Ok, so I'm feeling a little militant this afternoon, so I thought I'd bring up the always fun topic, climate change (formerly known as global warming, formerly known as glaciation or global cooling).
Now, if you talk to a devout follower of Al Gore's movement, this is a 100% real, and dangerous threat to all Terran life, backed by the global scientific community. However, if you talk to someone on the other side of the debate, the only scientists supporting the hypothesis are the ones specifically paid to find climate change and the rest of the scientific community has debunked this.
Obviously, someone is lying. In my personal opinion, I believe there are variations on climate and that mankind's actions can affect these to a small degree. But my opinion is irrelevant. I am no climatologist.
However, I do feel I have an adept mind particularly suited for disseminating the meaning in facts. And I have poured over the published research of both pro and anti AlGorian fear mongering. Nothing has, in my opinion, be made conclusive.
But I believe the wrong questions are being asked. Are there variations in climate? Sure. Is mankind's behavior affecting this? Of course. But these are VERY broad in scope. To what degree is mankind affecting the climate? Ah, now that's where the disagreement lies.
One of the largest problems with this entire field of study (climatology) is that the only consistency that exists in nature is that it is inconsistent. They are trying to hit a continually and randomly moving target. A forest fire caused by a reckless person can affect the climate.
But, again, the disparate sides are arguing over the wrong questions. Forget about whether there is really a measurable change in climate, regardless of the cause, climate change is a constant with the Earth. Also, forget about whether mankind's behavior is altering the climate. Similar to the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, our existence guarantees this and the degree really can not be determined. Not with the required accuracy to remove any doubt.
So, generally, when I get into a discussion (or debate) about climate change, the first thing I do is disarm the pro-climate change representative by conceding that climate is changing and mankind has a share of responsibility and move right to... now what?
Taxing industry and corporations? Regulating the auto industry to discourage SUVs and other gas guzzlers? Encouraging so-called "green" technology and giving companies like GE tax breaks and even funding? Punishing bovine harvesters? That is the solution? How is this going to stop this impending doom? Even if you believe that all or even most of climate change is due to CO2, you have to admit that this solution would barely slow down the effects.
Myself personally, I am having a hard time trying to see the negative in having New York City and LA and San Fran under water. But I digress, to view climate change as completely a result of increased green-house gases is to over simplify and shows a lack of depth in thought. There are so many factors that could contribute that are not being addressed. As I alluded to earlier, a forest fire could result in climate change, as could vulcanism. Even large scale warfare can affect the Earth's climate. Think in terms of the butterfly effect. But largely, mankind's effect on climate can be attributed to large urban centers made of concrete and glass and draining water sources for miles around while spewing this water into the air through evaporation or atomization. And to keep us at a nice chilly 74F, we have machines that suck the heat energy right out of a building to pump it outside, with some heat energy added of course. Along with other examples of climate changing behavior to numerous to mention here.
So what is the solution? Well, if we are to address our responsibility for these alterations, the only solution would be to reduce human population and abandon civilization. Really. That is the only way to stop our effect on the environment. In other words, it's not going to happen. I would be on board with this. I see that humankind has tried to live against nature and is surprised that there are negative consequences. I'm not saying we've got to go back to cave-man life style, but like many of America's native tribes believed, there are ways to live in harmony with the world we live in. And, if I didn't think that I would be that lone crazy guy living in the woods, I would do this.
But we have opened Pandora's box and there is no turning back now. What the climate-change-is-evil people don't get is that the only way to turn it around now is to let it come to catastrophe and rely on the survivors to rebuild and, hopefully, learn a lesson from it.
But these guys are snake-oil salesmen. And they rely on the tactics all their ilk do. Fear and ignorance. They make people afraid of something they can't understand and provide the "cure", and they are now rich. And they revealed themselves with their ever changing sales pitch that miraculously follows the direction of the current conventional wisdom. In the 70s, it was glaciation or global cooling. We were on the brink of an ice age and if we didn't take action, we were all going to die. Then it became global warming, since it was noticeably NOT getting cooler. And we were all going to die if we didn't take action. When several record breaking winters and a reverse in the trend of warming occurred and people started questioning this, it became climate change. They really covered their bases on this one. Now, the story is our bad behavior can cause extreme changes in weather. Hot and cold. Flood and drought. Hurricanes, tornadoes, and mudslides. As if that doesn't happen all the time already. But again, all kinds of bad things are going to happen if we don't take action. And, unremarkably, this "action" results in money pouring in to these persons brave enough to warn us all.
But, realistically, how do you stop a volcano? Or tell emerging nations that have been 3rd world until recently, that they are not allowed to industrialize as we have? Or end war? Or give up modern conveniences? And if by haven't we learned by now that our continued interference in nature results badly even with our good intentions? Mother nature is a big girl. She can handle herself. If the the polar ice cap start melting, they dump tons of fresh water into the ocean. In the Atlantic, this will cause a shut-down of the Atlantic and other thermohaline circulations. When this occurs, the temperature at the poles drops considerably. Hmmm, self correction? As if there were some planner behind all this. When one are is hot and dry for a great period of time, it starts creating a regular low-pressure area which then draws in moist air into the area, which can become clouds, which block the sun so it cools, which causes the moisture to condense and form rain. Sound cyclical?
But this is just my humble opinion.
Thoughts? Additions/corrections? Please share.
"I don't think Hank done it this way" - Waylon
4 years 50 weeks ago, 3:20 PM