8 thoughts on “It’s Getting Hot In Here…”

  1. *ahem*

    The validity of the research by Mann et al, that created the “hockey stick” has been called into question.

  2. 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.

    R

  3. The validity of the research by Mann et al, that created the “hockey stick” has been called into question.

    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? 😉

  4. A,

    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…

  5. Jasper;

    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.

  6. A,

    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.

  7. The fact is, many Global Warming advocates do preach that humanity must return to its pre-industrial roots to save itself.

    Many, yes, but by no means all, or even most. The ‘back-to-nature’ hippie archetype is very much a dying breed, and in a world obsessed with gadgetry and technology, they have a hard time making themselves heard, let alone heeded.

    Furthermore, many scientists believe we must give up our ecomomic control to central planning bureaucrats in Turtle Bay.

    I’m certainly no fan of centralised authority, although my lack of knowledge in the fields of US politics and economics prevents me from commenting on this with any sense of grounding. I will say that I favour rhizomatic peer-to-peer structures over pyramidal ones, as far as political power and decision making is concerned.

    Totalitarism and Collectivism come disguised in many ways.

    Very true; it is imperative to know one’s history, so that one may face the future with confidence.

    This time around its disguise is Global Warming.

    I’d agree that *some* people with covert agendas may well be riding on the coat-tails of the ecological drive at the moment, but I think the vast majority of its supporters, at least amongst the average scientists and the public, are totally uninterested in such politics (and indeed have probably never contemplated the possibility of it being an issue).

    The rise of ecological awareness at present may be at risk of being co-opted by totalitarian interests, but one should be just as vary of intrusions by them into the opposing side, if only for the fact that it has long been their ‘happy hunting ground’. As I mentioned in an earlier comment, it is those with a hunger for power that must be watched carefully, regardless of what beliefs they find it expedient to profess at the current time.

    A man in search of power will tell whichever lie he thinks will serve him best – the political slant of the lie he tells is largely irrelevant, mere window-dressing. He wants your vote, and nothing more. Look carefully at the motivations of *anyone* with a plan for the future that depends on your support, financial, political or otherwise – for only in their motivations will their true intent be apparent.

    Thank you once again for your reasoned and refreshingly non-vitriolic comments. Despite our differences of opinion, I raise my hat to you, sir.

  8. 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.

    So.

    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.