Revisionist History: Global Warming
I really do try to take in many concepts, ideas
and theories. I ponder them, do some basic research and then come to my own
conclusion. In our recent history the only way to absorb these concepts was to
read and to attend higher levels of education. The problem with both is that
publication of course takes time, and the institutes of learning have become (a)
institutes of indoctrination and (b) have focused less and less on the free
exchange of ideas and / or actual critical
thinking.
The one real exercise they apparently teach in college now is how to stifle the thought and speech process of others. Nothing ends a discussion faster then the use of terms such as "Nazi", "Hitler", "Religious Fanatic", "Anti-Child", "Anti-Woman", "Bigot", "Racist" etc. This is how one group silences the other. So, no exchange of thoughts or ideas occurs. And, it's sad. We will NEVER understand each other or breach our differences without discussion - sometimes heated and painful discussions. And this is what happens in regards to almost all discussions - including that of Global Warming.
If people read, or actually exercised their brain - they would remember that just a few short years ago the problem was not global warming but global cooling. Scientists around the world agreed that we were headed for another ice age and there was nothing we could do about it. Nothing except wait 20 years for them to change their minds. ("We are at war with Eurasia, we have always been at war with Eurasia")
You see, the modern American takes at face value whatever they see on television as fact. They take whatever the teachers tell them as fact. A little critical thinking will show you that both of these institutes lean far to the reactionary left without regard to actual fact. Or, I should say they lean towards the Inconvenient Unproven. I don't belittle them for it. Americans as a people have always loved the underdog. We love to fight our causes for the underdog and how can you fight a cause unless you go out on a limb? Unfortunately sometimes the causes are just wrong, or ill conceived, or even worse they are simply a cause-celeb. Even more sad is that these causes are typically geared towards the extremely left leaning, and often wealthy persons living in New York and California.
Take for instance the case (or lack of it) on Global Warming. You all know the story, it goes something like this:
The Earth is a closed biosphere. As such scientists everywhere agree that carbon emissions produced by automobiles, factories, burning forests, people breathing, smokers, aerosol sprays, cow flatulence and obesity are being released into the atmosphere. (For those of you who don't understand sarcasm or humor - there is a little injected there). Here is where the story begins to splinter just a little.
One group of scientists believes that these emissions are directly causing damage to the Ozone layer - the layer of the atmosphere that keeps harmful (and apparently very very hot) solar rays from reaching the earth. Since this layer is damaged, these hot hot rays reach the earth and, well warm it up (Global Warming). As the earth warms, so does the water, and so do the Glaciers. As they glaciers warm they begin to melt and as this happens the sea begins to rise. As the sea rises we literally loose real-estate. Where the scientists said that California would fall off the United States (due to earthquakes) now they are saying that California and New York will simply be covered with water.
The other group of scientists believes that global warming is cause by primarily the dying plants. This one is very similar to the previous theory, but stick with me here. It requires some knowledge. Water is a powerful solvent. Compounds that dissolve in water are said to be water soluble. Carbon, according to these scientists is a water soluble substance. So, carbon goes into the air and is absorbed by water which turns into rain and falls back down to mother earth. Water then soaks into the ground and finds it's way into plant roots. Now, at the micro-level plant roots are nothing more than tubes, but water has an important property called cohesion - which basically means that water molecules tend to stick together. Here is how it works. Water in the leaves of plants is connected through the leaves, down through the roots and into the ground in one long chain. As the water evaporates from the leaves it tends to "pull" the other water from the roots all the way up to the leaves. See? Ok not a great explanation but you get the picture. Anyway, as the water travels through the plant, the nutrients that the water has in it (from the ground soil and the air) are deposited into the plant. The plant utilizes these nutrients as food. If the water has a high carbon buildup - then carbon is deposited in the plant. Plants don't like carbon and so they die. Since plants die, they cannot exchange other elements (such as carbon-dioxide into oxygen). This has the long term affect of warming the earth, melting the ice caps, and drowning those citizens of New York and California.
No the Global Warming there is the only one you hear today. You continually hear about how all the scientific community agree that it is a fact. But, if you read and pay attention to the reports other than the ones on the front page of the New York Times, the Washington Post etc - then you find there are a number of scientists who disagree with this position. In fact, no real numbers on how many within the scientific community are on which side, exist. What is not up for debate is - what is the result of a scientist who openly comes out against the Global Warming position. Now, remember that the scientific community is one in which Peer Review is almost king. So you have a theory, you publish and you get feedback from your peers. Feedback can be either positive or negative (or a mix of both actually) but in all cases is suppose to be founded in scientific research. In most cases, the feedback on anti-global warming positions is simply name calling, belittling, ridiculing, threatening (both life and funding) - until the anti-position becomes a pro position.
If a person looks, positions against global warming are not hard to find, neither are the results of voicing your opinion on the topic.
In 2004 Naomi Oreskes published in Science (effectively) that everyone agrees on global warming, but then Benny Peiser, published a dispute on the topic and he was later beaten into submission and finally published stating simply that the consensus "is far from unanimous".
In 2006 the Wall Street Journal reported
"But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis." Lindzen, Richard, WSJ, 12 April 2006
And there is the problem. When I was in primary school (K-12) I was taught about the cycle of a planet. That cycle included periods of both hot and cold, expansion and collapse, and for some planets or stars - enough of these cycles to change the size and or mass of the planet or star such that it became (eventually) a black hole. Now, this is a brief explanation because I don't have the acreage here to explain exactly how a type 5 star becomes a black hole over a ages - so if you want to know that take any basic college Astronomy course. Although the way colleges tend to lean today they probably only have Astrology programs.
In any case - the point is that even 15 years ago, when Global Warming was just a whisper, scientists were still teaching that long term warming and cooling of a planet was the natural evolution or life-cycle of all celestial bodies.
What has happened in the past, say 20 years, is that it is the alarmists who get the funding. So, if you say that the earth is going to die because of this thing called Global Warming you will receive billions of research dollars and grants to determine (1) what caused it (2) how do we stop it. On the other hand, if you are scientist who says that is all bunk and warming and cooling are a natural part of the cycle of life then your funding, well, gets sent to the alarmists who are trying to "save" the planet. The alarmists then beat down those who don't agree with them (Your crazy! A lunatic! You don't care about the planet! You have sold out to Bush and his Oil Mongers!)
For a thinking person, those last few words should have a shocking effect. Who are we to "save" the planet? Didn't Darwin teach us (and this is the accepted FACT today) that evolution is part of life. Is it our intent on changing evolution? Change is inevitable. Those who fail to move forward with change are doomed. We are but one miniscule part of the biosphere - who are we to decide what path the cycle of the entire planet is to take? Perhaps it is time for the beetles to rule and for us to go the way of the DoDo.
After-all, we have completely stopped having critical discussions and almost have ceased critical thinking all together.
The one real exercise they apparently teach in college now is how to stifle the thought and speech process of others. Nothing ends a discussion faster then the use of terms such as "Nazi", "Hitler", "Religious Fanatic", "Anti-Child", "Anti-Woman", "Bigot", "Racist" etc. This is how one group silences the other. So, no exchange of thoughts or ideas occurs. And, it's sad. We will NEVER understand each other or breach our differences without discussion - sometimes heated and painful discussions. And this is what happens in regards to almost all discussions - including that of Global Warming.
If people read, or actually exercised their brain - they would remember that just a few short years ago the problem was not global warming but global cooling. Scientists around the world agreed that we were headed for another ice age and there was nothing we could do about it. Nothing except wait 20 years for them to change their minds. ("We are at war with Eurasia, we have always been at war with Eurasia")
You see, the modern American takes at face value whatever they see on television as fact. They take whatever the teachers tell them as fact. A little critical thinking will show you that both of these institutes lean far to the reactionary left without regard to actual fact. Or, I should say they lean towards the Inconvenient Unproven. I don't belittle them for it. Americans as a people have always loved the underdog. We love to fight our causes for the underdog and how can you fight a cause unless you go out on a limb? Unfortunately sometimes the causes are just wrong, or ill conceived, or even worse they are simply a cause-celeb. Even more sad is that these causes are typically geared towards the extremely left leaning, and often wealthy persons living in New York and California.
Take for instance the case (or lack of it) on Global Warming. You all know the story, it goes something like this:
The Earth is a closed biosphere. As such scientists everywhere agree that carbon emissions produced by automobiles, factories, burning forests, people breathing, smokers, aerosol sprays, cow flatulence and obesity are being released into the atmosphere. (For those of you who don't understand sarcasm or humor - there is a little injected there). Here is where the story begins to splinter just a little.
One group of scientists believes that these emissions are directly causing damage to the Ozone layer - the layer of the atmosphere that keeps harmful (and apparently very very hot) solar rays from reaching the earth. Since this layer is damaged, these hot hot rays reach the earth and, well warm it up (Global Warming). As the earth warms, so does the water, and so do the Glaciers. As they glaciers warm they begin to melt and as this happens the sea begins to rise. As the sea rises we literally loose real-estate. Where the scientists said that California would fall off the United States (due to earthquakes) now they are saying that California and New York will simply be covered with water.
The other group of scientists believes that global warming is cause by primarily the dying plants. This one is very similar to the previous theory, but stick with me here. It requires some knowledge. Water is a powerful solvent. Compounds that dissolve in water are said to be water soluble. Carbon, according to these scientists is a water soluble substance. So, carbon goes into the air and is absorbed by water which turns into rain and falls back down to mother earth. Water then soaks into the ground and finds it's way into plant roots. Now, at the micro-level plant roots are nothing more than tubes, but water has an important property called cohesion - which basically means that water molecules tend to stick together. Here is how it works. Water in the leaves of plants is connected through the leaves, down through the roots and into the ground in one long chain. As the water evaporates from the leaves it tends to "pull" the other water from the roots all the way up to the leaves. See? Ok not a great explanation but you get the picture. Anyway, as the water travels through the plant, the nutrients that the water has in it (from the ground soil and the air) are deposited into the plant. The plant utilizes these nutrients as food. If the water has a high carbon buildup - then carbon is deposited in the plant. Plants don't like carbon and so they die. Since plants die, they cannot exchange other elements (such as carbon-dioxide into oxygen). This has the long term affect of warming the earth, melting the ice caps, and drowning those citizens of New York and California.
No the Global Warming there is the only one you hear today. You continually hear about how all the scientific community agree that it is a fact. But, if you read and pay attention to the reports other than the ones on the front page of the New York Times, the Washington Post etc - then you find there are a number of scientists who disagree with this position. In fact, no real numbers on how many within the scientific community are on which side, exist. What is not up for debate is - what is the result of a scientist who openly comes out against the Global Warming position. Now, remember that the scientific community is one in which Peer Review is almost king. So you have a theory, you publish and you get feedback from your peers. Feedback can be either positive or negative (or a mix of both actually) but in all cases is suppose to be founded in scientific research. In most cases, the feedback on anti-global warming positions is simply name calling, belittling, ridiculing, threatening (both life and funding) - until the anti-position becomes a pro position.
If a person looks, positions against global warming are not hard to find, neither are the results of voicing your opinion on the topic.
In 2004 Naomi Oreskes published in Science (effectively) that everyone agrees on global warming, but then Benny Peiser, published a dispute on the topic and he was later beaten into submission and finally published stating simply that the consensus "is far from unanimous".
In 2006 the Wall Street Journal reported
"But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis." Lindzen, Richard, WSJ, 12 April 2006
And there is the problem. When I was in primary school (K-12) I was taught about the cycle of a planet. That cycle included periods of both hot and cold, expansion and collapse, and for some planets or stars - enough of these cycles to change the size and or mass of the planet or star such that it became (eventually) a black hole. Now, this is a brief explanation because I don't have the acreage here to explain exactly how a type 5 star becomes a black hole over a ages - so if you want to know that take any basic college Astronomy course. Although the way colleges tend to lean today they probably only have Astrology programs.
In any case - the point is that even 15 years ago, when Global Warming was just a whisper, scientists were still teaching that long term warming and cooling of a planet was the natural evolution or life-cycle of all celestial bodies.
What has happened in the past, say 20 years, is that it is the alarmists who get the funding. So, if you say that the earth is going to die because of this thing called Global Warming you will receive billions of research dollars and grants to determine (1) what caused it (2) how do we stop it. On the other hand, if you are scientist who says that is all bunk and warming and cooling are a natural part of the cycle of life then your funding, well, gets sent to the alarmists who are trying to "save" the planet. The alarmists then beat down those who don't agree with them (Your crazy! A lunatic! You don't care about the planet! You have sold out to Bush and his Oil Mongers!)
For a thinking person, those last few words should have a shocking effect. Who are we to "save" the planet? Didn't Darwin teach us (and this is the accepted FACT today) that evolution is part of life. Is it our intent on changing evolution? Change is inevitable. Those who fail to move forward with change are doomed. We are but one miniscule part of the biosphere - who are we to decide what path the cycle of the entire planet is to take? Perhaps it is time for the beetles to rule and for us to go the way of the DoDo.
After-all, we have completely stopped having critical discussions and almost have ceased critical thinking all together.
Posted: Sat - October 20, 2007 at 09:37 AM If this blog entry was of use to you, why not show your appreciation by donating to support the site? Just click on the MAKE A DONATION button on the right hand side of the page! It's all handled by PAYPAL.
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Quick Links
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Categories
Archives
XML/RSS Feed
Current Poll
Donations via PAYPAL
Donate to support the site!
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Oct 20, 2007 10:25 AM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Oct 20, 2007 10:25 AM