formeraa said:
Honestly, what's so POLITICAL about global climate change? :
:
:
First of all, "global climate change" is a term that is meaningless nonsense. The climate is in a constant state of change on this planet and always has been. NO, that's the new moniker for "global warming" which (yes indeed) pertains to not just an alleged phenomenon, but to a political movement as well.
If you honestly want to know, think about the concept that there is actually a lot of skepticism developing about this issue among scientific circles. The recent warming has occurred over the past 10 years has now receded somewhat and been replaced by cooler global temperatures. Hence the name change.
Now that you insisted on getting me going, I guess it can be summed up why it's POLITICAL as follows:
1) The political movement of the "global warming" believers manifested itself in the Kyoto Protocol, an agreement which would allow China, India and others to continue to increase greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions while the US and other industrialized western countries would be cut back. This comes at a tremendous economic cost to those countries (if implemented) as there's not yet a plausible alternative to the use of fossil fuels as a replacement source of energy to fuel industry. However, in the end the net effect would be to simply redistribute wealth to China and India (to a lesser extent) and away from the U.S. and Europe while (and here's the kicker) still allowing a global increase in GHG emissions. Only it's a different bunch doing the emitting. If you truly believe that the planet has a fever, than this would not be the way to go now would it?
2) The data are not irrefutable. There are a lot of factors to be considered, including urban sprawl, placement of weather monitoring stations and other intangibles that may have contributed to the alleged 0.6 degree C raise in global temperature between 1978 and 2005. Interestingly enough, even NASA has admitted errors and admits that the temperature hasn't risen significantly since 1998. When graphically reviewed and compared with solar output, one can see more of a correlation between these factors than between temperature and CO2 output. In other words, it's not all that clear what has caused the warming. Not nearly as clear as the GW advocates would make it seem. This has been buried below the headlines for political reasons.
3) Those who question this GW dogma are labeled by others in the scientific community as "deniers" and ostracized. Kind of like what happened to the likes of Copernicus and Galileo back in the middle ages. Why? Because too many of these academics garner a paycheck from grants that are based on the whole GW concept.
That's where the Benjamins come in to play. But there are more reasons.
4) Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. No argument there. And, I'll even go so far as to say that it's likely that people have warmed the earth a little. But, the debate is - or should be - how much? I maintain that the computer models vastly overestimate the effect and that the sun has much more of an effect on our climate. And, no one can prove that to be incorrect. About the models that melt the polar ice caps and kill us all....well they are an example of garbage in, garbage out. Don't take them seriously. They're just guessing at this point. But they are making everyone think that it's what's going to happen tomorrow even when they know it's not really so. Why do this? Well....
5) OK here's the #1 reason it's POLITICAL...... Because advocates of "global warming theory" are political leftists who despise capitalism and have socialist/Marxist leanings. They hate industry, they hate America and they hate you for having a nice car and they blame all of us for allegedly destroying the environment. Ironic because communists have done more environmental damage than any other type of government and the environment in a place like the US is clean when compared with other countries. But, to these guys, anything that is useful to tear down the current societal order is all the better for them and this particular movement fits the bill nicely. When raw data disagrees with the theory, it is tossed aside as if it were rubbish. Like how Mars and Venus and Jupiter have warmed at the same rate as the Earth since 1978.....that was dismissed as mere
coincidence by otherwise prestigious scientists!
So, to sum up, it's been political since day one. The "climate change" mantra has only been around since the warming tailed off to prevent there from being any dissent as temperatures have cooled a bit. No, we can't have people laughing at the likes of Al Gore and his fans at universities - so now we use terms like "fluctuation." Guess what? Our temperatures have ALWAYS fluctuated! A load of bull is what that is.
If you have to ask that question, and are really interested in an answer to it - do yourself a favor and start seeking out this info on the internet. There are tons of articles on all sides of the issue. But make no mistake: the whole concept is debatable and should be debated. Not just fed to us by edict.
Sorry I went long and stepped into the hard break. But clearly this needs to be explained. And it's also why I'd like to see Heidi Cullen banished to teaching a remedial weather watcher's course in some junior college classroom (see reason #3).
