So I just ran into a story about dead baby penguins washing ashore in Brazil. The post is from a site called “Tree Hugger.” It really shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that they have a few theories, all with the same punchline: “Humankind is to blame.” They set it up with these headlines: “Are pollution or overfishing to blame?” and “Another one to pin on climate change?” It seems completely possible that any of these may be correct. It also seems possible that they are not. In a scientific study, you come up with a theory and then you test it. In a politic study, you come up with a theory and then you prove it. I’m just kind of sick of the hype and agenda behind “Climate Change” fear-mongers. In the 1970s the fear-mongering was that the Earth was entering a new ice age. In the 1990s it was that the Earth was heating. In the ’00s it is that we are doing both. All along, it is that Humankind is responsible for the change. It may well be true that Human activity has lead to a change in the Earth’s atmosphere that has lead to a change in the Global Temp. It may also be that the Global Temp is not guided by Human activity. Fact is, the Earth has had several Ice Ages. To distinguish between an “Ice Age” and a non-Ice Age, one must assume that the Earth warmed in between, otherwise we’d be in one giant Ice Age. Weather, as well as many other aspects of life on Earth, is cyclical. So please be aware of one dead certain fact, the Earth will enter another Ice Age regardless of Human activity. Even if the Human race ceased to exist today, the Earth would warm and eventual freeze. Period. So the question ultimately becomes, “are we accelerating the Climate Change?” Any honest Environmentalist will agree that that is the only question. Any honest Human Being will agree that it is not certain that we are. Any honest Human will also agree that it is possible that we are and that if we are, we can’t undo it, so we shouldn’t make it worse. We should absolutely cut back on our emissions, because while we may not be causing Climate Change, there is significant evidence to support the claim that we are and reducing our emissions will not have a negative effect on anything, as long as all nations are held to the same standards (including China and India). While I think that Bush should have acted sooner on this issue, I agree 100% that Developing Nations should be held accountable as well. Have you looked into the issue in China recently? It’s like living in Dickens’ London. And China will surpass the US as the biggest polluter. The US economy should not be decimated by a world in which China gets off scot-free on issues that effect everyone. The US also should not get off scot-free, but the measure should not be national, but local. New clean technology should be mandated on all facilities to reduce emissions and economic powers, such as the US, should not be punished for being productive by having to pay less productive countries to continue to be less productive. That’s simply ludicrous. Every country should have to cut back and there should be no Carbon Credits payed out to miniscule nations for simply existing, which is exactly what such a system does.
Now with all that being said, everything is not related to “Global Climate Change.” Period. It’s ridiculous to take every news item and spin it to the Environment agenda. Seriously, it’s becoming a religious Faith. The only thing that seems to separate it at this point is the fact that they base it on empirical evidence, but even that becomes questionable when all the evidence is not considered. Make up your own mind base on all the evidence. Not sure where to find all the evidence? Climate Skeptic is a site that questions Climate Change. Treehugger is one that supports climate change. And of course you can read any news paper to discover that they all support the idea that Climate Change is happening and is caused by Humans. After all, that is why any tiny shred of “new” evidence is trumpeted on the front page of every major news outlet (BBC in particular) while stories that present counter-evidence are ignored. How many people, for instance, are aware that NASA has completely revised its High Temperature data, making 1934 the hottest year on record. [Here are my sources for this information: here, here, here and here. One should note that while the "experts" are saying that the change is "insignificant," they did not say the same when they falsely claimed that 1998 was the hottest year on record. That is the spin that comes with having an agenda.]
Today, the GISS admitted that McIntyre was correct, and has started to republish its data with the bug fixed. And the numbers are changing a lot. Before today, GISS would have said 1998 was the hottest year on record (Mann, remember, said with up to 99% certainty it was the hottest year in 1000 years) and that 2006 was the second hottest. Well, no more. Here are the new rankings for the 10 hottest years in the US, starting with #1:
1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939
Before you jump to the conclusion that the Bush administration must have made them change it to some sort of false info, did you think that when the study was first release saying the hottest years were in the last decade? If not, you are being biased. Terribly biased.
One last thing. If your toast was burnt this morning, it is not necessarily related to Global Climate Change, but when you play politics instead of science, it is very easy to find the Six Degrees of Global Warming.
7 users commented in " Six Degrees of Global Warming? "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackJust a little FYI
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/02/is_george_bush.php#ch01
This is what I mean about China and pollution.
The fact that four of the hottest years were in the 1930’s clearly points to Nazi activity in Germany as the cause, therefore it is only logical to posit that there is a correlation between Fascism and Global Warming. Which explains 2006. Furthermore, 1998 and 1999 must then reflect the beginnings of the Bushite’s machinations for the Coup of 2000 !! Who knew right-wing conspiracies could be so HOT ???
Or was it….
SATAN????
BTW, you play the “Six Degrees of President Bush” game very well. I bet he is to blame for your burnt toast.
In all seriousness however, climate change is a reality. 6 billion human beings and the industrial machinery to support them is an unavoidable variable when considering the ecosystem as just that: a system. Whenever you introduce a variable of such magnitude into a system, there will be change. Granted climate change has always existed and it has always been cyclical, but certainly at no other point in human history have we collectively been so numerous and thus also never has the sheer volume of our detritus and excretions been so high and so toxic. So I agree with you the question becomes: Are we exacerbating the natural cycles of climatic change for the negative ? Well, when I read articles like this I’m inclined to say yes:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7532435.stm
That particular ice shelf has retreated 90% in the last century, a rate far in excess of what would be expected naturally, as that would mean that it would have ceased to exist long ago. I can’t imagine that there is counter-evidence to suggest its been retreating at that rate since the end of the last Ice Age.
No doubt the ice is melting. What we don’t know with any certainty is that it is hastened by Humanity. Again, I advocate for doing something now, as the evidence does suggest that we are effecting it, but let’s allow all the data and evidence to be heard. You say that the ice would have melted long ago, but who is to say that the warming of the Earth is not increasing exponentially? My point with this post is by no means to “debunk” global warming, but to raise questions that are legitimate to raise and to say that not everything has to do with Global Climate Change. Hurricane Katrina was attributed to climate change. Droughts are attributed to climate change. Floods. Etc. Etc. Etc. But what of the 1930s? Why was it so hot then? And what of the past natural disasters, most of which pre-date our records and our industry? Is it possible that not everything is related to Humanities adding to Climate Change?
Type in “Blamed on Global Warming” in a search engine and take a look at some of the non-sense blamed on Global Warming.
I say let’s take a rational approach that is global in nature, globally binding with mandated penalties for nations that do not comply. If everyone has to reduce their factories’ pollution on a per factory basis, not on a national basis, we should be able to reduce pollution while protecting everyone’s economies.
Here’s a short list:
Taller Mountains
Shark Attacks
Fat people are to blame for it
So are flat screen TVs
No, the Great Flood was sent by God because of the wickedness of mankind. He Himself didnt need to worry as there are no levees in heaven.
Leave A Reply