Posted by: Jim | January 31, 2007

Global Warping

I’m not big on global warming. I believe the issue may be absolutely real, but since it is surrounded by fear and hype, it is difficult to tell how real and immediate this threat actually is.

I’m leaning toward “this is a real and immediate threat.” And in this case, Pascal’s Wager is a good philisophical model to apply; doing something about it certainly can’t hurt.

But what certainly does hurt, is the government’s attempts to censor the issue.

I could list off a few other governments in history who pressured their scientists into avoiding topics, or penalize them for using certain phrases, but comparing this administration to those infamous regimes would seem like “fighting words.”

The comparison would not be pretty.  

How can this administration justify these actions?



  1. Of interest:

    Also of interest: In almost 14 years here in Colorado Springs, Colo., I do not recall a spate of weather colder than the past month. It has snowed every weekend for six weeks. The high temp was 48, and that was for one day. The average temp for this span is 19 degrees. This is not the norm. Just a snapshot from a small metropolis.

    I have not personally seen nor have I been noticeably affected by this thing they call Global Warming. Blaming an administration for it is nonsense, and what exactly is being censored?

    When I can golf for the entire month of February in Colorado Springs, I’ll start to worry about 🙂

  2. jim

    what i find interesting is the right-wing news media take on this. Fox News now has sort-of accepted global warming/climate change, but now the angle is to question whether it is caused by human activities. and this, despite so much evidence. the implication being that if warming is not due to human activities, then it is fruitless to amend policy to try to combat it.

    the situation is really quite similar to the Creationist dismissal of evolution despite masses of evidence, not just of evolution, but that the planet is simply way older than Creationist’s assertions (people probably caught the controversy over staff at The Grand Canyon declining to give a figure on its age, for fear of the wrath of Creationists).

    what i can’t fathom is Why the right-wing media is taking this line. is it because of the interests of oil companies? or corporations generally? this doesn’t seem to make sense, as last week, in a highly publicised move, a bunch of big CEOs urged Bush to curb warming.

    if anybody has any suggestions on this, i’d love to hear them.

  3. there have been many actions taken by this administration that are difficult if not impossible to justify. this is one of many.

    and whether global warming is caused by human activity or not, (cough), it will affect human activity in the long run. jim is correct. doing something about it certainly can’t hurt.

  4. Todd, I’m not blaming Global Warming on this administration, as you are right, that would be nonsense. What I’m saying is this “gag rule” they places on government-funded scientists is absolutely hurting the situation. We need to talk openly about it in order to find a solution. Pretending there is no problem cannot possibly solve it.

    Incidentally, I’m not an expert but I’ve heard that global warming means global cooling in some spots.

    KingFelix, I’m very suspicious of a lot of the “evidence” that supports the theory of Global Warming does not take into account the longer-term cycles that the earth always goes through. We’ve been through a few ice ages before civilization began, so obviously there can be major fluctuations in our climate without the aid of mankind. Is this what we are going through now? Additionally, I have seen the charts that show CO2 content in our atmosphere, and it is definitely skyrocketing. This is pretty good evidence that *maybe* we are impacting the climate–but I don’t see it as definitive proof. Now, if you ask me if I *think* we are impacting our climate, my answer is yes. But I don’t think we know enough about the earth to say it is a proven fact–at least I don’t know enough about the earth to say that.

    About the right wing stance, I can’t be sure. Maybe it’s simply an opposition to a position typically held by the left. Also, oil companies are not the only ones who stand to benefit from the current paradigm. ALL business would be impacted by any major effort to shift our source of energy. It might be interesting to see who Fox News’s major advertisers are to see how this has impacted their news bias on the subject.

  5. Jim, you have posted my thoughts on climate change, AKA ‘global warming’ before, and I am still at the dance stud when it comes to the cause. Food for thought:

    How did the last 6 ice-ages end?

    One conclusion I did reach is that if we are now at, or at least very near, the “tripping point” where a series of surface heating climatological positive feed-back loops have begun, than there is nothing any of us can do except prepare, lament, and hope for the best.


  6. Good story here at the Guardian, scientists offered money by Big Oil to dispute climate change,,2004397,00.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: