Follow the money...
Dec. 10th, 2009 13:20![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mapsedgeThe general idea - that our planet's climate is changing - I do not dispute. I merely doubt that humans are a significant player, or that we have the means to alter or affect this change, then, now, or in the future, in any significant way. "Global Warming" as a pseudo-scientific dogma is about money, and lots of it.
I posit that these arguments are never going to be solved except in hindsight. Two or three hundred years down the road, our children's children, dressed in either heavy fur coats or shorts and flip-flops will look back on all this and be able to pick the winning side, but now I don't believe such a determination to be possible. The science, such as it is, is too new, too uncertain, and too filled with profit-potential and emotional knee-jerkiness for that.
It would be easy to draw a line in the sand, but the sand keeps shifting.
Should we reduce carbon emissions? YES. Because doing so will save the world? NO, and it's hubristically naive to think that we can. We should do it because it's healthier for us as a species...and, as it happens, for the species with whom we share this planet.
Should we end the use of fossil fuels? YES. Because doing so will save the planet from destruction? NO...well, yes, okay, if you consider leaving large, gaping holes in our planet's surface and under-surface structures to be destruction, which I do, then YES. Because doing so will leave us less at the mercy of several unstable governments who mean us no good will? YES. Because doing so will reduce carbon emissions and therefore stop global warming? NO. See previous question
Found a white paper online today that makes my argument in much better fashion than I ever could in the amount of time I have in any given day.
A few key excerpts:
Few scientists would dispute the fact that climate is changing on a planetarian scale, and there are good reasons to believe that some of the changing features are not part of a natural variation, but consequences of man-made pollution. What every good scientist will dispute, however, is whether this observed and ongoing change is, as the promoters of the 'global warming' myth dogmatically assert, an upward change in the atmosphere's mean global temperature - and whether the mechanism responsible for it is CO2 emission from fossil fuel combustion. Present-day climatology is vulnerable to these kinds of faddist dogmas - pushed forward as part of a political and media-driven agenda - because it lacks a functional, comprehensive, systematic and interconnected understanding of the nonlinear system formed by the atmosphere, the oceans, the land mass and the biosphere, and their interaction with solar radiation.
Pseudoscientific fads do not have, nor do they need, any reason to come about, being set in motion solely by the political and social forces that promote them, and the vested interests they serve. [emphasis mine]
'Global warming' is a clearcut example of the central role acquired by antiproduction in global capitalism. Its promoters, with peer-reviewed mainstream publications at the forefront, have struck gold - a very lucrative business, where nothing needs to be actually produced, not even real science, in order for a 'healthy' profit to be made under the cover of an altruistic advocacy voicing demands in the name of mankind...'
The complete article:
http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Politics_of_Science/Global_Warming/
I posit that these arguments are never going to be solved except in hindsight. Two or three hundred years down the road, our children's children, dressed in either heavy fur coats or shorts and flip-flops will look back on all this and be able to pick the winning side, but now I don't believe such a determination to be possible. The science, such as it is, is too new, too uncertain, and too filled with profit-potential and emotional knee-jerkiness for that.
It would be easy to draw a line in the sand, but the sand keeps shifting.
Should we reduce carbon emissions? YES. Because doing so will save the world? NO, and it's hubristically naive to think that we can. We should do it because it's healthier for us as a species...and, as it happens, for the species with whom we share this planet.
Should we end the use of fossil fuels? YES. Because doing so will save the planet from destruction? NO...well, yes, okay, if you consider leaving large, gaping holes in our planet's surface and under-surface structures to be destruction, which I do, then YES. Because doing so will leave us less at the mercy of several unstable governments who mean us no good will? YES. Because doing so will reduce carbon emissions and therefore stop global warming? NO. See previous question
Found a white paper online today that makes my argument in much better fashion than I ever could in the amount of time I have in any given day.
A few key excerpts:
Few scientists would dispute the fact that climate is changing on a planetarian scale, and there are good reasons to believe that some of the changing features are not part of a natural variation, but consequences of man-made pollution. What every good scientist will dispute, however, is whether this observed and ongoing change is, as the promoters of the 'global warming' myth dogmatically assert, an upward change in the atmosphere's mean global temperature - and whether the mechanism responsible for it is CO2 emission from fossil fuel combustion. Present-day climatology is vulnerable to these kinds of faddist dogmas - pushed forward as part of a political and media-driven agenda - because it lacks a functional, comprehensive, systematic and interconnected understanding of the nonlinear system formed by the atmosphere, the oceans, the land mass and the biosphere, and their interaction with solar radiation.
Pseudoscientific fads do not have, nor do they need, any reason to come about, being set in motion solely by the political and social forces that promote them, and the vested interests they serve. [emphasis mine]
'Global warming' is a clearcut example of the central role acquired by antiproduction in global capitalism. Its promoters, with peer-reviewed mainstream publications at the forefront, have struck gold - a very lucrative business, where nothing needs to be actually produced, not even real science, in order for a 'healthy' profit to be made under the cover of an altruistic advocacy voicing demands in the name of mankind...'
The complete article:
http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Politics_of_Science/Global_Warming/