I'm going to try to make this short and sweet...Okay, maybe not... I have a problem with the whole "Church of Climate Change" and more so, Kyoto. Some are stating that The debate is over about whether or not climate change is real. I'm not as convinced as David Susuki is. Nor will the latest report from the IPCC with its "explosion of new data" convince me. Now as sad as it may sound, even the threat of the Glaciers MAY vanish from Alps by 2050 will not help me. I'm just that evil. Now before you go off on a rampage like all the other fear mongering folks in the MSM and IPCC just for starters, let me try to explain my reasoning.
Every time I hear anyone speak on a subject with all the zeal and zest of a used car salesman or even worse, a TV Evangelist(thus why I refer to this topic as "The Church of Climate Change"), I tend not to take it too seriously. Everyday I read a new revelation as to how climate change is killing off this, destroying that and a prediction of what will happen in the future if we don't take drastic steps now. All in the name of science. Sorry but I have heard this all before(PDF file). The other problem is, the debate is not over. Many scientist do not agree and some of the so-called facts don't jive at all. Heck, there is even this little ditty on youtube. Now if that is not enough to make you scratch your head, lets get into the economic part of climate change. The infamous Stern Review would have you believe that we must spend 1% of Global GDP or 350 billion now and 1 trillion by 2050 to prevent the catastrophe that is climate change. This article soundly refutes Stern. Here is where I really get skeptical on the economics of it all. First of all I read this story, which explains who is making megatons of money and who ain't. Then low and behold I see this article about "C.E.O's of 10 major corporations urged the U.S. Congress on Monday to require limits on greenhouse gases this year, contending voluntary efforts to combat climate change are inadequate". Now is that not a coincidence or what? And about the debate thing that is over... well maybe not. When people try to threaten others to change their views, I really start to wonder, more than ever. Now toss in the God Father of Kyoto... Maurice Strong and his dubious record.....Yup I'm a skeptic/flat earther/asshole/whatever you want to call me....
In closing, you now know why I am a skeptic, besides, I just can't believe we could ever cause this! Poor Polar Bear....
Lots of H/T's here... ABFreedom, Lone Pony, Bloviating Zeppelin, Gayle
Monday, January 22, 2007
Call Me a Flat Earther
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
The does tend to a speak with all the zeal and zest of a used car salesman or even worse, a TV Evangelist, but peer reviewed journals tend be very rational can reasonable, with no used car salesman talk, and absolutely no absolutes.
Don't judge climate change theories by what the media says.
As for scientists who deny climate change, you will notice that most of them have not had any peer reviewed journals published on this subject in quite a while. Anyone who has a PhD can say whatever they want, but if they can't get it published in a journal then it is of little validity.
The media does tend to a speak...
there thats better
"Anyone who has a PhD can say whatever they want, but if they can't get it published in a journal then it is of little validity."
Just what was Susuki's PHD in again? Something tells me it had nothing to do with this topic yet he is considered as an expert on it by many in this country. The same goes for a large portion of those scietists speaking out in favour of Kyoto.
The people I link to in this post are, in my opinion, far more qualified, published or not.
This now begs the question, which honestly I should have included in my post. Who is funding all of this research that promotes Kyoto? I know that Exxon had in the past and since under fire, stopped its funding of some of the nay sayers. But who is funding the YAY SAYERS? Which also begs another question... what would these folks be doing to make a living without Kyoto?
I would hope that policy would be based on the science from peer reviewed journals, and not from what Susuki says. I agree he is not an expert in this area.
As for who funds the YAY sayers? I do not believe it matters IF, and only if their work is in peer-reviewed journals, the same goes for nay sayers (but they are sorely out numbered in the peer reviewed journals where consensus has been reached), the peer-review process should take care to filter out papers that show an obvious bias, or where the methods/conclusions are in doubt.
The reason the nay-sayer funding comes under scrutiny is because most of these nay sayers are unable to get any of their nay-saying published.
In scientific debates (and the global climate change debate is most certainly a scientific one, or at least should be) the only information that matters is that from peer-reviewed journals, anything else isn't published for a reason.
"In scientific debates (and the global climate change debate is most certainly a scientific one, or at least should be) the only information that matters is that from peer-reviewed journals, anything else isn't published for a reason."
See my next post on this matter...
Climate Change Funding
But what of reports this past week of TheWeatherChannel not linking/publishing/whatever those that don't buy into climate change? What is science if not debate around scientific issues? Shutting down debate is not, to my knowledge, the road to Damascus.
The link to the weather channel fiasco is near the bottom of this post Candace.
"When people try to threaten others to change their views, I really start to wonder, more than ever."
And it is worse than just not "linking/publishing/whatever"... they want to Revoke AMS Certification of qualified meterologists just because they don’t buy into global warming. You know of course..."the debate is over... climate change is a fact!" Whatever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Post a Comment