Now: Global Cooling
Read the sunspots — National Post
Now it’s time to prepare ourselves for global cooling, apparently.
The fact that science is many years away from properly understanding global climate doesn’t seem to bother our leaders at all. Inviting testimony only from those who don’t question political orthodoxy on the issue, parliamentarians are charging ahead with the impossible and expensive goal of “stopping global climate change.”
Exactly.
Global warming is starting to get replaced with “climate change” to cover the snake oil salesmen pimping the idea of man-made global warming for when (or, in case) it turns cool. The politicians have to get their bases covered before it becomes too obvious.
Here’s a post with more of my thoughts on global warming.
June 26th, 2007 at 13:45
Oh my, here I was hoping to see someone that also thought that ‘global warming’ was the wrong term since it suggests we’ll notice the heat. But no, it is another stab from one side or the other of the ‘debate’. I’ve always thought that ‘climate change’ is more appropriate for us folks to grasp. That is because the warming will affect the weather much more than what we’ll notice in actual temperature. Most people rely on a talking head on the t.v. to know what is happening outside their own house. They even tell us how we feel with an imaginary number that is either higher or lower than the real temperature. Hey if the average temperature rises by 2 degrees we’ll not notice but we’ll certainly wonder why the weather is so different. And yes, change means that extreme cold is just as likely as ‘warming’. It is about change and we’re not very good at coping with change.
Spewing crap into the air and water is a bad thing even if you think climate change is just over hyped nonsense. Heads are buried in the sand on both sides. I believe we should clean up this mess no matter what the radicals believe. My kids deserve better than this soupy poison we’re leaving for them. Sorry, I’m leaning toward slowing down this mess. Even if climate change is bunk we’ll do our kids a favour by cleaning up a bit.
June 26th, 2007 at 18:20
With all due respect, you yourself are much more entrenched in the type of “another stab from one side or other of the ‘debate.’” You cannot ask nor expect that something that is entirely political be argued from a scientific viewpoint; therefore, the premise on which you base your argument moots your conclusion because it is inherently false.
If you want to argue that “[s]pewing crap into the air and water is a bad thing” you may have an argument, but linking it to global warming (now “climate change” in order to cover any decline in temparatures for the political money-makers) with no credible evidence to do so is not acceptable in the scientific community (even if it may fit someone’s political agenda).
Finally, I wholeheartedly agree with you that “we’re not very good at coping with change.” Unfortunately, the Earth is a dynamic system that is always changing. Those that expect, or even believe, that the temperature on July 1 of every year will always be the same forever and ever are actually the ones who have their heads “buried in the sand.”
I strongly urge you to visit the ongoing global warming post that I continually link. You will find it in the post above.
June 26th, 2007 at 22:38
I’ll say off the top that at least the sound from here isn’t shrill or deafening which is the case from every side on this any every other politically charged topic. I agree that it is indeed political or in my mind it is more commercial. They are pretty much the same thing now, politics, ethics, religion, everyone has something to sell. But I disagree that it is entirely political. It certainly became political but that fact doesn’t contradict or confirm the science that is there. I don’t blindly follow the science or the sermon and I don’t dismiss either one in its entirety just because I disagree with the overall premise of any side of any debate.
I don’t pretend that we as a species have more than a small clue about what makes this system work. But that lack of complete proof or consensus doesn’t stop me from making a choice on things that if true are much bigger problems than the pettiness and pride that seems to rule our decisions. I follow no single doctrine but I do think as I’ve done for more decades than I care to admit that we are doing this planet no favors by wasting and consuming everything we can. I don’t need further evidence to know that my kid’s air and water quality is vital and that the level of quality is getting lower. If for no other reason we should be doing things much better. If we improve efficiencies by a significant amount we’ll be lucky just to keep the air and water quality from getting worse just based on population and consumption levels. Technology and good thoughts aren’t going to save the day.
You misunderstand my expectations of the environment. I don’t look at the numbers or the charts or what the so called normal temperature is supposed to be on 1 July at prime time. Forecasts and batting scores are irrelevant. Weather happens. And so does change and so does the balance that our dynamic planet is capable of. I’m not looking to validate assumptions or to find holes in another person’s, that became boring a long time ago. No spokesperson from either side will change or strengthen what I think is the much safer bet, clean up this mess or face changes that nobody wants.
I agree with the footer tag line about law. With tongue partially planted in cheek I think we need only two basic laws, thou shalt not kill and thou shalt not spam. The rest is common sense.
June 27th, 2007 at 7:34
I don’t want to express an opinion here about pollution, generally, which is, from what I gather from your two comments, more your focus. I don’t blindly follow anything, either, but when it comes to science (or for that matter, politics, especially) I don’t make leaps of faith.
Certainly someone would have a very tough time arguing that it is acceptable to dump raw mercury into our water supply because, for example, mercury is a liquid, too, at room temperature. That premise is neither here nor there when it comes to the scientific conclusion. Likewise, flipping a coin to determine if man causes global warming is not scientifically acceptable.
I am unfortunately of the belief, based on my personal experience, that I am in the extreme minority of people that “choose” a side in the global warming debate based on science first and politics not-at-all. As I wrote in my ongoing global warming post, it distresses me because it seems that politics has become the pimp, while science has become the whore.
This all means that I am certainly capable of changing my mind on global warming being caused by man, but until we can get our hypotheses tested, verified, concluded, published, and repeated ad nauseum, I refuse to sign onto the “consensus” that is global warming. And, even if such hypotheses can be successfully done to my satisfaction, when there exists ample evidence to both verify and refute that man is causing global warming, it makes little sense for me to disregard one half over another by a coin flip.