Here we go again! Does anyone remember about 20 years ago when scientists were warning that the earth is getting colder? Remember the hysteria? It’s funny how that “fad” just sorta fizzled out. Now the catch-phrase du jour is global warming. I find it interesting how science can do an abrupt about-face in just 2 decades and yet have no explanation why.
Now, they have computer models that say the icecaps will melt within a century. There will be chaos, sea levels will rise, cities will drown, climate will change dramatically, dogs and cats will be living together…it’s gonna be horrible. Why? Because a computer says so.
I’m not an expert, but I know the earth’s climate is dependent on literally millions of variables that can’t possibly be predicted with any degree of accuracy. What’s more, there are no…repeat, NO…studies that indicate human activity IN ANY FORM has the potential to alter the earth’s climate. So even though there are millions of variables that come into play in determining the earth’s climate, thus far the data we’ve collected shows that human activity is not one of them. So why are scientists demanding a reduction in greenhouse emissions? That’s a very good question.
Could the earth get warmer? Sure. The earth’s climate has gone through many changes over billions of years. There’s no reason to think it won’t continue fluctuating. Could the polar ice caps melt? Maybe, if the temperature warms enough. I’m not doubting the possibility that this computer proposes. But I am doubting the fact that we, as humans, have the ability to stop it. So until some credible evidence is discovered that links human activity DIRECTLY to global warming, I say lets stop with the hysterics.
5 comments:
These same experts cannnot even accurately predict the next years weather. But they want us to believe thay knew what was happening with the weather "millions" of years ago and what is going to happen in the next 30 years?
Gee...I wish I had a job where I could be wrong all the time.
We're all gonna die, we're all gonna die, we're all gonna die...
Yep, eventually...
Might be from going to jail for *Public Drunk*, ya never can tell...
Thanks for coming in on that one John, great comment...
"NO…studies that indicate human activity IN ANY FORM has the potential to alter the earth’s climate."
John, are you referencing a study that says that human activity might be impacting global climate and then saying that there are no studies in any form that do so? I'm confused. Isn't that the purpose of the very study you quoted?
As I've said before, I'm just a dumb ol' Kentucky boy and don't know much about science - I don't know if human activity is impacting global climate. What I do know because I've seen it with my eyes, is that human activity impacts the environment.
I further know that many very bright scientists think there is cause for concern that human activity is impacting climate change (and unless I'm mistaken, it's the same studies that 20 years ago were talking about getting colder - these studies that I've read have always talked about "global climatic change" not specifically warming or cooling).
Why are you getting so upset that so many scientists are reaching similar conclusions? I don't get it? Is it because you disagree with their scientific conclusions?
It seems to me that if you don't want to believe what many (not all) scientists are saying, you're free to do so. But Bush's own scientists are endorsing some of this theory, so I don't see why all the hysteria is for on your part. Especially if what the conclusion of these scientists is only calling for basic responsibility. It's a very conservative notion.
Dan, I'll ask you to read the article again. What gets me upset about this and many others like it is the way the article discusses global warming (which, as I said, may be occuring) and then makes a MASSIVE assumption in saying that human activity is linked to global warming without providing any evidence of the sort. They just slip it in as if it's common undisputed knowledge and move on. This is irresponsible and unprofessional journalism.
I'll gladly concede that the article is less-than-well-done. It is not clear from the article whether or not this study has found human activity to play a role or not, and yet the author proceeds as if it were a given.
I'll agree that, at this point, it is sloppy journalism. I'll further agree that there is much sloppy journalism out there on the topic, using the term Global Warming repeatedly, even though (from what I've read) that is not the correct scientific term for what's being reported upon (global climate change), and using shortcuts to telling the story such as acting as if it were a foregone conclusion that human activity is impacting climate change.
I don't object to your problem with the journalism, if that's all you're talking about. Where I'd disagree is if you're saying that there are no scientific studies out there that seem to indicate that human activity is having an impact.
I've read about them and know they exist. If you're not saying that, then we'll agree that journalism and folk at large could do a better job in our discussions on the matter.
Post a Comment