This will come as no surprise, but recently I was infuriated beyond belief. It all started when I read an article in the NY Times about global warming. I'll just say it--I think the unconditional belief in global warming is to many Americans what African kids are to Hollywood celebs--an accessory you just gotta have.
Please see the following article before you continue reading:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/science/21arctic.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=11904124263vyyBHMetwWZB6Ts/UZ7fg&oref=slogin
This New York Times story quotes scientists who note that “Arctic Ocean ice shrank far more than usual this summer, and global warming, due to the buildup of greenhouse gases, likely played a role.” Okay, fine. However, the last paragraph of the story notes “Sea ice around Antarctica has seen usual winter expansions recently, and this week is near a record high.” Period. Nothing more.
Hold the phone there, Gomer! So global warming is causing ice to melt more rapidly than usual in the Arctic, but what is causing ice to expand and thicken more rapidly than usual in the Antarctic?
And why didn’t the press pursue THAT part of the story? Can we please just concede there is still a lot we don’t know about the earth’s climate past OR future? Why are we trying to explain the ice reduction by citing global warming but not even bothering to attempt to address the ice expansion?
The Times story goes on to note: “Still, he and other scientists acknowledged that both poles were extraordinarily complicated systems of ice, water, and land and that the mix of human and natural influences was not easy to clarify.” To this profound declaration I had to respond, “Really, Al Roker? You don’t say.”
Is THIS the level to which science has been reduced??? Of course, those of us who question findings (aka drivel) such as these are accused of being anti-science. I believe in reality it is just the opposite--I revere quality scientific study, robust with meaning and integrity—this stuff doesn't qualify. Frankly, I'm offended for and in behalf of real science.
Just to set the record straight—do I believe we are undergoing a climate change? Sure, why not? However,
1) by their own admission we don't have enough data over time to make any firm conclusions. When you consider the long history of the earth, 70 or 80 years worth of data can hardly be considered a reasonable or significant sample, so why are we attempting to craft national and global policy based on such fleeting, insufficient data? And,
2) we know from geological, anthropological, and ecological study that the earth used to be much wetter than it currently is, after all, Lebanon and Israel were densely forested areas and much of France and India were under water, so I guess my question is:
HOW DO WE KNOW FOR CERTAIN THIS CHANGE (assuming there is one) ISN'T A GOOD THING? WHAT KEEPS US FROM CONCLUDING WE ARE NOW RETURNING TO A MORE STABLE, BENEFICIAL CLIMATE AND MORE INHABITABLE STATE? BETTER STILL, WHY AREN'T WE EVEN ASKING THE QUESTION??
Am I the only one who feels this way? Do I live in a world full of mindless sheep who, in spite of possessing perfectly good frontal lobes, refuse to ask critical questions?
Thoughts??? Questions?? Comments?? Emotional outbursts??
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Warning from the Emergency Weather Service: Global Warming Rant Ahead
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Reading the New York Times is a hazard to your health.
Symptoms include hazy reasoning, ulcers, anal retention, gnashed teeth, and dark, gloomy cloudiness of the eyes.
If there is global warming, I welcome it. Always wanted to go swimming on my January birthday.
Giddyup and yeehoodlyhaw! You're a blogger! Consider me your No. 1 fan. Now I guess I should actually go read what you wrote...
Reading back blogs and having a great time doing it :). GREAT blog on global warming. Have you seen the BBC's "The Great Global Warming Swindle"? From the website: “The makers of the documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle have made many science documentaries before. The thing they found most shocking when they started to make this one, was the weakness of the case for man made global warming, and the quantity and quality of the evidence which flatly contradicts it.” See more at http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/
You can supposedly see it here: http://powerlineblog.com/archives/017028.php but I can’t make the link work. If you can find a link where you can view the show (for less that $19.99 ;), I’d be interested.
We have a friend who is a physician’s assistant with the Coast Guard. He spends about 6 months of every year on board the Ice Breaker Healy. He was telling us that they were in the west was very easy going, and the ice pack was thinner this year. However, they were in contact with a Swedish vessel in the eastern arctic by Greenland and it was much tougher going there. The Swedes said that they were encountering ice that was unusually heavy. The Swedes were having troubles getting through the ice at all it was so thick. Mike wondered if there was a tidal shift or wind shift. He is obviously not an environmentalist and this thought is just his speculation. Attributing the thin ice to a simple wind shift would not agree well with the global warming agenda so I doubt many scientists would say it was something like that, as it would endanger their funding. They did see a fair number of polar bears, and they were all active and well-fed looking. Plenty of seals and walrus as well.
HEALY Info if you're interested: It is designed to conduct a wide range of research activities, providing lab space and accommodations for up to 50 scientists. HEALY is designed to break 4 ½ feet of ice continuously. At a time when scientific interest in the Arctic Ocean basin is intensifying, HEALY substantially enhances the United States Arctic research capability.” (see http://www.uscg.mil/pacarea/healy/)
Hey Harried Mother--thanks for stopping by. I didn't see the BBC production, but I did read the transcript--fascinating and compelling stuff!
Did you also see the (successful) lawsuit in UK brought against a school district for showing Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth"? That's right--after reviewing the "evidence" on which the "documentary" was based, the judge ruled it did not, in fact, meet any sort of academic standard and thus had no place in the public school system. Basically, it's on par with voodoo.
As far as the Healy--yes, I've heard of it. Since the Healy is a Coast Guard vessel, these are DoD dollars at work. Thus, whenever I hear people whine and moan about "defense spending" as a policy issue, I think, "You're a moron." Clearly those people have NO IDEA how much ordinary citizens benefit from military dollars. Defense spending is HANDS DOWN the most sound investment we, as a taxpayers, make.
The Healy is not only responsible for enabling US research, but the research of countless other nations who, without the Healy, would be at a permanent impasse.
Another vastly beneficial program for all Americans has been (and continues to be) NASA. Prior to the Space Race there was no need for miniaturization--we were very content to have enourmous computers taking up all kinds of room. It wasn't feasible to haul that kind of mass and volume into space, however, and so the DoD (dba NASA) issued an RFP and started taking bids. Private enterprise (dba Grumman, Lockheed, Martin Marietta, etc.) responded and together demand, capitalism, competition, and incentives worked their magic.
Without the US military we would all be worse off--we can thank them for personal computers, environmental research, the Internet, mylar (and other super lightweight materials), etc. Our lives are all significantly enhanced thanks to wise investments in the DoD.
Wow, Harried Mother--you've inspired me--I think I'm going to blog about the benefits of military spending! Thanks!
Post a Comment