Global Warming and Politics

Fri  Oct 12, 2007  11:01 am

I see that James quit the list shortly after his last post. I suspect that part of the reason was he interpreted the global warming debate on a political basis and figured this list was on his opposite side politically.

It's silly really to consider that a topic that belongs to science has become political. Could you imagine this happening to other subjects. We may hear dialog like this:

"So you don't believe in the sixth quark? You are a quark denier and must be a conservative."

"So you believe the moon was once a part of the earth do you? Then you must be liberal."

Yes, this sounds like a very foolish way to demonize a person by placing him on his opposing political side, but ironically, this is what is going on with global warming.

If two people look at the facts of global warming and come to different conclusions this should not mean that one conclusion is conservative and one is liberal.

Yes, it shouldn't mean this - so why are those on the opposite sides today so politically divided?

The answer is simple. Most people today have not made their decision on global warming because of studying the science, but instead were politically indoctrinated. This has happened on both sides of the political spectrum and it greatly obscures the debate.

To make the case I merely ask: Who is the most famous proponent of global warming theory? A famous scientist?

Not hardly. We all know it is that famous politician, Al Gore.

And who are those that most widely accept his theories?

Yes. The same people who accept his politics.

The world would not be so divided on the subject if the greatest proponent was a scientist with no known political connections and was willing to truthfully present his case and debate it.

The problem with Al Gore is he is willing to present his case to friendly faces but will not debate or receive and answer questions from skeptics. A real scientist would generally have no problem defending his studies.

Thus we have the situation that the current global warming debate is more of a political debate than it is scientific. In fact this is the first time in recent history that the right and wrong what is considered scientific consensus has been judged politically more than scientifically.

Don't get me wrong -- science alone without politics does have their dogmas and mindsets. For instance, anyone who presents evidence that seems to disprove the "Big Bang Theory" are seen somewhat as heretics and often their thoughts are automatically discounted, but the emotional heat is nothing like happens with the "Global Warming Theory."

He who goes against the standard model in global warming can lose his livelihood and even receive death threats. The different problem here is the heat the skeptic takes comes, not from other scientists, but from bureaucrats and knee jerk political extremists that don't know the difference between Kelvin and Celsius.

The problem with the political approach over the scientific is the conclusions are presented as absolutes. Those presenting one side tell us there is a definite consensus, as if all scientists agree that there is an emergency and something must be done now or the apocalypse is on us.

The other side also has their illusions thinking that there is nothing to be concerned about.

The truth as always is somewhere in between. On one side we do not need to destroy our economy and way of life to reduce CO₂, and, on the other, we have to realize we are taking some risk by altering there content of our atmosphere. We do need an alternative for fossil fuels for a number of reasons.

Unfortunately the alternatives promoted by orthodox global warmers will have a negligible positive effect and possibly a disastrous economical one. We'll talk about this shortly.

Global Warming Enlightenment

"The apocalyptic mood seems to grow each time the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) releases a new section of its climate change report. Climate hysteria appears to be more contagious than a flu epidemic. 'We only have 13 years left to save the earth,' screamed a recent front-page headline in the German tabloid 'Bild.' 'If mankind is unable to stop the greenhouse effect by the year 2020, it will bring about its own demise -- and a horribly tortured one at that.'

"Not the End of the World as We Know It," by Olaf Stampf May 07, 2007"

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,481684,00.html

Copyright © 2007 by JJ Dewey, All Rights Reserved