Friday, February 18, 2005

Global Warming and ...

I just read a news article that proclaimed Scientists say global warming is undeniable. And then they say that without a doubt, "climate change is being caused by human activity."

But then I read the article further and found that statement of blame to be lacking any real support. The best they got is that they ran some computer models of natural solar and volcanic warming and those didn't account for the data they collected.

So, they ran *computer models* which didn't match the data and they automatically assume that their computer models are correct! And they have the audacity to talk about "rational people"! A rational person would come up with the idea that perhaps the computer models are inaccurate. Those things are always wrong. Have you ever trusted a weatherman's predictions?

I'm not arguing that global warming isn't taking place. These scientists have taken millions of measurements and got lots of proof. But I balk at them saying that human beings are the cause of this warming. The global climate has taken many wide swings through the centuries and millenia without mankind's help, so it makes sense to *this* rational person that the global climate could be taking an upswing all by itself.

And if the proposals in the Kyoto Protocol are any indicator, we have absolutely no chance at stopping nature from doing what it wants to do. The ocean levels are going to rise and the best we can do is get the Dutch to start building dikes in Bangladesh.


Anonymous said...

I am just out trying to understand the folks like yourself who "balk" at the proposal that humans are causing global warming. Despite all the facts comming from scientific research let's go ahead and say you are right and all of the scientists are wrong. Let's lay the blame on natural cycles. With blame now where you folks are comfortable we can now start talking abuot answers. The folks who do believe that global warming is caused by pollution a.k.a CO2 (for the most part, though there are other factors and variables) the use of natural resources such as coal, natural gas (methane), petrolium, ore derived from the destruction of mountains etc... the list can go on and on. There does not need to be a left versus right argument about the Fact that these resources are Going to run out. When they do (some of these as soon as the next 100 years) then we should be in a better position to still have electricity, drive cars, fly airplanes, etc. SO, what a better time than right now to start thinking about 2 things: using less of all finite resources, and finding other, more sustainable ways of "fueling" the future. Why, I ask, is there so much contraversy against these things? Is it really that you folks don't like change THAT much? Is it really that hard to change your habits? I honestly do not understand this. I am writing to ask for your answer please. I don't want to say you are wrong, this question is born of hypothesizing that your are correct. What now?
Thank you for your time and thoughtful answer.
Brian (PHd of Geomorphology)

Sotosoroto said...

I hardly consider carbon dioxide a pollutant, as it is a natural byproduct of animal life -- and plants thrive on it.

As for your question of what do we do when the finite resources run out, I say we pay more for energy -- then, not now. There's still plenty of petroleum in the earth, but most of it is cost-prohibitive to extract at this time. When prices go up, oil shale, etc. start looking like good options. But in our current market, these resources are marginal. I see no reason to artificially inflate prices today, when the prices will naturally rise as the easy resources are used in the future. Raising costs now will only stymie growth (of our world economy, health, etc.).

In summary, I trust human ingenuity to get us through anything. I want change. Things will change -- for the better.