17 February, 2010 • 22:33
In the early 1970s, the populace at-large was warned about “Global Cooling,” the threat of a new ice age burying the temperate latitudes in snow and ice, freezing crops and starving hundreds of millions of people. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Malthusian nightmare changed from cooling to warming. Now the planet would heat up and desiccate its landmasses, flooding coastlines and causing plants to wither, starving billions. This time the changes also had a principal cause: Man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
Unfortunately for the Chicken Little crowd, the crude computer models that predicted an increasingly alarming rise in temperatures were shown to be exaggerated. So in the late 1990s and early 2000s, we were treated to a new threat with the same cause: Climate Change™. Now, every bit of severe weather, every extreme in temperature whether hot or cold can be blamed on the emissions of factories and automobiles, because we human beings arechanging our climate.
This, of course, ignores the fact that the makeup of Earth’s atmosphere and its global climate has been changing constantly for the planet’s entire existence. Indeed, the term “Climate Change™” is incorrect. What these individuals are actually proposing is “anthropogenic climate change,” since our climate is already constantly evolving. Simply calling the process Climate Change™ insinuates to the uninformed that our climate has always been and will always be the same except for the influence of man, which is preposterously fallacious. Read the rest of this entry »
Filed under: environment, science, anthropogenic, climate, climate change, climategate, cru, east anglia, global cooling, global warming, malthus, malthusian, pseudo science
The London Telegraph was so profoundly upset by the news that the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU) had allegedly falsified data that they felt compelled to issue a press release:
Sceptics claim the emails show climate change data was being manipulated.
Prof Jones, director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), has said he “absolutely” stands by the science produced by the centre – and that suggestions of a conspiracy to alter evidence to support a theory of man-made global warming were “complete rubbish”.
Nowhere in the article does the Telegraph cite any Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) skeptic, but byline-free (no author listed) article managed to talk to four individuals closely associated with the CRU to find their take on the matter, now that the unit’s director is temporarily stepping down while an “independent investigation” is launched. Read the rest of this entry »
Filed under: environment, media, science, agw, climate, climate change, climategate, cru, global warming, scandal, telegraph
In Monty Python’s The Life of Brian, the main character named Brian has been mistaken for the Messiah. This was a not-altogether farcical premise, as there were many would-be Messiahs (or as I and other Christians believe, false Messiahs) in Judea in the many centuries of Roman occupation.
In any event, Brian has been mistaken for the Messiah and despite his protests has already built a following of many hundred or perhaps thousands of followers in just a few short hours. Brian has been denying is “divine” existence consistently, and runs off to escape the throng of worshippers. In doing so, he accidentally steps on an old hermit’s foot, causing him to cry out in pain, breaking a years-long vow of silence. When the throng catches up with Brian, they discover this man does not believe in Brian’s divinity and so begins their religious persecution of the heretic unbeliever.
While I always considered the idea of a religion being formed in a matter of hours or days to be laughable at best, I am beginning to see a trend developing over the past few years in modern culture: The Religion of Pseudo-Science.
Think about it: Both science and religion attempt to offer an explanation for our existence. Both have mythical-seeming figures: Jesus, Buddha, Moses, Mohammed and others for religion; Archemedes, Pythagorus, Copernicus and Newton for science. Both use techniques, terminology and skills that are generally little understood by the average person. Both are taught. Both use previous delineated knowledge to support their current interpretations and extrapolations.
Science has one thing that religion does not: For many it is perceived to be the anti-religion. There is no God. No ritualistic worship rituals. No high-up spiritual leader telling people how to interperet their findings and what they should believe in spite of alternate evidence.
Wait a tick on that last one:
Read the rest of this entry »
Filed under: environment, science, agw, Al Gore, cabon, cap and trade, climate, climate change, consensus, global warming, model, monty python, predictability, prediction, pseudo science, religion, repeatability