Required viewing for Anthropological Global Warming proponents.
Let me just say up front that I have seen and read compelling evidence that during the last quarter of the Twentieth century the planet has indeed been on a warming trend. I have also seen and read compelling evidence, however, that suggests that during the first part of this century that warming trend has plateaued and possibly even peaked and begun to decline.
Having stated that, and having watched the putz I am probably going to be forced to cast my vote for President this fall (because the alternative choice is exponentially worse) give a speech stating that Anthropological Global Warming is settled science and needs to be addressed with Government programs and regulations, I feel it necessary for everyone to examine with a bit more scrutiny the linchpin of the Anthropological Global Warming premise - the Anthropological part.
IMHO, adding Anthropological to the term Global Warming is the huberistic efforts of those who look to blame America for all the worlds ills while simultaneously pushing the use of the Federal Government to fix those ills. This is farcical on it's face. Even if it were true that Global Warming is man-made (which this post is an effort to contest), can anyone name for me one thing the Government is involved in that hasn't grown exponentially both in cost and bureaucracy? Putting Governments in charge of controling climate is like putting Jihadists in charge of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency).
IMHO, adding Anthropological to the term Global Warming is the huberistic efforts of those who look to blame America for all the worlds ills, while simultaneously pushing the use of the Federal Government to fix those ills. This is farcical on it's face. Even if it were true that Global Warming is man-made (which this post is an effort to contest), can anyone name for me one thing the Government is involved in that hasn't grown exponentially both in cost and bureaucracy? Putting Government in charge of controling climate make as much sense as putting Jihadists in charge of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) - nothing good can come of such a move.
And then there's Al Gore, better known around here as Saint AlGore of the Warming Planet, Bishop of Settled Science, Leader of the Imaculate Consensus, and patron Saint of Polar Bears and Carbon Off-sets (which he can sell you at a discount - for a sizable donation to the cause, of course). He has been challenged to debate the issue by several prominent Climatologists - and even the President of the Czech Republic - on the validity and efficacy of Anthropological Global Warming, and has declined to do so. Why? If he believes so strongly in this cause and has so much evidence and consensus on his side, why not debate and put all his critics in their place? Who better to explain why he has declined these offers than St. AlGore himself:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Albert Gore Jr.
One overriding principal when dealing with politics and politicians is "Follow the Money." Well you may want to strap yourself in and duct-tape your head (a Glenn Beck-ism meant to imply that your head may explode trying to keep track of all the hypocrisy and contradictions), because following the money with St. AlGore is really a wild ride.
When I was coming of age in the mid to late Seventies, Global Cooling - not Global Warming - was all the rage, and all of the best science of the day was backing up that claim. It was a consensus. It was settled science.
So what happened?
What happened was that with the advent of newer methods and better measuring devices we found out the science that predicted Global Cooling was wrong. Given just this one historical example of newer science refuting older science (of which there are thousands such examples), how much of the US economy and wealth (aka your tax money) are you willing to gamble that Global Warming is the result of anthropological manipulation and not a natural occurrence? And what if you are wrong?
Keep in mind, the consensus of the day was that the Titanic was unsinkable. What do you do if Al Gore turns out to be the Edward J. Smith of the Global Warming ship, and you're stuck onboard arranging the deck chairs?
Comments
The word "Anthropogenic" is applied to Global Warming to; 1) Make us think we caused it; and 2) Make us think that we can fix it.
Has anyone politely asked John McCain about the 31,000+ scientists (including 9,000+ PhDs) that have now signed the updated Oregon Petition? This is simply to emphasize the fact that the science isn't settled. And that those that are skeptical are not the fringe.
Posted by: on-the-rocks | May 30, 2008 11:06 PM
And let's not forget that the many of the models used to predict all those doomsday reports about the effect of climate change in 10, 20 and 50 years are the same ones that oh so accurately predicted 15+ hurricanes making landfall in the U.S. last year...
"Anthropological to the term Global Warming is the huberistic efforts of those who look to blame America for all the worlds ills while simultaneously pushing the use of the Federal Government to fix those ills."
That nails it on the head right there. Meanwhile, fossil use and emissions continue unabated in rapidly developing countries like China and India, yet you don't hear any outcries about that...
Posted by: BXP | July 3, 2008 08:37 AM