Hi,
It's March madness so what better time to explore GLOBAL WARMING (speculation that the earth's temperature is in a state of fever which is likely to continue unless treated by a change in man's actions and attitudes) or more technically "potential changes associated with increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases". The theory has many ramifications. In other words the LEPRECHAUNS are at it again!
It is hard to have an opinion on anything these days without the accusation of "You're being political", not to say that GLOBAL WARMING isn't political by its very theoretical "nature" (excuse the play on words).
But try to see the sense I am trying to make out of the GLOBAL controversy in order for us to make reasoned judgements. If I am moved to make a Political statement, I'll announce it. After all, I'm not a politician. I don't have to play the fool.
The theories of climate change have been called a hard science which means they can be proven by fact. Unfortunately, this category does not really seem to fit. The errors made by environmental mathematical theories have been astounding. Like much of our exploration of nature's patterns, this has been more of a social science than a hard science. Maybe we need another classification like: semi-hard science.
Or call in COLIN, the LEPRECHAUN to reclassify it but not on St. Patric's Day. He's in a parade. He is my main Leprechaun in "Leprechaun Lucht")> The title means Leprechaun folk.
Man's (Man is the generic approach and doesn't preclude women, children or pets so it is POLITELY CORRECT - yes, I meant polite) I repeat man's approach to nature is an EGOTISTICAL one. No matter how much proof is given by the random acts of nature, man is certain he can sort them out, create a pattern, and stop the random acts or regulate them. YEAH!!!!????
Let's see. Some years back SEEDING HURRICANES was going to be able to stop or redirect them. Whatever happened to that?????????? in the 1940's DDT was touted as the greatest proof against nature's problems. Whatever happened to that??????????? Oh yeah, I remember, they're saying now after 500,000 deaths from mosquito born diseases, they may have been right before they banned it!......... Redirecting water's flow was boasted as a deterrent to drought by the civil engineers. Whatever happened to that??????? There's a hell of a lot about nature that we don't know and we do a lot of ASS U ME ing. (Ye old definition for assumption).
The point: GLOBAL WARMING IS ANOTHER THEORY CALLED HARD SCIENCE but all the debate has placed it in the Social Sciences because there's a real lack of hard facts and a lot of theory which may be right or wrong. (ya think??)
When faced with unexpected or unknown elements in nature, is it possible that man's ego simply goes ballistic and he dons the armor of war??
GLOBAL WARMING involves financially driven Economics since millions are already being invested and businesses formed (some big ones by Al Gore) to take advantage of the huge profits expected to be involved. I have no problem with private enterprise using the concept for profit but before I buy shares (through my tax money and Government involvement)in GLOBAL WARMING enterprises, I'd like to have some HARD FACTS.
To begin: Scientist agree that we live in an ENORMOUSLY COMPLEX CLIMATE SYSTEM. A system, by the way,in which our scientists acknowledge ignorance. The Experts' ignorance only exceeds ours by a small amount! The recent Hawaiian tsunami warnings about a non-event underline the experts' error margins.
That ignorance (remember: ignorance is not stupidity-just lack of knowledge) causes some Scientists to bluster about their beliefs and say we are in a long-term warming trend, occasionally interrupted by cooling: GLOBAL WARMING.
Other scientists bluster that we are in a 30-year cooling trend (yeah--this year sure felt like it) and that the warming that began in 1977 is over. GLOBAL COOLING.
Both sides use projected statistical temperatures to prove their view. Not really hard facts either way.
Our version of government weather scientists, NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association), strongly disagree with any discussion that does not promote the change in CO2 levels. NOAA accepts completely the EGOCENTRIC (We're just so darn important that nature must bend to our faults) theory ON ECOLOGY making MAN the culprit!
Okay we're MIGHTY MANand nature is just helpless nature.(Right??......have you seen a weed completely die from the cold, draught or heat????? If they diminish at all, they come back when the weather improves?)
Why don't we just work on adjusting CO2 (carbon dioxide levels) levels without a debate over the warming or cooling of the climate? Seems like a worthy cause and then we don't have to speculate (in the gambling mode again) on who is right and wrong. Change will be costly for business and consumer (we've had a few lessons in change in recent years) but job creating companies can provide new and imaginative alternatives for the altered products.
Unfortunately, that simple answer does not create a new Industry based on the weather. Since weather is seen as a new frontier that we haven't even come close to conquering, why not let our entrepreneurs tackle the business. If we must expand to a war on nature to salve our fears and egos, let the money men tackle it. Folks like Al Gore, who got a Noble Prize for issuing dire speculative warnings about GLOBAL WARMING, should reap the rewards of his theories. In the course of so doing, he'll probably do a lot of good as well as a lot of harm.
Finding so little hard information and so much debate and speculation, I'm at a loss to offer much more clarification. No matter how much you hear about everyone agreeing on GLOBAL WARMING, there continues to be debate in the Scientific Community.
Roger A. Pielke, Jr. in an article for the Center for Science at Columbia University, likened the debate to CASSANDRAS warning of "impending doom" and DOROTHYS "exposing the great uncertainty" in the scientific models. He said both sides are given to excesses and taking moral positions. And he declares:
"From the standpoint of science, however, the debate is a draw.
We have learned much more about climate over the past decade, but arguably we are no closer to gleaning the future state of the climate. The relationship between human activities, the Atmosphere, and indeed the global environment is much more complicated than scientists had thought.....accurate predictions of future climate--decades or more hence--remain out of reach." Mr. Pielke predicts "the debate will rage on" because our "environment is vulnerable" for myriad reasons beyond CO2 emissions.
GLOBAL LEPRECHAUNS ARE AT WORK!!!
I'll only make one recommendation in light of the debate by Scientists and if this seems political after all I have written. Sorry!!!!
My Dad always advised me "WHEN IN DOUBT, DON'T!!!!" It's stood me in good stead over the years.
Cheers, Connie
It's March madness so what better time to explore GLOBAL WARMING (speculation that the earth's temperature is in a state of fever which is likely to continue unless treated by a change in man's actions and attitudes) or more technically "potential changes associated with increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases". The theory has many ramifications. In other words the LEPRECHAUNS are at it again!
It is hard to have an opinion on anything these days without the accusation of "You're being political", not to say that GLOBAL WARMING isn't political by its very theoretical "nature" (excuse the play on words).
But try to see the sense I am trying to make out of the GLOBAL controversy in order for us to make reasoned judgements. If I am moved to make a Political statement, I'll announce it. After all, I'm not a politician. I don't have to play the fool.
The theories of climate change have been called a hard science which means they can be proven by fact. Unfortunately, this category does not really seem to fit. The errors made by environmental mathematical theories have been astounding. Like much of our exploration of nature's patterns, this has been more of a social science than a hard science. Maybe we need another classification like: semi-hard science.
Or call in COLIN, the LEPRECHAUN to reclassify it but not on St. Patric's Day. He's in a parade. He is my main Leprechaun in "Leprechaun Lucht")> The title means Leprechaun folk.
Man's (Man is the generic approach and doesn't preclude women, children or pets so it is POLITELY CORRECT - yes, I meant polite) I repeat man's approach to nature is an EGOTISTICAL one. No matter how much proof is given by the random acts of nature, man is certain he can sort them out, create a pattern, and stop the random acts or regulate them. YEAH!!!!????
Let's see. Some years back SEEDING HURRICANES was going to be able to stop or redirect them. Whatever happened to that?????????? in the 1940's DDT was touted as the greatest proof against nature's problems. Whatever happened to that??????????? Oh yeah, I remember, they're saying now after 500,000 deaths from mosquito born diseases, they may have been right before they banned it!......... Redirecting water's flow was boasted as a deterrent to drought by the civil engineers. Whatever happened to that??????? There's a hell of a lot about nature that we don't know and we do a lot of ASS U ME ing. (Ye old definition for assumption).
The point: GLOBAL WARMING IS ANOTHER THEORY CALLED HARD SCIENCE but all the debate has placed it in the Social Sciences because there's a real lack of hard facts and a lot of theory which may be right or wrong. (ya think??)
When faced with unexpected or unknown elements in nature, is it possible that man's ego simply goes ballistic and he dons the armor of war??
GLOBAL WARMING involves financially driven Economics since millions are already being invested and businesses formed (some big ones by Al Gore) to take advantage of the huge profits expected to be involved. I have no problem with private enterprise using the concept for profit but before I buy shares (through my tax money and Government involvement)in GLOBAL WARMING enterprises, I'd like to have some HARD FACTS.
To begin: Scientist agree that we live in an ENORMOUSLY COMPLEX CLIMATE SYSTEM. A system, by the way,in which our scientists acknowledge ignorance. The Experts' ignorance only exceeds ours by a small amount! The recent Hawaiian tsunami warnings about a non-event underline the experts' error margins.
That ignorance (remember: ignorance is not stupidity-just lack of knowledge) causes some Scientists to bluster about their beliefs and say we are in a long-term warming trend, occasionally interrupted by cooling: GLOBAL WARMING.
Other scientists bluster that we are in a 30-year cooling trend (yeah--this year sure felt like it) and that the warming that began in 1977 is over. GLOBAL COOLING.
Both sides use projected statistical temperatures to prove their view. Not really hard facts either way.
Our version of government weather scientists, NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association), strongly disagree with any discussion that does not promote the change in CO2 levels. NOAA accepts completely the EGOCENTRIC (We're just so darn important that nature must bend to our faults) theory ON ECOLOGY making MAN the culprit!
Okay we're MIGHTY MANand nature is just helpless nature.(Right??......have you seen a weed completely die from the cold, draught or heat????? If they diminish at all, they come back when the weather improves?)
Why don't we just work on adjusting CO2 (carbon dioxide levels) levels without a debate over the warming or cooling of the climate? Seems like a worthy cause and then we don't have to speculate (in the gambling mode again) on who is right and wrong. Change will be costly for business and consumer (we've had a few lessons in change in recent years) but job creating companies can provide new and imaginative alternatives for the altered products.
Unfortunately, that simple answer does not create a new Industry based on the weather. Since weather is seen as a new frontier that we haven't even come close to conquering, why not let our entrepreneurs tackle the business. If we must expand to a war on nature to salve our fears and egos, let the money men tackle it. Folks like Al Gore, who got a Noble Prize for issuing dire speculative warnings about GLOBAL WARMING, should reap the rewards of his theories. In the course of so doing, he'll probably do a lot of good as well as a lot of harm.
Finding so little hard information and so much debate and speculation, I'm at a loss to offer much more clarification. No matter how much you hear about everyone agreeing on GLOBAL WARMING, there continues to be debate in the Scientific Community.
Roger A. Pielke, Jr. in an article for the Center for Science at Columbia University, likened the debate to CASSANDRAS warning of "impending doom" and DOROTHYS "exposing the great uncertainty" in the scientific models. He said both sides are given to excesses and taking moral positions. And he declares:
"From the standpoint of science, however, the debate is a draw.
We have learned much more about climate over the past decade, but arguably we are no closer to gleaning the future state of the climate. The relationship between human activities, the Atmosphere, and indeed the global environment is much more complicated than scientists had thought.....accurate predictions of future climate--decades or more hence--remain out of reach." Mr. Pielke predicts "the debate will rage on" because our "environment is vulnerable" for myriad reasons beyond CO2 emissions.
GLOBAL LEPRECHAUNS ARE AT WORK!!!
I'll only make one recommendation in light of the debate by Scientists and if this seems political after all I have written. Sorry!!!!
My Dad always advised me "WHEN IN DOUBT, DON'T!!!!" It's stood me in good stead over the years.
Cheers, Connie
No comments:
Post a Comment