A few musings about the continuing attempts to legitimize "global warming" as being both significant and the result of human activity.
I was thinking about the history of global warming hysteria and reflecting on who is most ardent in support of the theory. Here are just a few thoughts on the topic:
Time magazine continues to peg the "shrillometer" in its hysterical coverage of the topic. Long the leader in demonstrating the worst journalism has to offer, Time continues to provide yearly updates on the topic (each spring around Earth Day, of course). One could easily conclude that Time has a contest among its staff to try to outdo the previous year's global warming issue for hysteria, distortion, and hubris. I suspect they do crown a new leader each year. This year's issue ("Be Worried, Be Very Worried") certainly ranks with the worst of their propaganda pieces.
The latest tactic of proponents of human-caused global warming (anthropogenic global warming) is to take the stance that there is no longer any doubt among "reputable" scientists that humans are causing significant and dangerous global climate warming. Of course, this position cannot be supported by sound scientific demonstration and is laced with theories supported by woefully inadequate data.
I wonder if anyone has considered testing for a correlation between the rhetoric of "global warming" zealots and a rise in global temperature. Perhaps there is a human factor! All that hot air from Time and other poorly-informed dupes must have some contribution to the perceived problem.
Another popular myth is the melting of polar ice fields and glaciers. Problem is, there is nothing unusual going on that hasn't occurred many times over long before human's began burning fossil fuels on a large scale. In some areas, glaciers are in retreat. Other places they are advancing. Parts of polar regions are warming. Major parts are cooling. There is no unusual overall meltdown of ice. What changes we do observe are well within natural variations and cannot be directly attributed to the burning of fossil fuels.
Ever notice how little science is actually described in these shrill articles on global warming? Reference is made to "scientists" but little in the way of real science is ever discussed. This is because scientists (principally, climatologists and meteorologists) do not fully understand the mechanisms (science) of climate change, nor is there unanimity among subject-matter experts on the causes of any current variability in climate.
Have you heard much about the solar impact on climate? Not from Time you won't. Ever think about what is the primary source of heat for Earth? Yup, it's that big old star we call our "sun." Do you suppose the sun just might have something to do with how warm it gets on Earth? Ever considered the possibility that our sun isn't providing a constant source of heat for the Earth? Did you know that astronomers now realize that the sun's output is not constant - that it varies in cycles? Did you know that we are in a solar "maximum" for heat output? Ever consider how much that could impact Earth's climate cycles?
Al Gore is at it again. His latest laughable nonsense comes in the form of a film, An Inconvenient Truth. Inconvenient yes, truth ... hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! What a joke! The film, too. The San Francisco Chronicle (no conservative publication) featured a review of the film by Cinnamon Stillwell (Al Gore's Apocalyptic Environmentalism) which included these lines:
Gore warns us that humankind has only 10 years on its current path before we're all toast.
But despite Gore's dire predictions and the over-the-top trailer, which promises scenes of death and destruction, the film itself is a dull affair. Most of it consists of Gore giving lectures with infantile visual aids, including cartoons that seem designed for 2-year-olds. Now and then he throws in an inspiring quote, providing some touchy-feely, Dr. Phil-like moments.
Then there are the scenes of Gore staring pensively out his limousine window as his gloomy narrative drones on in the background. Much like his nostalgic reveries for his idyllic childhood on an estate/farm, Gore seems to want to hearken back to a simpler time before modern technology came along and messed everything up. Sort of like the Garden of Eden before the Fall.
This is fitting, for Gore often comes across more like a preacher than a politician and global warming more like a religion than a science.
You get the picture. But if you value your sanity, avoid Gore's insanity.
A great example of hubris is the tendency of some people to restrict their frame of reference to a very limited timeframe ... or, in Gore's case, a convenient timeframe. I defy anyone who believes humans are significantly altering climate to explain the vast number of climate changes that have occurred within the past several billion years. If you can't explain (or even understand) climate change that has been going on throughout Earth's climate history, then how can you possibly believe you are capable of knowing either (a) whether our climate is indeed changing, or, (b) whether the cause of any change is natural or human-induced!
Better we stand back from all the hysteria generated by the likes of Time and Al Gore than run off "worried" about things about which we know little (e.g., climate change science).
Bob Webster, a descendant of Daniel Webster's father and early American patriot, Ebenezer Webster, has always had a strong interest in early American history, our Constitution, U.S. politics, and law. Politically he is a constitutional republican with objectivist and libertarian roots. He has faith in the ultimate triumph of truth and reason over deception and emotion. He is a strong believer in our Constitution as written and views the abandonment of constitutional restraint by the regressive Progressive movement as a great danger to our Republic. His favorite novel is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and believes it should be required reading for every high school student so they can understand the dangers of tolerating the growth of unconstitutional crushingly powerful central government. He strongly believes, as our Constitution enshrines, that the interests of the individual should be held superior to the interests of the state.
A lifelong interest in meteorology and climatology spurred his strong interest in science. Bob earned his degree in Mathematics at Virginia Tech, graduating in 1964.