Panic Locally, Warm Globally

I was having a few beers with some friends the other day and the conversation got around to global warming.

“Complete bull-#$%!,” exclaimed one friend. “It’s all left-wing politics.”

“He’s right!” said the other.

Who in their right mind would hold such views? Well, one has a M.Sc. in geology and the other a Ph.D. in geology. Geologists are also known as “earth scientists.” You would think they would know something about all the great changes happening to our earth.

“You see,” said the first one, “The earth has been warming and cooling over the millennia. Shakespeare used to walk across the frozen Thames. Not anymore. But why?”

“The earth is wobbling on its axis,” explained the other. “People assume we have a constant angle to the sun. That’s not true. It’s not a proven answer, but its a possible answer. Climate change has nothing to do with human activity.”

So why has the world bought into global warming on such a mass scale?

“It’s a religious thing,” one explained. “People need to feel guilty about something. They feel better if they can expunge their guilt through some kind of righteous acts, such as cutting their emissions.”

Are we heading for another Y2K style “cry wolf” situation with the recent hysteria over climate change? If history has taught us anything, it is that widespread panic over past possible disasters has left people thinking later “wow, I was so worried about that and nothing happened.” Does anyone remember the film “The Day After” and people building bomb shelters and tens of thousands marching in the streets chanting “No Nukes?”

My view is that when an issue fills the headlines for weeks and months at a time, and Hollywood goes on a crusade, its time to become skeptical. Here’s an interesting climate change skeptic site:

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php

Here you will find links to things like:

“Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You’re Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change”

and:

A UK Channel 4 documentary “THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE.”

Heads up everyone. That sky might not really be falling..

This entry was posted in Posts and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Panic Locally, Warm Globally

  1. Is this mating season for global warming skeptics or what? I have to ask what planet you and your pals are on. The beer has successful pickled your brains.

    Have your two clever pals somehow outwitted 2000+ scientists worldwide who spent years putting together the International Governmental Panel on Climate Change, sponsored by the United Nations and the World Meteorlogical Association? Am I converted now to believing the well respected 2000+ scientists have forgot to consider all factors when coming up with their report? No. No. No.

    I love the hubris of beer drinkers with friends who latch themselves on to something they have read somewhere (one item)and then convince themselves that they are such clever fellows. It does seem to be mostly men who like to go on about how much cleverer they are than any global warming people (i.e., the 2000+ global scientists).

    When your friends publish their ideas in a credible science journal after having been peer-reviewed by other scientists, then get back to me. (Do not bother if it is not a real journal, there seems to be enough junk science in junk journals around.)

    For anyone else reading this comment, there is no green conspiracy. No, you and your friends are not researching published scientists who are cleverer with respect to global warming than the 2000+ scientsts previously mentioned.

    For the blogger and this entry, you and your clever friends should play the odds (beer and gambling, what a combination) and consider what will happen if you fellows are wrong. The scenarios are disastrous for every facet of the environment and civilization.

    So what are the odds, I am going to take your reliance on your clever pals’ advice over the scientific facts in a peer-reviewed report, prepared by 2000+ scientists? Nil.

    But there were crackpots when the idea first came out that the earth was not flat. I guess you and your clever pals are just this century’s flat-earthers.

    Do I think your pals are more clever than David Suzuki? No. Do I think they are more clever that the Union of Concerned Scientists? No. More clever than the researcher from Environment Canada, one of the writers of the North American portion of the Climate Change report, who spoke about the need for businesses to have adaptation plans to deal with global warming (everyone talks about what they are doing to mitigate global warming, but not many know what they are going to do with the more immediate effects). No.

    If you guys were so clever you would give up insisting that there is no global warming (attributable to man’s intervention). Even Bush and Harper and their advisors have given up on that way. After the IPCC report, the current skeptic talk is that nothing should be done about it (or very little in Harper’s case) because it would ruin the economy.

    So brush up your skepticism, fellows. You’re not only out of touch with the rest of Canadians, you can’t even keep up with the skeptics.

    • dbrett says:

      Thank you Ms. Baumann for your vitriolic response to my light hearted post. Given that you focus mainly on the negative effects of beer drinking, I can only assume you believe that beer contributes to global warming and should therefore be banned! Think of all that C02 foaming skyward!

      Intolerant ideologues such as yourself typically resort to the ad hominem argument rather than discuss the facts. When someone does not agree with you, you attack their character, or, as you have shamelessly done above, their gender. Thankfully there is no inquisition for you to sign up for, or is there?

      One of the foundations of science is scepticism. By decrying my scepticism and that of my friends you are actually attacking science itself. Curiously, in your rush to bash us personally, you ignore the main point of my post: my friends, who do not agree that climate change is manmade, are themselves scientists. For this reason, you should not be so quick to discount their opinions.

      I would challenge you or any reader of this post to watch The Great Global Warming Swindle (http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-3028847519933351566), a very well produced documentary refuting Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. “Swindle” parades before you a startling array of the world’s top scientists and environmentalists who proceed to debunk the theory of man-made global warming in a way that is hard to refute.

      To clarify, no argument is made here or the film that the planet is not warming. After all, everyone knows there was an ice age in the past. But do you know about the “Medieval Warm Period” or the “mini-ice age” in the renaissance period? The planet’s temperature does fluctuate it seems, but why?

      The central thesis of Gore’s film and the man-made global warming idea is that increased carbon dioxide emissions are causing increased temperatures. The key evidence given is the examination of ice cores drilled in Antarctica, providing an amazing record of the earth’s historic temperatures as well as a corresponding record of the earth’s C02 levels. Gore famously shows in his film a striking correlation between C02 and temperature. Audiences assume the correlation implies causation. End of story, right?

      Wrong. Swindle brings us world leading scientists who have analysed the ice core data are discovered something very “inconvenient.” It turns out that the ice data shows that C02 increases in the atmosphere lag warming, and not the reverse! In other words, warming causes C02 in the atmosphere to increase. C02 levels increase AFTER warming, not before.

      If this is true, why do people like Ms. Baumann react violently to any hint of scepticism regarding the global warming gospel? Swindle brilliantly explains this by interviewing honest scientists and environmentalists (including a founder of Greenpeace). Reason #1: research on climate change gets funded. Reason #2: anti-capitalist, left-leaning activists have no other cause to rant about. It is therefore not surprising to me that Ms. Baumann’s blog features a recent anti NAFTA rant.

      To the dismay of anti-capitalist like Baumann, the world wide economy is booming under globalized free trade. Standards of living are getting better across the board. Capitalism can’t be that bad if it means a family in Central America has more food, or a couple in China can afford a car. Capitalists must be bad because, hmmm…, let’s see, wait a second…I’ve got it! They are going to kill us all by destroying the earth!! OK folks, let’s run with it!

      You invoke David Suzuki, the great celebrity rock-star of the environmental movement. He is a great communicator , a great statesman, and looks great on TV. Under the mantle of science, he preaches an apocalyptic message of destruction through the sin of consumption coupled with a utopian dream of peaceful coexistence with nature. Don’t get me wrong, I love clean air and I hate pollution. But I do not buy into the religious cosmology of the environmental movement.

      Tune in for my next big article on this blog: “Environtology(TM): The New Cult of Mother Earth.”

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