Smug in Academia

I have just left the dinner part of one of my dearest friends -- the trouble is, there was another guest there who tried to end an argument with "well at [blank University] I have five scientists who reliably inform me that the science is irrefutable that global warming exists and that we humans have a great deal to do with it." The guy is at a sub-school of the Uni wholly unrelated to any credible scientific endeavor. Upon probing, personal knowledge of the issues: nil. Avoiding the temptation to tell him that he was a liberal tool and full of shit, I decided to preserve the peace at the dinner party. Probably my marriage too.

For the record: I advocate the replacement of fossil fuels with re-usable energy sources. It is simply prudent, not only for political reasons but for ecological health. I advocate breaking the trend to global monopolies (or cartels) ... competition is good. I advocate taxes on current fossil fuels to wean us off of them. I advocate eliminating all personal vehicles getting less than 25 mpg. Wind energy is necessary. Nuclear energy may be necessary in the intermediate term. We should let the Iraqis get on with it (but not permit chaos). We should not attack Iran. We should be genuinely scared of Pakistan. OK? Enough? So let's get to reality and global warming.

Hmmm. Goebbels reliably informed the world that Jews were the cause of all their troubles. Scientists reliably informed the European aristocracy that the world was flat. The Pope will inform you that he is Christ's representative on Earth. Atoms were the smallest particles in the universe. Doctors reliably informed the world that disease had been conquered with the new forms of antibiotics then becoming available (circa 1960). Bill Gates knew that 640K was more than anyone would ever need. Boosh knew there were WMDs. These things were CERTAIN. How many other things that have been held as truths have turned out to be anything but? How often have we been told by our media that various things were at a crisis -- only to see the media creep away without correcting themselves when nothing happened.

Just because one might be politically savvy enough to succeed at maintaining one's position at some hype-liberal institution does not of itself cast any authority onto your opinions or those of anyone at your institution: science is NOT politics (notwithstanding "political science"). Science consists of hypotheses which can be subject to proof at least to some testing with rigor. Al Gore has been challenged to open debate by a host of scientists on the issue of global warming. He has yet -- and nobody on the Global Warming bandwagon has either -- to accept Monckton's open challenge. Why? Because the science the panic merchants use is junk. It makes great copy, and furthers political goals of anti-capitalist, anti-globalization leftists. They'd like to see us doing what exactly? Shivering in adobe huts? Or perhaps listening to THEIR ideas.

Global warming is a hypothesis and not a truth. When will the media and others finally "get" that? Everyone is up in arms about melting glaciers. Yes, it is happening -- but ice mass may be increasing globally. Most of the other "certains" associated with global warming are proving to be anything but certain. The rates at which we are all meant to cook or go swimming constantly get reduced or adjusted ... "but it will happen." Puh-leeze. If we knew more -- truly knew more -- then we'd have something to hang our hats on and make determinations regarding our environment. But hysteria such as the drivel proposed by Al Gore is just disgusting and those that stand by it, less than intellectually honest. Of course, since when are those people honest ... ask Larry Summers.

So instead of smugly insisting you know you are right because you are right (very playground), try educating yourself on the SCIENCE of the other side of this non-debate.

READ: (just the tip of a rather large list)

http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/

Monckton summary of 4th final 2-1-07.doc the most authoritative debunking out there.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml

http://www.junkscience.com/ lots of good articles and links

http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=2

http://www.canadafreepress.com/global-warming.htm some very pointed articles

http://www.panicwatch.org/index.html

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/environment/index.asp?snav=en

There are tons of links and other tid-bits of information on which you can spend weeks of surfing time.

I am not "RIGHT" and do not pretend that only I know the right answers and Mr. [blank] University knows only the wrong answers. Far from it. But I do know that science cannot and should not be assigned to the rubbish heap of expedience for political goals and political orthodoxy (Larry Summers refused the orthodoxy and got fired, but at least he was honest)

Global warming may in fact be real. Or it might not. We might have something to do with it, if it exists, and then we might have negligible impact no matter what. We are not even CLOSE to resolution on that score. If you pretend to have an interest in the subject, then learn BOTH sides of the story or you risk coming out looking like an arrogant, blustering windbag. And when anyone states that a subject so complex and ill-understood is unequivocally closed, that person merely shows that they are are narrow minded and probably not worth the breath it takes to debunk. Hence I chose to preserve the peace.