I wonder why people are so hellbent on rejecting something as obvious as Climate Change. Contributors are so perplexed by terms like “possibly,” “maybe,” “likely,” and so on when offered an explanation for the impending disaster, they write it off, despite overwhelming evidence, as trickery by scholars looking for notoriety and riches. That’s incredibly shortsighted and risky.
Climate Change is fact. No person with so much as a clue will tell you any different. The dissension concerns whether the cause is man, or if it’s a natural cycle. Suppose it’s the former and Government heeded the advice of you nay-sayers, what are we to do then?
Thankfully, we now have a president who will follow the advice of the experts. What’s more is that if McCain had won, I’d be saying the same thing.
MORE PROOF
Experts. You want me to believe that a political person with an agenda is not going to stack the deck? What - are you selling bridges, and beach front property in Arizona?
Anyone who is paying attention should be able to figure out that the political world is not the place we need to go, to determine truth about anything. Whether it is the Republicans who find the science they like, and set up rules and regulations based on their prejudicial preconceived notions, or the Democrats who do the same thing, they both use whatever evidence they can marshall, coupled with whatever spin they can put on it, to acheive what they want. Truth may or may not surface during the process, but anyone who believes that truth will triumph is so far beyone naive that I cna’t find a word for it. The political process is not about finding truth; it is about acheiving one’s priorities by any means possible. Truth, if it furthers those ends, will be used; if truth needs to be distorted or denied, that too will happen.
As to your comments about impending disaster, both the issue of impending and disaster are more than simply questionable. there is a vast amount of data we have acheived over the last 40 to 50 years, and the data is coming faster and faster. The question is not so much about the current flow of data as it is about the previous 10,000 years of lack of much, if any data, and the projections as to what the current data really means.
Even assuming that the data in fact tells us we have global warming, the data appears to be extremely questionable as to how much impact human activity really has, how much we can actually change, and what, if any impact overall that change in human activity may have to global warming overall. Further, it is at best a wild guess as to how long global warming caused by nature will last, how extensive it will be, and what actually will occur if it either increases, or reaches a plateau and remains for some period of time.
What we have is a phenomenal amount of data without sufficent long term evidence as to what, out of that pile of data, is significant and what is not. Scientists have data spewing out of their research, and are making models which seek to give some prediction of what the results will be IF. IF being the operative term, and they have far, far too little long term data to tell us what is going to happen 2 years from now, let alone 40.
In the 60’s, with all the “science” marshalled together, we had an absolute disaster on our hands in terms of population growth and food production. Since then, both the “science” of population growth and the “science” of food production have been shown not only to be false, but something bordering on absolutely false. Population did not grow geometrically as we were “guaranteed” by scientists that it would. It has in fact approached a levelling off. and food production, which was “guaranteed” to grow arithmetically, has approached geometric growth. We have mass starvation in areas in the world not becuase we cannot grow enough food, but because we have governments which will not insure that the food goes where it is needed (and I am not referring tho the US government).
So what happened? Models were made on assumptions; the assumptions were wrong, the models were wrong, and what was “guaranteed” didn’t happen.
We are going throught the same thing now: it is not that scientists are incapable of research, but that we are again presuming that the models they are using are “guaranteed”. We can’t even get all the scientists to agree on some basic weighing of the evidence. “Top Scientsts” gets bandied around by the news, as if someone with true authority had actually made some sort of finding of fact - truth - in determining what the term “top” actually meant. “Top” by what factual information - that some newspaper said they were; a group of newspapers?
Anyone so naive as to the world of science who believes that there is not a herd mentality within them, and that someone who runs counter to the current modeling will not be dismissed is someone who is ikely to be buying bridges. The issue is not anywhere near whether there is global warming or not, but how long it will continue, what the results of it will be, when it might cycle and what the results of that will be, and how significant man’s activity is to that cycle. Coupled with that is the question of how politicized the whole issue is - we most certainly politicized the population and food models. And we still have people who truly and firmly believe those models are still valid, in spite of the evidence to the contrary.
