Check back with me in twenty years.
But it is my sense that "global warming" is the biggest fraud perpetuated upon Americans in my lifetime. I have lived through "the population bomb"--thirty years on, earthlings have the greatest access to food, shelter, clothing, fuel, and medical care in any time in human history. I have lived through "global freezing"--remember those stories, of armadillos heading south from Nebraska to Texas? I have survived "50 million HIV positive Americans by 1990"--that sage piece of wisdom delivered on "Oprah."
Someone help me out here. Wasn't there a thing called, oh, I don't know, The Ice Age? Can we all agree it's warmer now than then, not entirely the fauly of SUVs?
Been down one time. Been down two times. Won't get fooled again.
The two greatest columnists in the English language, George Will and Mark Steyn, weigh in.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
The difference here? Science.
Elaborate, or go play with Al Gore.
Do a search on any of the scientific journals that deal even peripherally with climate change (Journal of Climate, Climate Change, Monthly Weather Review, Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, Geophysical Research Letters, Science, just to name a few).
I did, and they are all pretty much: 1) measure climate either from the late nineteenth century (when the earth was coming out of a little ice age) or the nineteen-seventies (when the climate persuaded every climatologist on earth to warm of "global freezing", and 2) ignore much warmer temperatures from a thousand years ago, when the Vikings farmed in Greenland and the best wine in the world came from vineyards in England.
I'm not a scientist. Nor was I a sociologist when I thought something was fishy about the Super Bowl wife-beating hoax.
Not all global warming studies include the mid-19th century. Many of them look specifically at 1900 to the present day or even more specifically the last 30-50 years. And global cooling as it refers to theories from the 1970s is different from studies of climate change induced by human activities. (Wikipedia has a summary of global cooling at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling.) And it is not true to say that "every climatologist" was persuaded by global cooling. There were many skeptics in the scientific community at the time about the theory of global cooling. The problem is that the media latches onto provocative ideas without distinguishing between a maverick idea that may (or may not) be proven to be untrue. The mere existence of research that examines a given issue should not be given the same weight as the evidence itself, as science does not operate in a vacuum, and theories evolve by building on or attempting to refute sometimes ill-supported theories.
The Earth has natural cycles of cooling and warming that can be influenced by (as the Wikipedia article mentions) such elements as the thermohaline circulation. Local effects (jet stream, etc.) also play a role and are not discounted in scientific research. A certain amount of variation is to be expected; it is the long-term trend that is at issue here.
You may be be right. We'll see eventually, I guess.
It seems an odd coincidence that those who would, in general, advocate 1) expansion of government and 2) blaming America for anything that goes wrong have latched on to a scientific theory that justifies both.
It's not a coincidence, but neither is it a one-to-one relationship.
Yank,
I think this Seinfeld snippet best describes your view on global warming. Yank, you play the part of Kramer and I'll be Mr. Leland.
Kramer- "What did you want to see me about, Mr. Leland?"
Mr Leland- "Kramer, I've been reviewing your work. Quite frankly, it stinks."
"Well, I've been having trouble at home and, uh, I'll work harder. Nights, weekends, whatever it takes."
"No, no, I don't think that's going to do it. These reports you handed in, it's almost as if you have no business training at all. I don't know what this is supposed to be."
"Well, I'm just trying to get ahead."
"I'm sorry, there's just no way that we can keep you on."
"I don't even really work here."
"That's what makes this so difficult."
- Kramer and Mr. Leland, in "The Bizarro Jerry"
-BB
Except that I went through the recent findings so trumpeted by everyone states that the oceans of the world will not raise more than seventeen inches in the next century, not 20-30 feet.
Now THAT'S an inconvenient truth.
Who said the ocean level was going to rise by 20-30 feet? And 17 inches is more than enough to devasate many low-lying coastal communities in the Pacific.
Well, stuff happens. Greenland froze, and the Vikings all died. The icebergs receded, and we were left with the Great Lakes. Galveston became Atlantis, six thousand died--and with nary a Humvee in sight. The world is a fearsome place and, sorry to say, mostly, it's not our fault.
TexasYank please see Human Resources as soon as possible.
Bring your parking pass, key to the executive washroom and your playbook.
Your license to blog intelligently has been revoked.
-Blue
So you say, Bullvass, but I ain't seeing much.
Presumably you meant that my license "to blog" had been revoked, since--by your rights--if I were blogging "intelligently" I would still have my license.
Have the last word if you wish. Time to move on.
Just for the record here.....a man who writes copy for....wait for it.....here it comes....LOCAL TV....is now an expert on global warming?
I think somebody has been reading a few too many free copies of USA Today!!!
This is the _only reason_ why I keep coming back -- to watch you flaunt your ignorance. I guess it's that built-in desire that we as humans have -- to drive by the accident scene and view the remains.
You never have anything intelligent to say, other than regurgitating the local sportscast and the political talking points you heard on the Boob Tube.
You don't have to be very observant (or even intelligent) to look around at your planet and realize that the environment is in serious trouble. I will try to explain it so even you can understand. . .
Today there are:
1. More people on the planet than ever before.
2. More vehicles and other pollution-spewing devices than ever. Just look at Yellowstone National Park -- a microcosm of the planet's environment -- and the effect(s) that snowmobiles are having on the air quality there, not to mention many of the indigenous species, most notably the buffalo herds.
3. More emissions from factories than ever.
4. Less stringent emission regulation of said factories than ever. Can you say Kyoto?
5. Unprecedented deforestation, not only on this continent but especially the rain forests of S. America (remember in elementary school, Joe, when you were taught that "trees are
the lungs of the planet"?) Do you get it? Of course you don't.
6.Unprecedented amounts of emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, e.g., coal-fired power plants.
7.Unprecedented extinction of flora and fauna (and species, once common a decade ago, that are now on the rapidly growing endangered list).
I don't know what's worse: having to watch my planet's environment go to shit virtually overnight,
while an assorted array of corporate-controlled morons tell the world everything is fine, or wading through the bad writing (read ignorance) of some self-absorbed George Will psychophant.
--Sam
Texasyank: "You may be be right. We'll see eventually, I guess."
Joey, you're an intellectual giant.
Post a Comment