An Inconvenient Weather for an Inconvenient Theory
In light of the ongoing Global Warming debate, the weather this winter has been very interesting. I can't attest to the global climate but here in Dallas it has been a rather cold winter. In fact, we got snow about three times and got below freezing and stayed cold temperatures much more than usual. In fact, this Easter weekend we are on track to set record lows.
I guess the part that confuses me most is the supposed "proof" that is being talked about. When the temperature goes up, a case could be made but when the weather goes down, they say that erratic weather is also caused by global warming. So no matter what happens to the weather, it is proof of global warming. Sounds fishy to me.
In fact, when I started getting skeptical about global warming was in 9th grade when I saw in English class on the cover of Time Magazine that "Sever Winter Storms (in New York) Proof of Global Warming". I stopped and thought, so because it is so cold, it proves the earth is warming. Something isn't quite right about it.
There are some real alarmists out there but the facts of the matter are that we only have really accurate weather information for the last 125 years or so. There have been periods in recent history when the earth has been warmer, and cooler than it is now and that was not related to human activity. Whether the world is actually warming or not is an interesting question and can been proven with simple graphs of global temperatures. Whether or not it will continue to rise and if it it caused by humans is extremely difficult, if not impossible to predict or know.
Bottom line is that I don't want this theory to inconvenience me until it is actually provable. Until then, it should be kept in the "theory" department. Oh, and just because some scientists get the backing of the UN doesn't mean that it is proven, just that a lot of people who would benefit from the proposed "fixes" think it would be a great idea.
I guess the part that confuses me most is the supposed "proof" that is being talked about. When the temperature goes up, a case could be made but when the weather goes down, they say that erratic weather is also caused by global warming. So no matter what happens to the weather, it is proof of global warming. Sounds fishy to me.
In fact, when I started getting skeptical about global warming was in 9th grade when I saw in English class on the cover of Time Magazine that "Sever Winter Storms (in New York) Proof of Global Warming". I stopped and thought, so because it is so cold, it proves the earth is warming. Something isn't quite right about it.
There are some real alarmists out there but the facts of the matter are that we only have really accurate weather information for the last 125 years or so. There have been periods in recent history when the earth has been warmer, and cooler than it is now and that was not related to human activity. Whether the world is actually warming or not is an interesting question and can been proven with simple graphs of global temperatures. Whether or not it will continue to rise and if it it caused by humans is extremely difficult, if not impossible to predict or know.
Bottom line is that I don't want this theory to inconvenience me until it is actually provable. Until then, it should be kept in the "theory" department. Oh, and just because some scientists get the backing of the UN doesn't mean that it is proven, just that a lot of people who would benefit from the proposed "fixes" think it would be a great idea.
posted by Randall Knutson at
8:46 PM
3 Comments:
so why are most evan believers global warming agnostic? knee-jerk ani-anything that comes from the left or is it al gore, the possible wilberforce of the 21st century?? even if they are only partially right, it will be quite the inconvenience that we decided not to inconvenience ourselves for. come on, randall, don't let James Dobson think for you...God bless your impending marriagehood, sir.
By
driscola, at 3:24 PM
I wouldn't say that evangelical Christians are anti-anything that comes from the left or al gore. The only thing that really distinguishes al gore that most ECs are against is global warming (I'm not saying that they agree with him on many things but that is normal for right vs left).
I'm trying to keep an open mind about the whole Global Warming debate and have looked hard at the evidence. Yesterday I read through "An Inconvenient Truth" just to see what it was about. I've also watched many scientists debate the issue and read up on it a bit.
A few nights ago on the news was a great example. They had a scientist on who showed evidence and graphs from the last 1500 years and the highs and lows. Then he showed sun activity for the same period and how it correlated perfectly. Next he showed CO2 levels and how they didn't correlate.
After him was the global warming scientist. Do you know what his "scientific" response was? He said, "Well it looks like there is still one dinosaur around." It seems to me like any scientist that has evidence and makes a good case against global warming is label "a dinosaur" or "flat-earth." That is all well and good for a propaganda war but in science it doesn't cut the mustard.
I believe Al Gore is passionate about the cause, that doesn't make him a Wilberforce though.
Like I said in my original post, I just don't want to be inconvenienced UNTIL it is provable, which it currently is not. In fact, in regards to the alarmism, if you look back 40 years ago, the same people were saying we had 10 years to fix things until we would plunge into an ice age. Then when it became apparent that the earth was warming, well just change the direction. In fact 30 years ago they were still saying the same thing with dire warnings that in 10 years it would be no longer fixable.
By the way, I don't appreciate the implication that I am a sheep that follows whatever the EC leadership decides. I have ALWAYS been an independent thinker and read many, many sources and talk to many many people before I make up my mind. I must admit that I'm leaning towards not believing in global warming but the jury is still out.
By
Randall Knutson, at 8:51 PM
Hi Randall,
It's been a long time, but I stumbled across your blog once again today and noticed this post. I have put a bunch of global warming facts vs. fiction info on my Echoes in Eternity blog if you ever want to refer to it or refer others. You are definitely right to be skeptical; I agree that unless I actually see some real scientific proof, I am not going to let global warming hysteria distract me from more important things in life. Congrats on your upcoming wedding, I hope it is a very special day!
God bless,
Darius Teichroew
By
Darius, at 3:21 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home