At first I was skeptical about Global Warming (GW). Then the mathematician in me saw that too many record high temperatures are occurring in the 2000s to have them be uniformly distributed, ergo the Earth must be warming. Then I assumed that the GW movement was more or less on solid ground. I don't believe that any more. Two issues have convinced me that it is a political movement.
First, the ecological alligator closest to us is China. They are positively raping the environment and much of their industrial waste, particularly that which is in their rivers, is afflicting the rest of the world. When you see environmental demonstrations and marches, do you see any pictures of the Chinese leadership with devil's horns? Do you hear any speeches demanding that the UN take action about China? No. What you do hear is that President Bush is evil. GW is just a stick to beat President Bush.
Secondly, if CO2 was the cause of globabl warming, then how come in previous global warming eras, before industrialization, we didn't see a feedback loop leading to more warming? That is, as the ocean gets warmer, it releases more CO2. That should cause more warming, right? Wrong. It didn't.
So what gives? Why the fussing about the US and our SUVs increasing the sea level by a few inches in a decade or two, but nothing at all about China completely wrecking the environment right now? Occam's Razor tells us that the simplest answer that fits the facts is probably the right one.
The GW movement is a political movement and has very little to do with the environment.
Actually the people who deny GW are now pointing the fingers at China. Why? Because suddenly they realize there is GW and it's not happening in their own backyard :) That itself is more political than anything.
ReplyDeleteIf GW really doesn't happen, then why the White House said on 02/07/07 "President Bush committed the US to continue leadership on the issue of GW since 2001 and has dedicated nearly $29 BILLION dollars to advance climate-related science, technology, international assistance, and incentive programs."
$29B is not a small sum - it's our (every tax payer's) money.
Of course, on the same day, President Bush also asked Congress to approve a $245 Billion budget to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Well - giving $29B to save the world, yet let's spend another $245B to destroy it - and really, it's nothing political about it :)
Why did W promise $29B for GW? Errr, because he's a politican? Did I get it right?
ReplyDeleteIt's the same reason he's traveling to Brazil to promote ethanol. Saving the world one stupid idea at a time.
Try http://www.activistcash.com.
ReplyDeleteSpend a little time looking at the way the money from big Foundations are used to influence public policy and your opinions, and where the big money is being made by doing so.
Yeah, these guys have an agenda, too, but theirs is a perspective that doesn't get any press.
When you do a Google search for “Global Warming,” one of the top two results that always pops up is the Wikipedia entry for this subject. Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Unfortunately, most of the people that sign up and edit this article exhibit a clear pro-global warming/anti-American view. This means that everyone from school children to the media are getting this highly biased view of Global Warming, when they research this topic via a Google search. Fortunately, however, ANYONE can sign up on Wikipedia free of charge in less than one minute and edit this article. I would encourage everyone to sign up and contribute to this article, to ensure balanced coverage for all to read.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming