An inconvenient truth

[xoxoxoBruce]

Your right. This also from that congressional testimony.....

Scientists associate public recognition of the relevance of their subject with support, and relevance has come to be identified with alarming the public. It is only human for scientists to wish for support and recognition, and the broad agreement among scientists that climate change is a serious issue must be viewed from this human perspective. Indeed, public perceptions have significantly influenced the science itself. Meteorologists, oceanographers, hydrologists and others at MIT have all been redesignated climate scientists – indicating the degree to which scientists have hitched their futures to this issue.

A taste of the politics of science and academia.

[Beestie]

I'm too lazy to figure out the exact numbers but would guess that one large volcanoe probably puts more greenhouse gases in the air than all of mankind over the last 100 years.

I'm all for using our resources wisely and for not poisening our air and water but it seems that it would take a herculean effort and hundreds of billions of dollars (actual cost + economic loss) to produce a very small and potentially insignificant effect.

We are just pulling out of the last ice age and there will be more to come. We are a fly on the wall of this planet's geological evolution. The glaciers have been melting for 10,00 years and, as they do, ocean levels will rise, tectonic plates will groan and shift under the new weight producing new fissures and cracks giving rise to a spike in volcanic activity. As the atmosphere fills with dust and smoke, nuclear winter will set in and the water will again freeze, shores will receed and blah, blah blah.

The problem with Gore's theory, in my opinion, is that he seems to assume that our climate is a stable system that we are about to make unstable. Our climate has never been stable. And just as well-intentioned intervention in chaotic systems can produce unintended results, the effects of the changes we are making cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty.

But I don't really mind Al Gore's incessant drum beat. He reminds me of all those guys in the 60s walking around with signs warning everyone that "The End Is Near." You can't really say either one is wrong but they seem to be overstating the magnitude of the problem.

While Gore and Bush are both decent men, they are incompetent leaders. However, they both understand a simple truth. There are only two reasons why someone will allow you to lead them: hope or fear. Since neither has any qualities that inspire hope, they creat both fear and hope by creating an enemy only they can defeat. I tell my kids not to trust anyone who offers to help them when they don't think they need help.

Both men also understand another simple truth. People will defend and adhere to an idea not in proportion to its validity but in proportion to how much they have invested in it. So, in order to enhance and perpetuate the blind trust of the flock, both Bush and Gore require a sacrifice. Gore lemmings must burn their SUV while Bush lemmings must burn their copy of the Bill Of Rights. Once surrendered, the con is complete.

Problem is, I don't believe either of one of them. A simple truth that they might find somewhat inconvenient.