The Global Warming Chill
I am not alone. To see the hype over global warming and wonder why no one spoke out against it has always concerned me. One of my first posts when I got into blogging was about global warming. Our Climatic Future (Or is Global Warming Full of Hot Air)
I could understand why the MSM ran with it. They are part of the hype, but it is also trendy, it's the current syle. How could they maintain their reputation for liberal bias unless they embrace global warming as if it was an established fact. From the way the MSM report it, to be against global warming is like being against child molestation. Who isn’t?
But I was seeing so few papers debunking the hype of global warming. And then I saw this: There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 In the UK of all places. But it is support for what I have known for sometime, and it explained why I was see so little debunking of the global warming hype. It would seem scientists are as affected by the hype and trendiness of global warming as the rest of us.
Scientists are not only concerned with their particular science, but they must also worry about funding. If there is no money, there is no science. Do science curriculums include a course in funding? They should – it seems a major aspect of any field anyone would like to pursue.
I only wish Bod Carter – the prof who penned the opinion piece – had put links to the charts and references he mentioned. I would like to see them. You can’t have everything.
Actually, global warming is true. The climate will heat up eventually. It always has; it always will. I would be an idiot not to think it would not happen again. But I'm going with global cooling if I have to choose a future climate, or more likely, global stay-the-same – at least in the short run of the next 5,000 years.
Time magazine recently had a story about global warming, and I didn’t see one mention of the predominate climate in the past three million years – global cooling from our perspective – or the return to the Ice Age. Rather than a flooded New York, a New York wiped out by glaciers as tall as skyscrapers is the more likely future for earth’s climate. (I got a subscription to Time, but I went to the site and did a word search for Ice Age. I only got hits on references to the last glacial maximum, not the one we are currently -- and until I hear otherwise -- still in.)
I saw nothing about the forces of global warming offsetting the forces pushing us back into the Ice Age from the interglacial warm period we are currently in. The Ice Age has been going on for some three million years. Are we to assume the Ice Ages have finally ended? On what scientific data is that based?
Anyway, it’s nice to know I am not alone.
(I know I ended some sentences with prepositions, but you go to blog with the sentences you have, not the ones you would like.)
I could understand why the MSM ran with it. They are part of the hype, but it is also trendy, it's the current syle. How could they maintain their reputation for liberal bias unless they embrace global warming as if it was an established fact. From the way the MSM report it, to be against global warming is like being against child molestation. Who isn’t?
But I was seeing so few papers debunking the hype of global warming. And then I saw this: There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 In the UK of all places. But it is support for what I have known for sometime, and it explained why I was see so little debunking of the global warming hype. It would seem scientists are as affected by the hype and trendiness of global warming as the rest of us.
Scientists are not only concerned with their particular science, but they must also worry about funding. If there is no money, there is no science. Do science curriculums include a course in funding? They should – it seems a major aspect of any field anyone would like to pursue.
I only wish Bod Carter – the prof who penned the opinion piece – had put links to the charts and references he mentioned. I would like to see them. You can’t have everything.
Actually, global warming is true. The climate will heat up eventually. It always has; it always will. I would be an idiot not to think it would not happen again. But I'm going with global cooling if I have to choose a future climate, or more likely, global stay-the-same – at least in the short run of the next 5,000 years.
Time magazine recently had a story about global warming, and I didn’t see one mention of the predominate climate in the past three million years – global cooling from our perspective – or the return to the Ice Age. Rather than a flooded New York, a New York wiped out by glaciers as tall as skyscrapers is the more likely future for earth’s climate. (I got a subscription to Time, but I went to the site and did a word search for Ice Age. I only got hits on references to the last glacial maximum, not the one we are currently -- and until I hear otherwise -- still in.)
I saw nothing about the forces of global warming offsetting the forces pushing us back into the Ice Age from the interglacial warm period we are currently in. The Ice Age has been going on for some three million years. Are we to assume the Ice Ages have finally ended? On what scientific data is that based?
Anyway, it’s nice to know I am not alone.
(I know I ended some sentences with prepositions, but you go to blog with the sentences you have, not the ones you would like.)
posted by scout29c at 3:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home