Global warming, radical climate change, and mass hysteria

Climate change, radical or otherwise, is one of the many areas outside my area of expertise. Maybe I’ve read 100 articles on the subject, usually under the guise of global warming, in the last 17 years of so, but only a couple of them were in Nature or Scientific American. Is it getting warmer? You can’t prove it by me. Even if it is, proving man is the culprit is quite a stretch, even for people who couldn’t get into the physics graduate programs at whatever schools they attended. There’s no denying it’s awful damn hot right now, but it’s August, and I suspect that’s got a lot to do with it.

The pin-heads that call themselves “climate scientist” insist that it is easier to predict long-term climate trends than say, the weather. Maybe, but that doesn’t make much sense to this layman. Hurricane geeks originally predicted we’d get x number of named storms this year, where x is an integer > 0. A few weeks later the predicted number changed to x – y, where y is an integer < x but > 0. To me, it seems since the “climate scientist” like to cite more and more-powerful hurricanes as evidence in their crusade for grant money, their inability to forecast hurricanes even a few weeks out is in fact indicative of their lack of ability to see into the relatively long-term future. Sister Rose the Gypsy fortune teller probably has at least as good a shot at foretelling what will be.

Michael Crichton isn’t my favorite author. His prose is painful and subject matter too silly for my taste. Nevertheless, he was making the rounds last year promoting his novel, State of Fear, and I caught a couple of his talks on cable. Crichton may be a lot of things, but a dumb-ass isn’t one of them. The big guy has a big ole brain in his head, and it’s equipped with a first-rate cerebral cortex. In a word, Crichton says that the hoopla over global warming is bullshit. (My word, not his). His talks, where he makes use of actual evidence, as opposed to the anecdotal variety, went a long way toward convincing me to find something other than radical, or rapid climate change to worry about. Pick up State of Fear. Like all his books, it’s a painful process to read it. Just skip to the notes in the back. If you’re not a true believer, you’ll almost certainly come away a doubting Thomas. And remember, Crichton sure as hell doesn’t need grant money, and he’s not trying to push an ideological agenda by scaring the shit out of the simple!

Al Gore is pretty much the opposite of Michael Crichhton. Gore is so stupid that he actually managed to loose an election that he won! He’s a walking, talking brain stem with the ability to tell lies, and to tell them badly, and that’s one of his better qualities. Gore says it’s getting warmer. That’s good enough for me. It’s not getting warmer. We’re on a greased rail to hell but we’ll almost certainly kill ourselves off in a more direct manner than ruining our habitat.

Advertisements

7 Comments

Filed under News, Politics, Science

7 responses to “Global warming, radical climate change, and mass hysteria

  1. I thought that a climate change was obvious. Think back to the last ice age, average temperature was minus something. Think forward to today, average temperture is plus something. The trend is obvious. πŸ™‚

  2. J

    bookboy,

    Maybe. ;^/

  3. I’m no “expert,” if there ever was one, on the subject. But global warming sounds possible, and probably likely. Is it happening RIGHT NOW? No, in fact, this summer was cooler than average. But how about in 50, 100 years, if we keep pumping CO2 and other greehouse gasses into the atmosphere at the current rate? Maybe, by then.

    I do agree however, that all the hooplah is bullshit. The key is that politics hide behind it all the time – that’s how you know it’s bullshit. Yet another fear tactic used to gain your trust, “the world will melt if you don’t vote for me!”

    That isn’t to say, that we shouldn’t care or take precautions now. Even if all the shit coming out of our tailpipes isn’t significantly affecting the atmosphere, isn’t it still better off for everyone and the earth if we continue on the path of lowered or zero-emission vehicles?

  4. “… the ‘climate scientist’ like to cite more and more-powerful hurricanes as evidence in their crusade for grant money….”

    It seems to me that those with the strongest voices against Climate Change Theory stand to make BILLIONS of dollars, whereas those scientists who believe it stand to make, maybe Hundreds of Thousands…. That doesn’t add up, does it?

    As for that man who makes his living selling us fiction, there are (of course) some people who tend to disagree. (The second last paragraph in the Outside Magazine review is nice)

    Of course, I am no expert either, just giving the other side a voice.
    And Blue, I agree – One should never believe a single word that comes from a politician’s mouth when there is an election coming…..

  5. J

    gizo,

    Thanks for the links. They forced your comment into the moderated que. Sorry it took me so long to get to it.

  6. That’s fine. I expected it. Too many links tends to look like spam….. which many may consider I am…. πŸ˜‰

  7. Rosto

    Where did we ever get the idea that the earth is, or ever was static? So why should we feel so bad that we can’t control something that we could never hope to control?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s