Global Warming is a Hot Topic
Here’s a cool article on how contentious and divisive the global warming issue is. Ten years ago, we had John McCain as the most visible climate champion; even G.W. Bush was talking about the need to regulate carbon emissions.
Now? The Earth is significantly hotter than it was then, but one entire political party believes that man-made climate change is a hoax. According to the author, the whole subject is more contentious than abortion.
If it weren’t so tragic, I would find this hilarious. In the case of abortion, at least you’re talking about opinions; I don’t think that anyone on either side of the issue would say that a woman’s right to an abortion or the fetus’s right to life is a “fact.” On the other hand, climate change is fact-based physics, and we need to keep in mind that physics really does not give a damn about your or my opinion.
” On the other hand, climate change is fact-based physics, and we need to keep in mind that physics really does not give a damn about your or my opinion ”
Ah, but whose “physics” ?
Why is Professor Valentina Zharkova,with degrees in Chemistry, Applied Mathematics and Astronomy, Geo-physics and a Ph.D. in Astrophysics, not a “climate scientist” , but Dr Nat Hagen, an economist is considered a “climate Scientist” ?
It could be this confusion, allied with the politicization and ferocious fanaticism of some climate change advocates which has damaged the message.
It could be. .. but it isn’t. In my travels, I’ve spent some time with people like Rajendra Pachauri of the IPCC and V. Ramanathan of the Scripps Institute, people (scientists in any sense of the word) who, together with the research reports I’ve read, that the theory of anthropogenic climate change is completely valid. You would come to the same conclusions if you had spent time with these people, I can assure you.
Craig,
You haven’t really answered the question,…well then again, maybe you have.
Because you have met with someone you consider a scientist, Rajendra Pachauri, whose qualifications are in the study of Industrial Engineering and Economics, and is a strict vegetarian on environmental grounds, you have become a disciple.
Is the fact that you’ve met Dr Pachauri your only criteria ?
Now with all due respect to Dr Pachauri, and discounting the adverse finds against him for sexual harassment etc (that has nothing to do with his scientific credentials) or even the errors he made in regard to antarctic melt and island submergence, you must admit his reputation has been made because of his activism, rather than his scientific insights.
That’s not to say activism, and advocacy necessarily hinder scientific objectivity, but it can’t be ruled out.
Most us agree on the probability of human contribution to climate change, based on scientific studies, is a reasonable hypothesis. Few would argue that actions to reduce or mitigate the risk is not a reasonable and responsible policy.
However, what those policies should be, and the choice of scientific opinion is by no means clear.
So, I reiterate the question, what makes Dr Pachauri scientific credentials superior to Professor Valentina Zharkova ?
(I have no idea of Prof. Zharkova’s diet)
MP: Here again I would advise you to take it easy, my friend; you’re working way too hard.
You don’t honestly believe that:
– because Dr. Pachauri is a strict vegetarian on environmental grounds that I think he’s theories are valid.
– I think Pachauri’s credentials are superior to Zharkova’s.
Give me a break. Please, relax. Calm yourself. Ahhhhh. That feels better, doesn’t it? 🙂
Craig,
I’m an analyst, an annoyingly calm profession:)
Well, since Prof. Zharkova’s findings conflict with Dr Pachauri (or Dr Hagen) why do you advocate a preference for one over the other ?
I mean, it’s reasonable (if not terribly scientific)for you to prefer Dr Hagen and Dr Pachauri because;
A) You’ve met these gentlemen.
B) As advocates they support and agree with your ideological/philosophic/political convictions.
It’s reasonable for you to disagree with Prof. Zharkova because:
A) You’ve never met her
B) You would class her as a “climate denier”, whose “false science” offends your ideological/philosophic/political convictions.
Of course I could be wrong, but I am assuming that, like me, you don’t possess the level of scientific knowledge to discredit the science behind Prof.
Zharkova’s conclusions.
( also these are the only reasons you’ve provided)
My point is that when it comes to advanced scientific analysis we are bot in the hands of experts.
It’s true that some of the “scientists” academic qualifications can be an indication, but even that’s not really reliable.
In reality, it all becomes a matter of hearing what we want to hear. But that’s not science !
Follow the money and the Gomers are feeding on the money flow of the Carbon Masters so it is no wonder they ignore reality What is sa is that the news media lost its Integrity years ago and does not look out for the so called public’s best interest.
Their job is present shock and controversy and perpetuate the circles of confused and erratic discourse and then go sell ADs to the Sources and Creators of the problems. Everyone Nods and Winks and the Lawyers clean up all details – so majority of the public is Confused and Ignorant. Easy to manipulate for sure.
A Nation of Lemmings or Sheeple for sure so the GOMER Party remains in the game despite being Devoid of any sound policies .
Even Ol John MsCainn once a reasonable Fella, has been forced to abandon his principles and play the Take Pride in Being Stupid Gomer
Game
amen