« Home | President Bush, If you're going to pander... » | I'll show you mine, if you show me yours » | My candidacy for the Metro School Board » | I've got nothing to say, but it's ok... » | These are a few of my favorite things.. » | inch by inch, minute by minute, the days will be g... » | This never would have happened in the old Davis-Ki... » | Plot summary of Brokeback Mountain » | Black Santa throws down the java and flirts with a... » | Stick THIS on your courthouse lawn »

Is it getting warm in here, or is it just me?

When it comes to the fundamentals and laws of science, I generally don't look to Maureen Dowd, Cal Thomas, Dwight 'I've got one column' Lewis, William Safire or other political commentators. If I wanna know about how oxycontin works I might approach the Lord of Limbaugh-Land. If I want to know why Ryan Howard is a better baseball player than Jeff Francouer, I seriously would consult Mark Rose.

The point I'm slowly approaching is: Why does the belief in the existence of global warming depend on where you lie on the political spectrum? Global warming either is or it ain't, and all the gas-guzzling horsepowers in SUV land aren't going to pull it down if it exists, and all the whale-hugging in the ocean isn't going to create it from whole 100% organic recycled hemp-based cloth.

Where SHOULD a person look for information about global warming..hmmm...how ABOUT CLIMATOLOGISTS - the people who actually freakin' study our climate.

Science Magazine decided to survey climatologists studies on the matter of global warming, and guess what? Out of 928 abstracts on climate change written between 1993 and 2003, every stinkin' one of them said there was some type of global warming. 75% of the abstracts said that human behavior was responsible for the change, and the other 25% stated that there was global warming, but dealt only with the effects of global warming. NOT ONE abstract disagreed with the fact that some type of global warming exists. Even the ones that dealt with only the effects of global warming didn't dispute the fact that the progress of global warming was human driven.

The political question shouldn't be and can't be the scientific question. The political question is what are we going to do about it?. At THAT point, brilliant minds disagree. Many people think that the Kyoto treaty was an overreach. I tend to agree with that position, but the alternative 'do nothing and censor any document that comes out of the administration that states the effects of global warming' is a sad position as well.

Here's the link to the article in Science Magazine.

Just remember, they used to argue about whether the earth revolved around the sun or vice versa. Despite the pontifications of the pontiffs and other popular popinjays, science did win out.

Links to this post

Create a Link

About me

  • I'm John H
  • From Salemtown, Tennessee, United States
  • Cruising past 50, my wife and I have reared three kids and several dogs. I work for state government and daily conspire to deflate bureacracy.
My profile