There is a movement trying to promote environmental awareness through blogs called Blog Action Day, and that day this year is today, October 15, 2007. Well, awareness of environmental stupidity, in my book, is also environmental awareness, so here is my entry. (Hats off to Google Blogger for making me aware of this event.)
Friday, October 12, 2007, was a dark day in the annals of environmental stupidity. (A bright day would be one where environmental stupidity would be diminished, 'bright' pun intended.) This was the day that megalomaniac Alfred Gore, Jr. was awarded a Nobel Prize. And a Peace Prize at that. I could have understood it if it had been the Nobel Prize for literature, as An Inconvenient Truth and the entire anthropogenic global warming movement are some of the most impressive pieces of fiction to have been created in both the 20th and 21st centuries. There appear to be others who share my view as well -- even in New Hampshire, where they seem to be quite good at calling kettles black:
Friday, October 12, 2007, was a dark day in the annals of environmental stupidity. (A bright day would be one where environmental stupidity would be diminished, 'bright' pun intended.) This was the day that megalomaniac Alfred Gore, Jr. was awarded a Nobel Prize. And a Peace Prize at that. I could have understood it if it had been the Nobel Prize for literature, as An Inconvenient Truth and the entire anthropogenic global warming movement are some of the most impressive pieces of fiction to have been created in both the 20th and 21st centuries. There appear to be others who share my view as well -- even in New Hampshire, where they seem to be quite good at calling kettles black:
The American public won't accept at face value Gore's self-righteous proclamations or his self-serving predictions of looming global catastrophe. And Gore has to know that, which is why he will almost certainly stick to the world of make-believe -- Hollywood and International Do-Goodery -- where he can pretend to be the great sage and savior he wishes he really were and left-wing Europeans and thespians try to convince us he is.
Any regular reader of this blog (as I continue to delude myself that there are any) knows my opinion of Anthropogenic Global Warming (now and forever in these pages to be abbreviated AGW). For a refresher, take a look at Getting Overheated and its sequel.
There are many other theories regarding why we are seeing apparent changes in the Earth's climate, and almost all of them do not involve human causes, thus making Mr. Gore's Nobel Prize seem more like a cosmic joke. Many of these theories have much more scientific evidence supporting them, and make more sense scientifically, than the AGW hysteria created from the preexisting and unalterable mindset that if something on Earth is changing, then we puny humans must be responsible, since there can be nothing more powerful than humankind. The Norwegian Nobel Committee awarding the prize to Mr. Gore so much as said so, concluding its citation with the statement, “Action is necessary now, before climate change moves beyond man’s control.” (emphasis added). This implies that we are now, however unconsciously, in control. But we are so certainly not in control, not now, not in the past, and not in the foreseeable future.
In fact, even some of the data that the AGW militants have used to build their bandwagon turn out to be wrong. Don't forget that An Inconvenient Truth itself has recently been found by a British court to contain inaccuracies and fallacies. Also, I heard several months ago that NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies had been forced to correct some of their temperature data, but I could not find any news report about this until now. Why? Because stupidly I was looking in the American news media, and not even the "conservative" Fox News dares to take on the AGW torchbearers and their pitchforks. Thank God we have the Canadian National Post and its online version, where dissenting views can still be published. The above link to the articles about the AGW "Deniers" (a title I bear proudly) also comes from this source.
Correcting the temperature data reveals that the widely-quoted "fact" that the last ten years have been the hottest on record is actually not correct, and that the hottest ten years of the last 130 years have been scattered seemingly randomly throughout the decades, and that 4 of them occurred in the 1930!s! As Lorne Gunter states in the article, "Claiming that man-made carbon dioxide has caused the natural disasters of recent years makes as much sense as claiming fossil-fuel burning caused the Great Depression." But does this dissuade the AGW militants? Of course not. Anything that does not fit the "theory" is either ignored, dismissed, doesn't matter, or is being misinterpreted -- such as the issue of whether the atmospheric CO2 measurements taken from ice core measurements (which are the fundamental underpinnings of the AGW argument) are accurate. Turns out they probably underestimate the level of CO2 in the ancient atmosphere by up to 50%, which means our current CO2 levels really haven't increased all that much. And I could go on and on....
We do not have to let the AGW militants control the debate and take humanity down the road to darkness and despair with their completely political agenda. Especially when their theory makes as much sense as "Aliens Cause Global Warming" (thank you, Mr. Crichton!). If you aren't sure what to think, or you want a primer on the evidence against AGW, I suggest you start with Climate Skeptic's A Skeptical Layman's Guide to Anthropogenic Global Warming; you can read it online or download (for free!) the entire 83 page PDF from the bottom of the page I linked above. Don't want to read 83 pages? Try the 60 second version. And don't forget his ongoing blog also.
Now, I'm not saying anyone has to do what this guy did, but I admire his chutzpah. But we can stand up and demand that the competing theories be discussed and analyzed, and the real causes of climate change be understood before we go off half-cocked and destroy the economies of the entire world. We can insist that there actually be consensus before anything be done. And for those of us so motivated (like the brave Canadian citizen linked to above) we can take the issue to the streets, the billboards, and the blogs (as I am doing). Alternatively, consider supporting an organization you trust and who feels the way you do. The Competitive Enterprise Institute is one example.
There are many other theories regarding why we are seeing apparent changes in the Earth's climate, and almost all of them do not involve human causes, thus making Mr. Gore's Nobel Prize seem more like a cosmic joke. Many of these theories have much more scientific evidence supporting them, and make more sense scientifically, than the AGW hysteria created from the preexisting and unalterable mindset that if something on Earth is changing, then we puny humans must be responsible, since there can be nothing more powerful than humankind. The Norwegian Nobel Committee awarding the prize to Mr. Gore so much as said so, concluding its citation with the statement, “Action is necessary now, before climate change moves beyond man’s control.” (emphasis added). This implies that we are now, however unconsciously, in control. But we are so certainly not in control, not now, not in the past, and not in the foreseeable future.
In fact, even some of the data that the AGW militants have used to build their bandwagon turn out to be wrong. Don't forget that An Inconvenient Truth itself has recently been found by a British court to contain inaccuracies and fallacies. Also, I heard several months ago that NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies had been forced to correct some of their temperature data, but I could not find any news report about this until now. Why? Because stupidly I was looking in the American news media, and not even the "conservative" Fox News dares to take on the AGW torchbearers and their pitchforks. Thank God we have the Canadian National Post and its online version, where dissenting views can still be published. The above link to the articles about the AGW "Deniers" (a title I bear proudly) also comes from this source.
Correcting the temperature data reveals that the widely-quoted "fact" that the last ten years have been the hottest on record is actually not correct, and that the hottest ten years of the last 130 years have been scattered seemingly randomly throughout the decades, and that 4 of them occurred in the 1930!s! As Lorne Gunter states in the article, "Claiming that man-made carbon dioxide has caused the natural disasters of recent years makes as much sense as claiming fossil-fuel burning caused the Great Depression." But does this dissuade the AGW militants? Of course not. Anything that does not fit the "theory" is either ignored, dismissed, doesn't matter, or is being misinterpreted -- such as the issue of whether the atmospheric CO2 measurements taken from ice core measurements (which are the fundamental underpinnings of the AGW argument) are accurate. Turns out they probably underestimate the level of CO2 in the ancient atmosphere by up to 50%, which means our current CO2 levels really haven't increased all that much. And I could go on and on....
We do not have to let the AGW militants control the debate and take humanity down the road to darkness and despair with their completely political agenda. Especially when their theory makes as much sense as "Aliens Cause Global Warming" (thank you, Mr. Crichton!). If you aren't sure what to think, or you want a primer on the evidence against AGW, I suggest you start with Climate Skeptic's A Skeptical Layman's Guide to Anthropogenic Global Warming; you can read it online or download (for free!) the entire 83 page PDF from the bottom of the page I linked above. Don't want to read 83 pages? Try the 60 second version. And don't forget his ongoing blog also.
Now, I'm not saying anyone has to do what this guy did, but I admire his chutzpah. But we can stand up and demand that the competing theories be discussed and analyzed, and the real causes of climate change be understood before we go off half-cocked and destroy the economies of the entire world. We can insist that there actually be consensus before anything be done. And for those of us so motivated (like the brave Canadian citizen linked to above) we can take the issue to the streets, the billboards, and the blogs (as I am doing). Alternatively, consider supporting an organization you trust and who feels the way you do. The Competitive Enterprise Institute is one example.
(I know CEI has some connections to other groups and industries that are supposed to be bad and evil -- I can use Google too! -- but that criticism is just part of the militant nature of the AGW supporters; Greenpeace and PETA have equally bad "connections" to groups from the other point of view. If you read this and expect to flame me with comments about how evil CEI or anybody else is, don't bother; comment moderation is turned on and, as I stated in my very first posting, I have zero tolerance for anything but spirited [and intelligent] discussion, and I don't consider regurgitating talking points or spewing venom indiscriminately like a blind cobra to fall under either category.)
Lest anyone think I am just a shill for the oil companies, recall my only connection to them and that I hate myself for not buying Exxon stock about three or more years ago. Also, I hate paying the price I'm paying for gasoline just like everybody else. I'm all for reducing or even eliminating our dependence on oil, especially imported oil, but strictly for national security reasons, not environmental ones. I could be there for economic ones also, if an alternative energy source could be made less expensive than hydrocarbons for me and society. Heck, I'm even toying with the idea of buying an Aptera car, but only because I think it could save me over $1000 a year on gasoline. (And because I'm a bit of a gadget freak; after all, I am a blogger!)
Four times in the recent geological past, that Earth has frozen into an Ice Age, and four times it has thawed out, and all of these changes occurred without the intervention of man or "CO2 spewing SUVs". In each of the preceding three interglacial periods the overall temperature of this planet has gotten several degrees warmer than it is on Earth right now, and this level was usually reached at the end of the interglacial period in a spell of rapid (geologically speaking) warming. The pattern we have seen before in those previous periods appears to be happening once again, and if this is so, it is due to the same non-human factors (such as the sun and interstellar cosmic rays) that caused it to occur three separate times before human civilization existed on this planet. If this is the case, humanity's job is not to stop it (as such is beyond our puny powers); our job, like those of the creatures on Earth during those previous warmups, is to simply adapt -- or die.
Personally, I would rather expend the resources of our society adapting as we need to rather than to waste them on the futile task of trying to stop the inevitable and then bitterly wish we had done otherwise as Homo sapiens sapiens follows the dinosaurs into extinction. But that's just me.
5 comments:
Very interesting, inciteful and intelligent. How's that for the 3 i's? I agree for a large part that global warming the phenomena itself is a natural occurence of Mother Earth. The challenge, however, is to mobilize and change behaviors of ALL parties (be it left-wingers or right-wingers) so that what can and should be done IS done. I'm not talking about passing silly laws to say who does what but rather reaching a consensus that certain things just need to be done -- i.e. recycling cans, plastics, paper, etc.
We are far too polarized with all the special interest groups out there. No one is willing to compromise too which makes it that much worse. Before you know it, we as humans will have wasted a good opportunity to anticipate and adapt to the changes that are coming. Humans CAN impact to a certain degree global warming -- i.e. excessive flatulence... but bovines are worse offenders!
Okay, now I'm ranting(?) but the fact remains that global warming is a natural occurence of Mother Earth. Humans, however, are and should accept responsibilities for their largely apathetic ways. It does not take much for people to stop and recycle, turn off the sprinklers on their McMansion properties, and on and on. Then again, I'm just one person doing my part to try to make things a little better than when I found it for my son!
I'm glad you agree with my basic premise, but your followup argument falters on logical grounds. If one believes that global warming is a natural phenomenon, then what humans do on this planet has no consequence. Neither does what cows do. After all, we (both humans and cows) are natural components of the natural system, and our flatulence and exhalations are also part of that natural system. (Though even I worry about the amount of hot air expelled by certain humans, particularly Al Gore.)
The same goes for recycling, at least in this regard: recycle or not, how does this change the temperature of the planet when that temperature is primarily being regulated by extra-planetary forces? For this issue, recycling is not relevant; it's just moving around the pieces of the system -- sort of like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Doesn't change the outcome.
That doesn't mean that we shouldn't recycle. There just needs to be a good enough reason so that we choose to recycle. Will it save money? Will it save or better utilize precious (by this I mean expensive) resources? Does it reduce the production of potentially harmful (to humans) waste products? Or have we as a society simply chosen to do so for the aesthetics of making our presence less obtrusive in the environment, understanding there is a cost to this and that we are willing to accept this cost? Insert your reason-question here. There are just as many potential reasons to recycle or reduce our impact on the "natural" environment as there are people asking why we should (or shouldn't) be recycling. And there are no real right or wrong answers, for these are all value judgements. And you know as well as I that there are those that would place more value in a strip mine than in a forest meadow. It doesn't make either choice right or wrong, just different -- unless one's choice affects the physical body of another individual.
The AGW argument isn't a value judgement, however. It's fear mongering at its finest. Listen carefully to an AGW proponent and hear what's behind their words: the temperature will rise; the ice will melt; the oceans will rise; cities will go underwater; and underneath it all is a voice of fear shrieking out, "Oh My God Things Are Going To Change!!!!" If you've read any Dr. Phil, you'll know that what people fear most is change.
But guess what? The history of this planet is one of constant change. The history of mankind is constant change (thank goodness, or else we'd be having this discussion by painting little pictures on the wall of a cave). The history of a single man is that of constant change. Even the very atoms making up your body are constantly being changed and moved around and replaced. Change is normal. To insist that nothing change is the abnormality.
True. We are all parts and components of this natural system. Depending upon either beliefs of creationism or evolutionism, however, would and should determine one's course of action, right? If we were to look at the whole big picture as change is inevitable (be it good or bad), then why bother doing anything at all.
Point case, let's say I believe in creationism. Everything on God's green earth then has been put here for me to be used at my choice. I am man, made in God's form, far from perfect but perfect in my imperfection. Then by my actions, I either honor God or dishonor him based upon evaluation/judgement pursuant to the word he has left behind -- i.e. Bible. When I fall to far from grace and away from his teachings, he shall correct things to inevitably even things -- Judgement Day. All the meanwhile, we have free will to do and act as we choose. Nothing has been pre-determined and we are the masters of our own course. God has left this Earth here for us. Earth will sustain as well or as horribly as we set its course. So based on this, AGW is occurring b/c man has chosen to contribute (though to what scale is arguable)
to its end goal. Man can just as easily then slow the progression of AGW by the collective actions of the whole.
On the other hand, let's say I believe in evolutionism. Man has shown itself to be the greatest parasite of all -- resourceful, rational yet wasteful. We evolve, dominate our surroundings, and modify our actions so that we achieve whatever goals that drive us. In today's time, its mostly capitalistic/greed driven. So we develop better cars/SUVs, ice bars in Dubai, laptops for all, 10K sq ft houses for a family of 3, nukes that penetrate 100s of feet in the ground, and on and on. All the meanwhile, we use more of the resources from the Earth than can be replenished. ALL THINGS MUST BALANCE OUT -- hence, AGW accelerates and seas rise, people drown along w/cities disappearing and we start over again.
There is no right answer. You can convince me about as much as I can convince you in this argument. The point is that the distance between the left and the right cannot afford to grow wider b/c time is so limited. Back to your original posting, it is true that man must learn to anticipate the adaptations that must soon be undertaken so as to survive or we will then lose a section of our cohorts. Then again that might not be so bad (i.e. 9th Ward...). Okay, so that comment might have been cold but there are segments of society that take and never contribute but then again, who can judge?
Time to end this comment -- dinner beckons. Recycle b/c you can. Recycle b/c its not that hard. Recycle b/c you believe that by doing so you can impact others to do so. From there the snowball effect should take care of itself. Extinction is inevitable but it doesn't have to happen in our lifetime, right?
I'm not quite sure where you were intending to go with your most recent comment, Anonymous (come on, be a little more original! make up a screen name!), but you didn't start or end up anyplace I recognize.
My argument is and shall remain that AGW either does not exist to any recognizable degree (and there is evidence to suggest the temperature data showing such an increase is suspect; see Climate Skeptic) or, if it does exist, it is due to extraplanetary forces that are completely out of Man's ability to control or even influence. Thus, whether one takes, as you put it, an evolutionary or Creationistic view of the world makes absolutely no difference. Unless you are aware of some aspect of either of these world views that grants Man the ability to manipulate solar magnetic fields or that can create artificial energy fields that can shield the entire planet from interstellar cosmic rays.
My further argument was simply that as AGW is not real, and that GW (without the A), if real, is not influenced by anything done on the surface of this world, then recycling will have no effect on GW. I went on to say that recycling might be a good idea anyway, depending on the rationale chosen to support doing it -- but that that rationale will and indeed must vary from one person or group to another, and there will always be those for whom no rationale will be good enough.
If I had more time I would take on your argument re "dishonoring God" in how we utilize the resources of the Earth in detail; in short, I believe that a strict interpretation of Genesis is that God gave Man dominion over the creatures of the world and by extension the entirety of the world, and our 'mishandling' of Earth's resources is only to our own detriment, and would not bother God at all. After all, His greatest creation is not the Earth; it is us. And Judgement Day will sort out only those who believe in Christ as their Savior from those that do not. (The point made repeatedly in the Left Behind novel series.)
From the evolutionary POV, yes, Earth's resources are currently finite. Tremendously large, but finite. The same thing holds for the Universe as a whole. Since the Universe seems to be closed system, it must therefore contain a finite (though incomprehensibly huge) amount of mass-energy. However, the only thing preventing us from utilizing even a small part of this Universal reserve (even the smallest bit of which would make the resources of the Earth look pitiful in comparison) is technology. Even presupposing the development of fusion power and/or fuel cell technology, how long would it take us to use up the all the hydrogen in Jupiter? And after that there's still Saturn, Uranus, Neptune.... I suspect the time period would exceed any reasonble expectation of the survival of human civilization. And that's just in this solar system. We are already aware of over a hundred others, and we are just starting to be able to see what's really in our cosmic neighborhood.
BTW, my comment regarding 'adapt or die' was a comment aimed at the species as a whole, not any single segment of it. Without adaptation, a sufficiently severe alteration of our environment would not just take out the 9th Ward, but the 1st through the Nth wards as well.
Okay. Next discussion. I agree too that now that I've reread my original response, I really was not quite sure where I was going or what I wanted to suggest. I guess I was doing my own version of "anonymousrantings.blogspot.com". :)
I shall await your next topic! Rant on fellow medical professional.
Post a Comment