[Strawbale] Global warming

[David Neeley]

I think it's interesting the amount of religious-like acceptance of
either a belief in human contribution to a supposed global warming, or
a rejection that such a thing is even happening at all.

A very few years ago, there were serious scientific discussions and
popular magazine covers regarding global *cooling* and an "approaching
ice age." Now, the existence of global warming prompts "scientists" to
attempt to drum out of the corps of science those who dare question
the current cant--that "of course" we have global warming and "of
course" we humans are contributing to it.

Best as I can tell, evidence on all sides is most definitely mixed.
There is a fairly good argument that cooling and warming trends have
existed since long before humans were around at all.

Local weather conditions, too, are at best highly unreliable guides.
Some areas are "warming" while others have record snows (as in
Anchorage at the moment).

Personally, the only thing I am convinced of is that change is
inevitable. I tend to think we've been in the rather balmy period
between ice ages and that sooner or later we are likely to have
another one.

Interestingly enough, the geological record seems to indicate that
when an ice age comes upon the earth, we go from a climate similar to
ours now to ice covering a good part of the Northern and Southern
hemispheres in about fifty years--less than an eyeblink in geological
terms.

To assert that "whose who question global warming have a financial or
personal interest in the status quo", though, is the height of
arrogance. I, for one, have no stake either financial or personal in
the issue beyond an obvious interest in trying to determine the truth
and the consequences it may present to me and my family.

In the Dark Ages, the particular religious cant that could not be
questioned was the prevailing religious tenets that "everyone"
believed. Today, it seems to be global warming and its frequent
pseudo-scientific corollary that this is something that no serious
person can or should question.

That, friends, is BS. The *first* tenet of science is that every
assertion can and must be questioned over and over again to find areas
in which it may lack in rigor and in which the notion may be refined
to more closely fit the observed facts.

So--kindly don't try to enforce such claptrap upon me or upon anyone
who attempts to arrive over time at better approximations of the
truth. Trying to relegate us to motives that may be self-serving or
venal only goes so far, mostly upon the equally addle-pated that
ascribe evil motives to any who don't readily agree with whatever your
particular orthodoxy of the moment might be.

David



On 2/3/07, Ron Becker <ron45 at tularosa.net> wrote:

> Ron
> Those who question global warming have a financial or emotional
> interest in the status quo.