesses.