HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Apr. 21, 2006 The idea of a meme is a very interesting one. I wouldn't quite go so far as to call it a theory, since it hasn't been validated in the strictest scientific sense as of yet. The idea comes from the famous anti-theist, Richard Dawkins. Still, the idea makes sense – the notion of a mental virus spreading about. New words and expressions entering common vernacular, clothing trends, hair styles – how do these things spread? Global warming is the “talk of the town” these days. But is this a meme? The experts tell us that global warming is real, that man is partially responsible and that serious consequences loom. Who are the experts? The majority of the climate scientists around the world. Global warming has been around since the 70s in one form or another. Astronomers wondered why Venus is hotter than Mercury yet further from the sun. It wasn't until the Bush administration that US scientists reached the consensus: this stuff is real! Thirty years of painstaking work, core samples from every corner of the globe, the north pole, the south pole, the tops of mountains, satellite data, geological data going back hundreds of thousands of years, detailed studies of ocean currents. The time required to study the deep ocean currents alone is extreme! The datum was carefully compared, considered, contrasted. Natural cycles such as the sun, which gets hotter and colder and therefore makes us hotter and colder, were taken into consideration. Elaborate outdoor greenhouses were bathed in carbon dioxide. More carbon dioxide makes plants grow more, so, couldn't the plants just suck up the extra before it contributes to the greenhouse effect? Every possible angle was considered. There was much internal debate. Many scientists held off giving support for 20 years in some cases. Being humans with reputations, few want to take those kinds of risks. Even fewer want to get involved in a battle that irks political-types on either side. A few scientists are vocal in critical areas, Dawkins for atheism and anti-theism, Carl Sagan for a range of issues related to the space program and its funding but by and large, scientists don't play the politics game until they are forced into a corner. A good example of such a corner is the evolution debate and the Discovery Institute's invented controversy known as, “Intelligent Design”. Increasingly, the anti-global warming types are inventing such a controversy. After all, one can always find a scientists to oppose anything. Do you want to find someone who thinks the world is only 10,000 years old? That we never landed on the moon? That the speed of light isn't really a universal speed limit? They are out there – use Google. Sure, it's happened. Sometimes, the lone scientist persuaded the rest of the community. Darwin, Einstein and others come to mind. They did these feats using science and research and evidence and data. If we line up most of the anti-global warming crowd, however, we can shoot most of those ducks out of the water rather fast. For example, scientists working with vested interests for oil companies. No, that's not just a loony-left idea. Recall that the Bush administration had an in-house science censor who was a former oil-company man. That's actually a bad example since he wasn't even a scientist! NASA was recently told from on-high to hush their climate scientists. Several other prominent figures emerged working for political think tanks such as the Cato Institute. Lets shoot those ducks and pay attention to the rest – their minority yet opposing views have value. Could the other side, the side representing most scientists, have some agenda? What political movement would the Pentagon, every major group of US scientists, scientists from the world-over, every major science group from most nations (first-world, third-world, allies, enemies) represent? Certainly these aren't all funded by hippy types in California who live on beaches, wear sandals, and hug trees. Political left-leaning environmental groups are happy that responses to global warming will, coincidentally, side with some of their causes. They may not be so happy that one remedy cited by that same scientific community is a large increase in nuclear power, a carbon neutral (and therefore global-warming friendly) technology. One would have to be in denial or have paranoid delusions to honestly and objectively conclude that there is a vast, global, anti-American conspiracy behind global warming. We most certainly can predict the future in general ways and we most certainly can deduce the future by looking at the past. It started way back with farmers, connecting star, lunar and solar cycles with their crops. There is a regularity to nature. It tends to get cold and hot at similar times during the year and charting those events does in fact lead to much predictive knowledge about the future. The Earth is loaded with many complex cycles. They've happened in the past in regular cycles, and will do so into the future. While these cycles are churning, a certain mix of gases and conditions exists in the atmosphere. These things can be compared and projections can be made about possible future changes to those repeating cycles. Global warming means that the average temp of the Earth rises, and this can have all kinds of nasty consequences. Not every bit of nasty weather can be attributed, but many specific predictions have been made. There is a very specific deep ocean current which takes 2000 years to complete one circuit. This belt starts by heavy cold salt water sinking down, moving around the globe, warming, and then rising again. This belt is a major thermo-regulator for the planet. As global warming melts fresh water (ice) at key locations, less salt water will be present, meaning less heavy water sinks, meaning less cold water gets warmed. If this circuit gets interrupted, a premature ice age could result. This is a specific, well researched, well understood, system. So, while it might be a funny sound-bite to accuse the wacky scientists of blaming future cold on global warming, it's actually a very serious and specific consideration. Computer models are often attacked by those against global warming from the political angle. Realize, that a model doesn't make a specific prediction, merely general trends. Recently, they've gathered very specific tornado datum. By plugging them into a computer model, the computer reproduced a tornado simulation. Is that tornado exactly a specific tornado in nature? No. Running the simulation again reveals a different tornado. The key fact is that BOTH simulations resulted in tornadoes. All computer climate models show a warming Earth. Depending on that datum entered, some show differences in the rise in temp and the speed at which it will happen. Even the meekest case is a bad thing... Folks, we may NEVER be able to tell if it will rain for certain a week into the future, but we can most certainly predict the severity of the upcoming hurricane season. There is a precise and fine difference here. It's easy to misuse terms such as “computer models” and “predictions” and cast climate scientists as robe-wearing, tea-leave reading, fools. The New Orleans disaster was also predicted. Can such models tell you if your personal property in New Orleans will be damaged? Of course not – this isn't fortune telling. Can it give you a probability for a wide and devastating flood? Bet on it. When scientists tell you to move off of the volcanic mountain, you better listen. It's easier to avoid lava then it is to undergo skin-graft surgery and months of rebab. My beard and shaved head are likely memes, whether I like it or not. My acceptance of the evidence about global warming is not. For references, check your favorite science site and search for “global warming” (National Geographic, Science, Scientific American, Nature, etc...). If you think all science sites are biased, then perhaps you should consider wearing a robe and chanting over tea-leaves. Perhaps the thirteen families which have controlled the world since the Roman days, together with the Federal Reserve, NASA and their Mars-faces/pyramids, via secret bases in the Nevada Desert, concocted the whole thing. I'm sure the Free Masons are related somehow too ;) ------------ About the author Frederick Smith: I enjoy writing about the positive virtues of humanism - humanists are the good guys. I now have a blog that I will start to increasingly maintain and update. Here is the link: fredsuberview.blogspot.com/ About my personal background and life: I was born, I got some education, worked, ate, and had some kids. It seems I like to write � something that was unknown to me until relatively recently...How's that for detail? ;) Hate mail is welcome unless you are from the Army Of God. Please! It's not that I mind seeing pictures of aborted fetuses in my inbox, but once you've seen one you've pretty much seen them all... Email: dahlek65@gmail.com Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
