"Climategate" puts big dent in credibility of "experts"
I am delighted that the "Climategate" scandal has seriously impaired the credibility of so-called "experts." The New York Times has the story here. Laypeople have been pushed around by the "experts" for far too long. As Texas board of education member and former chairman Don McLeroy said, "someone needs to stand up to the experts." Actually, we need to have a lot of people stand up to the experts.
I was actually starting to believe the global-warming stories. For example, glaciers and polar ice have been shrinking drastically, so there does appear to be something going on.
I was actually starting to believe the global-warming stories. For example, glaciers and polar ice have been shrinking drastically, so there does appear to be something going on.
posted by Larry Fafarman | 11/29/2009 09:28:00 PM
5 Comments:
There may be global warming, but it could part of natural climate cycles; that's why I think it is important to distinguish between naturally occurring global warming and anthropogenic global warming.
Now it seems that the phrase you see in the media most often is "climate change". Well, yes, the climate does change.
Can we hope that the powers-that-be will call for a complete objective review of the data? Can science, even in principle, understand climate vagaries well enough to come up with a reliable model?
>>>>>> Can we hope that the powers-that-be will call for a complete objective review of the data? Can science, even in principle, understand climate vagaries well enough to come up with a reliable model? <<<<<<<
We not only need to be objective, but we have to be careful about how we interpret the data. For example, I observed that most of the record low overnight temperatures in Los Angeles are over a century old, and I attributed this to global warming. But the reason or a major reason for this could be the "urban heat island" effect, where heated buildings, motor vehicles, etc., tend to make the air warmer. I observed that many of the record high temperatures in Los Angeles are pretty old, too, which tends to contra-indicate global warming. Also, I noticed a large variation in temperatures between different weather stations in Los Angeles, which would tend to be a sign of the "heat island" effect.
As for actions taken to try to curb the "greenhouse effect," I feel that it is better to err on the safe side. Also, these actions have side benefits, like pollution reduction and conservation of non-renewable energy resources.
Although it's possible that human-caused global warming actually exists and is a problem in the long run, I haven't seen any evidence that convinces me. And there are other possible menaces that I've heard about that seem, somehow, to attract little attention. Thus it's reported that an asteroid may strike the earth in 2036, and might easily wipe out human life (but not cockroaches.) Nukes exist that might go easily go off, especially thanks to rogue nations or terrorists, and that might also make a big dent in humankind and in the whole ecosystem, under certain conditions. Stephen Hawking is among those who think that genetic engineers, cackling in their labs, will doubtless make a mistake sooner or later and engineer an especially nasty sort of microbe or virus which, escaping, will put an end to human life and even to most other life: although Steve somehow believes that the disaster will be so far in the future as to allow humans to climb into spacecraft and abscond to some other planet, when it happens. Or how about the Ebola virus managing to mutate into a new form capable of airborne respiratory spread: so as to wipe out most of the human race, in an excruciating manner, since it's an especially vicous and inhumane virus, and is 90% fatal. As globalized commerce spreads the virus from its present obscure lairs in parts of Africa, etc., that becomes increasingly possible. There's one Darwinist biologist, a character named Eric Pianka, who seemed to suggest that the elimination of most people by Ebola might be a fine thing. Many of his colleagues cheered his speech, although some churlish non-scientists were greatly annoyed.
So with so many menaces possibly or even very probably, lurking to attack us, who do the media and Al Gore etc. ignore all of them except possible human-caused global warming, and harp only on that? I've pondered the question, but still have no answer.
Typo: I obviously meant "why do the media" not "who."
But Larry's suggestion about side benefits provoked some thoughts. Perhaps many of those who are obsessed with global warming are really interested in pollution control and energy conservation, but hope that an exaggerated global warming scare will help to promote these ends?
Another point is that for some, environmentalism is actually a religion, a materialist-atheist religion in which one worships natural objects. Materialists all think they are in for a quick trip to total extinction; but by identifying with the worshipped natural objects they attain a sense of survival of death. This is similar to the Marxist materialistic worship of a supposed perfect society, which they think will be attained in the future. And in fact many zealous environmentalists are materialist atheists, and many of those are Marxists. Many of my relatives are very ardent environmentalists; and the most zealous one is a Marxist.
My friend Darwin B. Leaver says we must all follow "experts," including, he says, TIME magazine, PBS, and Judge John E. Jones III; and thus arrive at all of our opinions about Darwinism, global warming, etc. He writes:
I'm an eager conformist, so
I scream for old Darwin. Although
The evidence shows
That's absurd, suppose
I used my own head?? OH, NO!
Post a Comment
<< Home