Global Warming and the Stupid People

" Ice core samples, ocean floor core samples, chemical analysis of the contents matched to the times of their origin, ie. the industrial revolution. "

Coincidentally in the midst of the coldest sustained 700 year period of the last 10 millenia. THe so called "Little Ice Age" -- the current warming trends put the earth's mean temperature much more towards in-line with it's pre-industrial temperatures.

" The current thawing of permafrost is now releasing more methane in the atmosphere and accelerating the process. These are some of the things that constitute the clues of origin. "

I realize some people do say that, and it's certainly a theory. Not one I think is going to explain everything, but I wouldn't dismiss that as a potential problem.

" While the earth has indeed fluctuated climate many times, this time looks pretty interesting. In the past, when climate patterns changed, there were quite a few less people and the borders were quite a bit less stiff. "

The cores do not tell us that. There is no direct evidence of that. But it's absolutely true... there were fewer people and borders both.

" To what extent should science be censored by politics? If you take two sides of an issue, examine what each side has to gain if their perspective prevails, you at least have a sense of motivation for whomever is passing on their analysis. Scientists gain grant money. Industrialists protect some pretty big profits. And "stupid" environmentalists? Are they merely out to do battle against the capitalist economy, or do they have legitimate concerns for the well-being of humanity as a whole (and not just those who are profiting in the short term)? "

Generally, Stupid Environmentalists are like every other historic end of the world predictors. My issue with them is that they are willing to lie for their cause. Al Gore has pretty much admitted that. So, if he's willing to lie to make his point, why should I believe his point? I shouldn't. In fact, he lied about what scientists supported him. He exagerates and lies the extent of the support for his views. And of course, good and decent people are hoodwinked by his movement then. I have a big problem with that. I do not doubt that they believe what they're doing is in the best interests of the planet (though I reject the notion that they give a crap about mankind -- in their world view man is the interloper, a virus on the planet, rather than the steward.)

" Such a complicated topic, but most only know what someone else says about it, and what's said about global warning is about as politicized as it gets. I tend to think about it the same way I think about painting my house: if I stick my head in the sand when the paint is chipping, then the wood rots and the whole repair job has gotten that much more complicated and expensive. But the ecosystem is not siding, and the complications potentially involve a fairly profound degree of suffering in other parts of the world. "

I realize it's impolitic to say, but most of that are simply not logical conclusions to the actual evidence.

To extend your metaphor -- suppose mis-diagnose the cause of the rot? Suppose it isn't external, but internal. So we paint the outside, but never notice the leaky pipe that happens to run along that particular spot? (highly unlikely in normal house designs but whatever) Since we only have a theory without evidentiary support, or at very best junk-science evidence, we are as good as taking a guess and hoping we're right and saying, "Well better to do SOMETHING rather than do nothing."

But is it? I am a BIG supporter of moderate and compounded measures over time, but to make drastic changes when in fact, we don't even know if C02 is a significant cause of climate change is irresponsible.

This isn't about saying "The Sahara be damned!" or "Piggy americans are wasting the world's resourcers!" -- this is about saying, "what are REASONABLE changes that can be made without major disruption to the economy and daily life of most of the world, that world towards minimizing man's negative impact on the climate."

Radical change for radical change's sake is plain stupid. And I have looked at the evidence. I have seen the movies. I have read the articles. Real scientists do NOT agree to some consensus. There is a GENERAL agreement that man is probably having an impact. C02 is agreed to be a decent candidate as the culprit (due to circumstantial evidence in the ice cores etc) -- but over time, it is also agreed the earth was much warmer. It is known that we are coming out of an ice age... and yet we're using that data as the statistical norm?

We have all sorts of data-sample problems here, and that's before we ever compound the errors and suppositions in them with models that are just not sufficient.

I can understand where the otherside is coming from, but I remain unconvinced as yet.

stephan