Reader Request: Climate change bullshit. Part One
A reader asked for my views on climate change and the environment.
Of course, there is a need to determine the cause of any climate change that may exist.
But this is clear: such a need is important mainly to determine whether mankind is in danger, and if so, to determine what environmental steps should be taken.
What is not emphasized enough is this: it is likely beneficial to phase some environmentally friendly solutions into everyday life regardless of whether mankind is threatened.
Why? Well, it's a simple weighing of benefits versus the costs.
There seems to be widespread agreement that some environmentally friendly solutions are, in the long run, cheaper. And of course, by using some environmentally friendly solutions, you don't consume alternative limited resources.
An example would be placing solar panels on a home's roof in order to generate electricity. The start up cost is high, but you tend to save money in the long run. And you reduce the level of demand on the electricity grid, reducing the chances of a blackout occurring. Depending on the altered supply/demand equation, it's possible electricity prices would also decrease. (However, if electricity prices would be otherwise projected to rise by a large enough amount, that's something that should be factored into the scale of the rollout of solar panel implementation).
The environmental issue is one of the few traditionally liberal issues for which I find supporting logic.
As for those that deny climate change is man-made, before I get into examining climate change, I will say this: I suspect sizable numbers of those people could care less what the evidence demonstrates. I suspect many are connected to the non-renewable energy industry and don't want to see their profits reduced as energy use switches from non-renewable to renewable sources.
On the other hand, I suspect that sizable numbers of people in the environmentally friendly camp may fall into the environmentally friendly camp not so much out of concern for the environment, but as a result of anger against capitalist businesses.
So, is climate change man-made? Well, I am not knowledgeable enough about the subject to offer a fully developed opinion, because I haven't spent adequate time researching the complicated subject.
In order for a non-expert to answer a question that relies on examination of countless sources of evidence from around the world, one might start by looking at expert scientific opinions.
Unfortunately, unless you plan on looking at the journal articles yourselves, you'd have to rely on excerpts and self-selections by the mainstream media, which tend to be left wing and have an agenda that does not deem it important to provide the truth.
Even worse, even scientific organizations themselves seem to have been affected by pressure to present a certain viewpoint, regardless of what the science says!
If I remember correctly, during the 1990s the American Psychological Association created some type of task force to summarize intelligence-related research. I remember that their official findings seemed to contradict much science, and many scientists were outraged.
Look at what’s happening with environmental issues:
“US physics professor: 'Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life'”
An Emeritus Professor resigned from the American Physical Society and stated:
“It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare.”
If I hadn’t read this article, I probably would’ve assumed man’s activities were the main cause of global warming. But perhaps one shouldn’t assume the validity of the media’s (and even the scientific community’s) presentations. The above link would provide me with enough pause to want to investigate further, as would the fact that a judge ruled that Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” movie included nine significant errors (and yet still won an Oscar!)!
All I’m saying is that in this type of environment, with misinformation common, it can become hard to know what to believe unless you examine the evidence in great detail yourself.
Continued in Part Two
A reader asked for my views on climate change and the environment.
Of course, there is a need to determine the cause of any climate change that may exist.
But this is clear: such a need is important mainly to determine whether mankind is in danger, and if so, to determine what environmental steps should be taken.
What is not emphasized enough is this: it is likely beneficial to phase some environmentally friendly solutions into everyday life regardless of whether mankind is threatened.
Why? Well, it's a simple weighing of benefits versus the costs.
There seems to be widespread agreement that some environmentally friendly solutions are, in the long run, cheaper. And of course, by using some environmentally friendly solutions, you don't consume alternative limited resources.
An example would be placing solar panels on a home's roof in order to generate electricity. The start up cost is high, but you tend to save money in the long run. And you reduce the level of demand on the electricity grid, reducing the chances of a blackout occurring. Depending on the altered supply/demand equation, it's possible electricity prices would also decrease. (However, if electricity prices would be otherwise projected to rise by a large enough amount, that's something that should be factored into the scale of the rollout of solar panel implementation).
The environmental issue is one of the few traditionally liberal issues for which I find supporting logic.
As for those that deny climate change is man-made, before I get into examining climate change, I will say this: I suspect sizable numbers of those people could care less what the evidence demonstrates. I suspect many are connected to the non-renewable energy industry and don't want to see their profits reduced as energy use switches from non-renewable to renewable sources.
On the other hand, I suspect that sizable numbers of people in the environmentally friendly camp may fall into the environmentally friendly camp not so much out of concern for the environment, but as a result of anger against capitalist businesses.
So, is climate change man-made? Well, I am not knowledgeable enough about the subject to offer a fully developed opinion, because I haven't spent adequate time researching the complicated subject.
In order for a non-expert to answer a question that relies on examination of countless sources of evidence from around the world, one might start by looking at expert scientific opinions.
Unfortunately, unless you plan on looking at the journal articles yourselves, you'd have to rely on excerpts and self-selections by the mainstream media, which tend to be left wing and have an agenda that does not deem it important to provide the truth.
Even worse, even scientific organizations themselves seem to have been affected by pressure to present a certain viewpoint, regardless of what the science says!
If I remember correctly, during the 1990s the American Psychological Association created some type of task force to summarize intelligence-related research. I remember that their official findings seemed to contradict much science, and many scientists were outraged.
Look at what’s happening with environmental issues:
“US physics professor: 'Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life'”
An Emeritus Professor resigned from the American Physical Society and stated:
“It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare.”
If I hadn’t read this article, I probably would’ve assumed man’s activities were the main cause of global warming. But perhaps one shouldn’t assume the validity of the media’s (and even the scientific community’s) presentations. The above link would provide me with enough pause to want to investigate further, as would the fact that a judge ruled that Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” movie included nine significant errors (and yet still won an Oscar!)!
All I’m saying is that in this type of environment, with misinformation common, it can become hard to know what to believe unless you examine the evidence in great detail yourself.
Continued in Part Two
HTML Comment Box is loading comments...