Let's see how pissed off at me people will be.
I don't know why, but man-made Global Warming is like a religion to people and I imagine that if I post this I will recieve Jihad like death threats. People just get so pissed when you try to present them with alternative data. I don't understand it.
This is a letter I sent to Time magazine they declined to print.
As a news magazine, do you ever feel the need to examine the other side of Global Warming? There are some very reputable scientists that disagree with the political organization known as the IPCC. How about questioning why the IPCC blatantly uses unqualified environment activists instead of experts like Paul Reiter in the field they want studied? How about examining Al Gore’s scary chart that actually shows a completely different conclusion than the one he presents the audience? How about examining the actual percentage of greenhouse gases humans cause to go into the air and contrast them to the percentages of wildfires, volcanoes and cows?
You do a disservice to your readers by not presenting both sides of the debate. In the article by Bryan Walsh “going Green” the typical scare tactics are used. “The Dane’s grasp of climate science seems shaky at best. The polar bear is far from okay: the U.S. Geological Survey reported last month that two thirds of the population will disappear by 2050 because of shrinking sea ice.”
Really? They can “report” on what is going to happen in 2050? Currently, despite the fear-mongering, polar bears are remaining stable and in some areas, increasing in number. The fact is polar bears are okay. They are just fine. You can’t “report” their number in 2050, you can only predict it. And then, only IF wildly variable climate models are to be trusted. Which they can’t. Nor can you predict what the bears will do if faced with shrinking ice. You can’t “report” that they will all just die.
I believe our planet is warming or cooling. Why wouldn’t I? It’s been having ice ages and thaws for hundreds of millions of years. Greenland used to have arable land. Then it was covered in ice. Now it’s thawing again. How is this a sign we’re causing this to happen?
As a news magazine you should be looking at both sides of the issue, but in fact, you are ignoring a great deal of valid science and scientists that are looking at other explanations for Global Warming than human’s use of fossil fuels.
This is a letter I sent to Time magazine they declined to print.
As a news magazine, do you ever feel the need to examine the other side of Global Warming? There are some very reputable scientists that disagree with the political organization known as the IPCC. How about questioning why the IPCC blatantly uses unqualified environment activists instead of experts like Paul Reiter in the field they want studied? How about examining Al Gore’s scary chart that actually shows a completely different conclusion than the one he presents the audience? How about examining the actual percentage of greenhouse gases humans cause to go into the air and contrast them to the percentages of wildfires, volcanoes and cows?
You do a disservice to your readers by not presenting both sides of the debate. In the article by Bryan Walsh “going Green” the typical scare tactics are used. “The Dane’s grasp of climate science seems shaky at best. The polar bear is far from okay: the U.S. Geological Survey reported last month that two thirds of the population will disappear by 2050 because of shrinking sea ice.”
Really? They can “report” on what is going to happen in 2050? Currently, despite the fear-mongering, polar bears are remaining stable and in some areas, increasing in number. The fact is polar bears are okay. They are just fine. You can’t “report” their number in 2050, you can only predict it. And then, only IF wildly variable climate models are to be trusted. Which they can’t. Nor can you predict what the bears will do if faced with shrinking ice. You can’t “report” that they will all just die.
I believe our planet is warming or cooling. Why wouldn’t I? It’s been having ice ages and thaws for hundreds of millions of years. Greenland used to have arable land. Then it was covered in ice. Now it’s thawing again. How is this a sign we’re causing this to happen?
As a news magazine you should be looking at both sides of the issue, but in fact, you are ignoring a great deal of valid science and scientists that are looking at other explanations for Global Warming than human’s use of fossil fuels.
When will people learn just what you have said, living in New England, if there were no tv or internet I would assume that we were in a cooling off period after the last couple of frigid, snow laden winters we have had.
ReplyDeleteAlso would a polar bear be a 3/3, a 3/2 or a 2/3 for like 1gg?
2G for a 2/2 with Islandwalk
ReplyDeleteGlobal warming isn't something to be worried about. We'll either adapt or we'll perish. Same game as always. I'd be more concerned with a nuclear holocaust or an asteroid smashing the earth.
I strongly suggest that you read a Michael Crichton's book, called "State of Fear". It touches the same topic, and his point of view is similar to yours.
ReplyDeleteP.S I apologise for any mistakes using your language.
I strongly suggest that you read a Michael Crichton's book, called "State of Fear". It touches the same topic, and his point of view is similar to yours.
ReplyDeleteP.S I apologise for any mistakes using your language.
One sided reporting is terrible, mostly because of how prevalent it is. Good honest and objective reporting is nearly impossible to find, apparently that doesn't sell.
ReplyDeleteI tend to support the changes that Climate Change Believers want. I don't agree that the evidence is clear either way. All of the sane positions are plausible.
But either way wouldn't you prefer to live in the world where aren't quickly using up the resources available to us? The current way society is going isn't good regardless of the warmth of the globe.
Agreed!!! Nicely put J
ReplyDeleteBobby Y
A lot of Arctic ice is going away. That's why you see Russian and Canadian fleets gearing up for a pissing match. They believe it.
ReplyDeleteFossil records indicate that when the Earth undergoes extreme warming that you get a big die-off. Year over year global temperatures are increasing and I see no reason for things to get cooler.
Maybe you know something I don't, but I'm not that confident that we can fix the mess we made. I'm thinking that drought and famine is in our future. How are we going to grow crops when it doesn't rain?
Also be wary of thinking about statistics in isolation. Looking at Polar Bear numbers as an indicator of global warming could be terrible because other conversation and education programs are influencing their numbers.
ReplyDeleteMaybe warming temperatures have made them travel further north so they are interacting with humans less so they are getting shot less? I don't know, polar bears are a long way from me, I don't really pay attention to them.
I'm just pointing out that individuals spending a few minutes looking at stats is terrible. Which just makes us have to rely on the media more so their crimes against fair reporting are all the more heinous.
Adapt or Die. Regardless of the cause of the warming, the end result will be the same. Warming up of previously uninhabitable areas such as Greenland, overheating of currently habitable areas such as Australia. Rent that Herzog documentary "Encounters at the End of the World". I found it interesting that it was pretty much unanimous amongst all the scientists that the human race is eventually doomed. And these guys are the best and brightest on the planet! There is some Stephen Hawking quote about the human races survival chance is near zero unless and until we begin to colonize other planets.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, Polar Bears are defenitely white, and have island walk.
ReplyDeleteIn the Jurasic Park Book by Michael Crichton the Scientist tells the businessman, you arrogant @#, there is no way you can destroy the world, it will always survive. Now the human race, thats a different story.
JoeG Jamies point was not that there is no global warming, but that it is not clear if "we made the mess", or it is a natural cycle of the earth.
Fallen Angels is another good concept, the greens win and all greenhouse emmissions are stopped. Canada is now under the glaciers, and they are quickly advancing on the northern States.
I always find the expression on a person's face humorous when I tell them I don't believe in Global Warming. Because it has been fed to us as a truth by the media, people accept it without doubt.
ReplyDeleteI love that the Smithsonian in D.C. had this huge map of the world and on it a plaque that said scientists believe that we are starting to go into a new Ice Age. This was from the 70's, mind you, but it just goes to show that we haven't been here long enough to know.
Well in their defense, they may be right. Human's live 80 years, maybe a couple more if they are lucky. Our sense of time and scale is diminutive compared to geological time. We may very well be headed into the next ice age, and that ice age may hit hard in 5,000 more years, and once it hits it may last for 25,000 years.
ReplyDeleteI work for an insurance company. It tends to lean towards conservative ideology . . . imagine that. Supporting pro-business, anti-regulatory policies and politicians. It is actually pretty common for our executives to make fun of liberal ideas and politicians in company presentations. Pisses me off, but it's all in fun right? "Just kidding! Come on, have a sense of humor, Jack."Right.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, Al Gore and global warming were pretty common targets.
Until one day our reinsurers decided that, you know what? We're getting a lot of weather related claims which coincide statistically with what we'd expect to see if the global warming alarmists are right. We're going to start taking global warming seriously and encourage the people we insure to do so as well in an effort to control the long term financial impact.
You see, insurance companies have a thing for statistics. They've got pretty good grasp of what they expect to happen, they notice when it doesn't and are pretty good at tracking down why. Or at least, at identifying factors that correlate with the financial impact of an event. I guess causality is secondary to correlation as far as insurers are concerned. Maybe man made global warming isn't a cause of the weather related claims trends. Maybe. But there's a strong enough correlation that the insurance industry is publicly supporting the position that global warming is probably man made and should be addressed.
Just thought it was interesting.