RolePlayInTheOC
Posts: 6
Joined: 12/23/2004
Status: offline
|
Fact: the Earth was warmer 1,000 years ago than it is today. This period is known as the Medieval Climate Optimum. For example, there was a permanent colony on Greenland that sustained itself by agriculture, in an area that is now permafrost. Was this caused by those wild-and-crazy Vikings and their SUV's? I think not.
Estimate: CO2 levels during the time of the dinosaurs are estimated to have been three to six times their current level. Did the dinosaurs operate factories? I think not.
Fact: Planetary temperatures soared (and glaciers receded) during the recovery from the last Ice Age. This recovery is believed to have occurred over only a few decades. Was it caused by cavemen building fires? I think not.
The point is that science has only a very rudimentary understanding of what drives weather and climate changes. The best computer models have to be heavily tweaked with parameter "fudging" in order to get them to track just the last couple of decades. None of them is within light years of tracking the recoveries from the Medieval Climate Optimum or the last Ice Age. The "science" behind AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has more holes in it than a Swiss cheese. Bottom line #1: whether or not the Earth is actually getting warmer right now (and there is some doubt even about that), there is NO convincing evidence that humans have anything to do with it. Bottom line #2: when they can tell me whether or not it's going to rain tomorrow, I'll start thinking about listening to them concerning temperatures 100 years from now.
What *meatcleaver* calls playing it safe, I call shutting down the Industrial Revolution. If that happens, the carrying capacity of the Earth (human population that can be supported) will fall back to what it was pre-1700, namely a few hundred million. The other 95% will die of famine or plague. Oops! Fortunately, the Chinese aren't having any of this nonsense. (As an aside, I would add that those most concerned about alleged risks of greenhouse gas production are also in the forefront of blocking the most effective means to reduce it: nuclear power.)
Finally, as to why the "science" is so nearly unanimous on this issue, *Mercnbeth* are on the right track. The Romans advised us to ask "Cui bono?" (Who benefits?). There is an unholy alliance among five interest groups, each of which scratches each other's back, and each of which benefits greatly from scaring an ignorant general populace. Michael Crichton identifies three of them in his novel, State of Fear. They are politicians, scientists, the press, regulators, and lawyers. Briefly, politicians get campaign issues and give (indirectly) money (in the form of research grants). Scientists get money and fame, and give politicians credibility and the media interesting stories. The press gets a scary issue with which to frighten readers/viewers into paying attention, and gives publicity to politicians and scientists. Regulators get funding and power from politicians, a rationale from scientists, and publicity from the press, and they give politicians the appearance of efficacy (doing something about it). Lawyers get fodder for litigation, which provides interesting copy for the media. ... I could go on (and on). When there is that much mutual back-scratching going on, it is small wonder that these powerful groups will close ranks to attack anyone who dares to point out that "the Emperor has no clothes."
|
RE: Global Warming: Some good news - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread