That heatwave? It’s not just happening over there in the US, you know, us Brits are baking too (and with our short tempers, believe me – that’s bad news). In fact we’ve seen record breaking temperatures over here, combined with unprecedented levels of atmospheric pollutants. Hockey stick? What hockey stick? It’s just a fluke, right?
8 thoughts on “It’s Getting Hot In Here…”
The validity of the research by Mann et al, that created the “hockey stick” has been called into question.
Sure, but it wasn’t so long ago we were complaining about the cold, and rain.
Also check out the June temps for Australia, Argentina etc.
Weather is weather, if it’s hot here, you can bet it’s cold somewhere else.
It has indeed, though not by enough respected scientists to make me convinced of its falsehood. And there’s a lot more data than the ‘controversial sports implement’ out there that points to similar outcomes. I’m going to hedge my bets, and work on the assumption that there’s a problem, and the odds are good that we have, if not caused, then certainly exacerbated it.
And after all, Bush’s election had its validity questioned, but that didn’t get it written off as a fabrication, did it? 😉
For all the same reasons you cited, I take the opposite view. If there is a problem, its probably not our fault. Even if it is our fault, its better to be rich and adapt than to be poorer and try to reverse course.
I’m not sure how to respond to the Bush comment…a little out of the blue…
Your reasoning has merit, and I would never be so bold as to say you are wrong to think that way – your opinions are your inalienable right as a free human being. However, I personally believe that evidence is the best way to back up decisions on a course of action, and the evidence I have seen leads me to believe something needs to be done. Better to be poor and alive than rich and dead, and hence better to do too much too soon than too little too late. The truth will out, and I’m sure that many scientists would like to be proved wrong about climate change (as would I) – until that occurs, I cannot help but side with their conviction. It would appear that we both agree that adapting to the situation is the right idea – I’m no advocate of returning to stone-age living. The slow pace of adaption is a cause for concern to me, however.
The Bush comment was, granted, a little cheeky (though not a personal dig); it was just a way to demonstrate that even when the validity of something is called into question, there’s often a wealth of evidence and precedent to show that it is still the prevailing situation, no matter how unpopular it may be with its opponents. I’m not a partisan – I’m fairly convinced that the reactions of government would have been fairly similar, regardless of the party currently in power (witness the ‘left-wing’ government of my own country, who have made more ‘right-wing’ policy moves than anyone would have predicted when they took control – the left/right dichotomy is largely a fabrication that keeps us ‘little people’ busy arguing over ephemera, while the big debates are decided without consulting us). The people at the top of the pyramid never respond well to changes in the staus quo, regardless of the colour of their ties – they have much more to lose, after all.
Thanks for your comment. Something you said strikes to the heart of why I am deeply suspicious of the Global Warming elite:
“I’m no advocate of returning to stone-age living.”
The fact is, many Global Warming advocates do preach that humanity must return to its pre-industrial roots to save itself. Furthermore, many scientists believe we must give up our ecomomic control to central planning bureaucrats in Turtle Bay.
Totalitarism and Collectivism come disguised in many ways. This time around its disguise is Global Warming.
Let’s just cut through the crap here and ask each of our commentators where they stand on the EQUAL criminalization of routine and ritual male genital amputation (as compared to the already existing standing national criminalization of *exclusively* female genital amputation).
I have found this to be an *extremely* reliable measure of any particular person’s ethical, moral, and intellectual integrity —
— when compared to the opposition to RAR female genital amputation, but the condoning of RAR male genital amputation, which reliably indicates an unreliable, untrustworty, hypocritical gender-bigot.
As contrasted with one willing to condemn *any* genital amputation of children in the absence of a direct, significant, immediate health risk, which strongly indicates a reliable source of information and reasoning.
Let’s see how you two stack up.
Of course, *silence* on the topic will be considered the equivalent of condoning Routine And Ritual male genital amputation — and solely on the basis of gender prejudice, as distinguished from any kind of awareness of objective, BJU-published and peer-reviewed, reality.
Comments are closed.