Has anyone else noticed that now Europe and the UK are going through yet another winter with record breaking cold weather and the arctic ice cap has re frozen in record time that nobody is talking about ‘global warming’ anymore? The journalists have quietly morphed the term into ‘climate change.’
Global Warming?
Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!
Related Posts
10 Comments
Leave A Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
But what about the hockey stick! The past 100 years of climate data is conclusive proof that there has been a quantum shift in climate change relative to the past 4 billion years!And it further proves that we are the cause!Sincerely,The Population Bomb
Father, perhaps I am naive – and I’m not sold either way on this – but I think the scientific point of view deserves some respect. It should at least be presented as it is.It was the journalists in the first place who started calling it “Global Warming,” which is unfortunate in the same way that referring to ad orientem worship as “the priest with his back to the poeple” is. It is technically true, but it does not respect the concept.The alleged phenomenon is more aptly described as climate change. The carbon emissions heat up the atmosphere just a little bit. This is enough to disrupt normal weather patterns, (i.e., the Gulf Steam). Then things start behaving in unpredictable and dangerous ways. For example, we would have both the hottest summers on record alongside the coldest winters.
“The scientific point of view deserves some respect.”And bad science needs to be called what it is. And that is exactly what happens when those who study climate change shift from discussing measurements (i.e., climate trends) to wild, non-data-driven speculation regarding cause and effect. There’s nothing wrong with theories. However, when theories unproven are taken as gospel, we get counterproductive public policy and really bad movies.In reality, if properly channeled, the speculation over the human impact on global warming “should” drive the support for sustainable energy solutions, which coincidentally would reduce CO2 emissions, i.e. natural gas, nuclear, etc.This is markedly different than the bad science of the 60’s and 70’s which brought us the overpopulation panic, which spawned the exercise of great evil in the world, i.e. “managing” populations.
Like most people, I was ready to jump on the panic wagon over the global warming stuff until the Pope said there was insufficient evidence of both the effect and the alleged cause. Now, it’s not that I think the Pope is the ultimate authority in matters of science, but his remark did cause me to get off the panic wagon long enough to say, wait a minute; are all scientists in agreement on this issue? As it turns out–no, they’re not.Just a small bit of research reveals that neither cars nor human populations are the single greatest contributor to climate change or to pollution. The surprising number one contributor is beef cattle, which is also the single greatest contributor to world hunger. But then, who wants to give up their Big Macs? Far better to enforce abortion, contraception, and outlaw cars producing carbon emissions. Just curious: Whatever happened to the freon panic wagon? Doesn’t seem that long ago that we were going into greenhouse effect due to air-conditioning. It’s really getting hard to determine which panic wagon is “in” these days.
There is a children’s book…Henny Penny … and I oft think of the line from it: “The sky is falling, the sky is falling” when I hear about global warming. In that book – and I have no idea if it is still around – one can see our politicians and muckety mucks running about…And – don’t forget – follow the money – there is plenty of it to be made off of the “science” of global warming.
As a scientist, there are serious concerns the claim of “Global Warming” (and yes, some “scientists” are using that term). The problem is not the data, but how it’s analyzed to find cause and effect. The way it’s mostly done is to put it into a computer program and to there predict the future. The problem is the computer program is not subject to peer review. It appears it ignores bigger things, such as the sun. And some predictions have not come true – sea levels are not rising. Lastly, as Catholics we have a better handle on philosophy than others. A consensus among the scientific community does not define the truth, it doesn’t even validate it. It’s at best a “best guess” and according to the scientific method, is subject to change at any moment. That’s what experimental scientists do.
I say the solution is to change the debate away from temperature to air quality. Air polution is a lot easier to quantify and is a better meansure of man’s contribution to the problem than temperature, and we can all agree on the benefits of clean air.
Once the new administration takes power the term will shift to “Climate hope-‘n-change.”
Want to get depressed? Read “The Coercive Utopians.” It’s an old book (it came out in the 80s, I think) and I only got through about three chapters before I was too depressed to continue.The thesis is that various “utopian” ideas, based on dubious science, get picked up by politicians and gullible but well-meaning people. They then pick a “solution” or two, which are by no means proven to actually be solutions, shove them on everyone, and go on to the next fad problem. The one I remember was “scrubbers” for smoke stacks. Sort of like “carbon credits” today, or switching to hybrid cars (which cause more pollution overall) in an effort to be “green.”
I’ve posted twice regarding anthrogenic climate change (which I think is bunk; as Tzard says, the hypotheses all ignore far greater effects, such as the sun.http://arkanabar.blogspot.com/2007/11/global-warming.htmlhttp://arkanabar.blogspot.com/2007/10/truth-is-inconvenient-for-al.html