Getting to the Root of the Climate Change Debate
The following is taken from an interesting article about the debate over climate change (a link to the whole article is provided): It is very difficult to understand the climate change denial platform on a purely philosophical and scientific level. Climate change is a rather obvious aspect of the history of the Earth and clearly man interacts with climate in an increasingly dynamic manner. That this is even debated appears on the surface to be not a little ridiculous-somewhere on the level of discussing whether the Earth is round or flat.
It is the semantics of it all, which, when combined with politics and the necessary religio-political elements, muddies the waters. For partisan policy camps, it is probably beneficial that the average reader doesn't really have a clue what anyone means when they say "climate change", and throwing "global warming" into the mix only adds to the general confusion.
But here, scientists, climate change activist elite and environmental officials reading this will say that this is simplifying matters and that the real debate is not whether the climate is changing but the scale of that change as a result of our own actions. The debate, on this level, is about numbers, and it is sufficiently vague to render it a convenient instrument of politics. To this climate change elite, both "deniers" and "believers", there is only one thing to say: You have not brought the debate to the masses in a coherent way.
The rest of the article can be found here -- Climate Change: Brand or Be Branded
![[SOHO Sun Spot Image]](http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/eit_304/1024/latest.jpg)
The root of AGW
Prior to the question of climate sensitivity is the question of whether warming is more harmful or more helpful to civilization and the environment. That warming is vastly more helpful than harmful has been shown by Thomas Gale Moore in his books,Global warming : a boon to humans and other animals & Climate of fear : why we shouldn't worry about global warming. Whether warming is anthropogenic or natural it is a great good fortune and not something to fight.
Everyman shrugs, "A pox on both their houses."
Stirred by the article you have cited, I have ruminated a bit and arrive at these conclusions:
I. Most politicians inhabit their professional perspective and really don't care a wit about the numbers and graphs that scientists are wont to deliver on this subject, or possibly any other.
II. Most scientists similarly are preoccupied with their erudite discipline and scorn the blabbering of the political class.
III. Politicians of the denier or skeptic persuasion will argue and discuss ad infinitum with one another within their Beltway Bubble.
Scientific specialists pro or con in the matter of global warming, anthropogenic or otherwise, also engage technically with gusto.
IV. The 'masses,' unwashed or otherwise, rate this issue near the bottom of their real world concerns. Fringes of these masses, curled up or down on the issue, make a lot of noise and are a source of amusement to the 'professionals.'
I am a scientist denier and I wrote the above announcement shrouded in some perplexity.
H Paalman
The most fundamental assumption.
Prior to the issue of climate sensitivity is that of the judgement of whether warming is more harmful or helpful, no matter whether it is anthropogenic or natural. When one recognizes that the preponderance of the evidence is that warming is beneficial, sensitivity is aside from the point. Thomas Gale Moore has made this clear in his two books, Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn't Worry about Global Warming and Global warming : a boon to humans and other animals.
Where I Stand, The Short Version
On occasion I run into someone unfamiliar with my skeptical stand on global warming and I have to provide a fairly concise summary of my position. Here is a recent attempt at such a summary [please forgive the invective, I was rather grouchy that day]:
I think that humans, like all other significant species on Earth, have an impact on their surroundings. Through land-use change and industrialization we have undoubtedly changed the climate and ecology of our planet. I also accept that the trend over the past century has been a gradual rise in temperature (which is possibly a good thing). Where I depart from the popularly held but incorrect view of global warming is over the dogmatic, pseudo-scientific pap spread by the IPCC and its lackeys.
By that I mean the “ecological doom is nigh because of anthropogenic global warming” lies spread by self-serving UN bureaucrats, grant money scrounging climate scientists and their political toadies. I am particularly incensed by the “CO2 is a greenhouse gas, humans make CO2 therefore people are the main cause of global warming” fairytale told to the public by suppurating ass cankers like Al Gore, Hollywood morons like Leonardo DiCaprio and the airhead news media. I spent four years doing research before writing The Resilient Earth and found no credible, empirical data that indicates the warming we are seeing is outside of normal, historical levels or that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is the major cause of the recent warming.
In short, I think that there is little danger that we shall suffer the multitude of catastrophes outlined in the IPCC reports. I find the idea that humanity can ruin the planet via CO2 emissions unsupportable and smacking of hubris—humanity is just not so influential that we can permanently mess up the planet by accident. There are real ecological challenges about, but global warming is only a distraction, a distraction that is being used by NGOs, UN functionaries, “green” politicians and other parasites to promote themselves and their pet causes (just check out the human offal that attended the Rio+20 conference, it is not just the GSA types who know how to party on other people’s dime).
As far as I can tell, Earth’s orbital conformation will slowly lead back into a glacial period (technically, we are still in an Ice Age). Anywhere from 1,000 to 15,000 years from now we will find glaciers advancing, ocean levels falling and the world growing colder. As I say in my blog posts, enjoy the interglacial while you can.