Global Warming
Two things to think about:
The "experts" derive their data from two sources. One, via classic scientific observation they gather emission (CO2), climate and glacier data points from all over the world, and document correlations and patterns that exist amongst the data (though other contradictory patterns are ignored, like the fact that Antarctic ice is thickening). Though conclusions remain elusive, newspapers, prostituting scientists and political operatives distort the nature of these observations. Causal links are asserted where none are claimed or exist.
Two, warnings and predictions are derived from advanced and complicated computer models. The programs and algorithms that underlie these models are fractal or chaotic in nature, which means all results from lengthy iterations are eminently dependent on initial conditions. The problem with using these climate model prognostications as guidance is obvious: the scientist, and therefore the climate model, is working from imperfect knowledge. A small omission or error will cause a drastic departure from reality, and the number of variables that affect Earth's climate make such omissions inevitable.
Other warming explanations, like land-use or the sun, are ignored by these true believers. Information, like the great difference in warming between New York and Albany, is not discussed. "Global Warming" is bandied about even though many places on the globe are actively cooling. Debate means heresy, and heresy means persecution.
The idea that Man's Industry is ruining the world is a strong tonic and heady brew for Eco-Leftists, and their favor (and fervor) has generated an industry of its own. Interests and dedicated factions have multiplied, and, much like eugenics in the early 1900's, bad science has spawned bad politics. Warming may not be global, but its sordid advocates surely are.
That is not to say that "global warming" has been disproved; man may be every bit as consequential as the environmentalists claim. But we do not know, and the question remains: is it prudent to constrain mankind's defenses against nature in the short term on the off chance that we have anything to do with climate change in the long term?
The "experts" derive their data from two sources. One, via classic scientific observation they gather emission (CO2), climate and glacier data points from all over the world, and document correlations and patterns that exist amongst the data (though other contradictory patterns are ignored, like the fact that Antarctic ice is thickening). Though conclusions remain elusive, newspapers, prostituting scientists and political operatives distort the nature of these observations. Causal links are asserted where none are claimed or exist.
Two, warnings and predictions are derived from advanced and complicated computer models. The programs and algorithms that underlie these models are fractal or chaotic in nature, which means all results from lengthy iterations are eminently dependent on initial conditions. The problem with using these climate model prognostications as guidance is obvious: the scientist, and therefore the climate model, is working from imperfect knowledge. A small omission or error will cause a drastic departure from reality, and the number of variables that affect Earth's climate make such omissions inevitable.
Other warming explanations, like land-use or the sun, are ignored by these true believers. Information, like the great difference in warming between New York and Albany, is not discussed. "Global Warming" is bandied about even though many places on the globe are actively cooling. Debate means heresy, and heresy means persecution.
The idea that Man's Industry is ruining the world is a strong tonic and heady brew for Eco-Leftists, and their favor (and fervor) has generated an industry of its own. Interests and dedicated factions have multiplied, and, much like eugenics in the early 1900's, bad science has spawned bad politics. Warming may not be global, but its sordid advocates surely are.
That is not to say that "global warming" has been disproved; man may be every bit as consequential as the environmentalists claim. But we do not know, and the question remains: is it prudent to constrain mankind's defenses against nature in the short term on the off chance that we have anything to do with climate change in the long term?
posted by John Aristides at 7:07 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home