Maybe it’s all perfectly true and correct. But nobody who checks will be taken seriously.

There’s been zero benefit for any scientist who wishes to get funding to be contrary to it. There’s no point in even trying.

I think there’s exaggeration. Are the polar ice caps melting? Sure. Thing is, I’ve watched the story get more dramatic through the years, just as interest and funding also increased.

Best of Science in the 1980s was mixed on it. Global warming (I forgot what they called it then – I HATE the constant name changes for dramatic effect) was one of a few theories going around. It wasn’t the most popular one and the timeframe it was speaking of was not within a single generation of people. it was extended out hundreds of years.

Then by high school, the story began to change. It started to become a little more popular (late 80s) Greenhouse gases was increasing in popularity but we were repeatedly told, “Your warm summer is NOT global warming!”

Over and over again.

Then the 90s. More and more and more about it. The movement grew to a tremendous feverish pitch.

By the 2000s, it was all but a certainty and the time frame had been reduced to within our lifetimes IF WE DON’T DO SOMETHING NOW.

A fringe opinion in the 80s becomes a global force in 2015.

Where’s the opposing views?

Nowhere that’s taken seriously.

Again, I think it’s a “good thing” but having worked with data many times, I’ve seen the results of bad data on top of bad data with some good data, along with normalizations, corrections and other statistical wizardry can customize reports to achieve stated goals.

I have a nice formula somewhere that successfully shows an ROI when there was a loss and it can be traced back and proven and yet, it’s a lie. Had to use it. Math tricks.

Maybe it’s all perfectly true and correct. But nobody who checks will be taken seriously. We’ve gone too far to go back now. Too many players involved. Too much invested. We HAVE TO continue this course and I’m ok with it.

Mind you, I don’t believe it’s a conspiracy. Not in the least. It’s just one of those “ball got rolling / avalanche” situations.


And.. if I was in power, President of Earth or whatever, I’d stand up there and declare it’s real, pat the Scientists on the back for a great job and go about my day. I’m a pragmatist. Global Warming is pragmatic.

Well, no it’s not a leftest agenda thing in my POV. Bringing up the ROI trick was excessive. I’ll provide a better example:

You have a great computer model. 27 likely outcomes. Statistically “pick one”. Doesn’t matter which one. All more or less equally likely.

Do you pick the one that most contradicts your original hypothesis? It’s equally likely as the one that best confirms your hypothesis. So, you pick that one.

Doesn’t matter which one you picked ultimately.

Repeat process many times. It’s not dishonesty; the one you picked doesn’t matter experimentally. It’s just as likely.

Multiply that times many times. Statistical creep.

I was being too harsh in my portrayal.

What would convince me we’re nearly dead?
Seeing people dying around me.
Did global warming cause the Syrian refugee situation? Could’ve contributed. Or was it a local drought that’s right on its 200 year schedule? We don’t know. Records are reconstructed.
How well? Don’t know.

Is there a benefit to tying them together thanks to some correlations of the data? Definitely. Is it possible global warming was the cause? yes, it’s possible. But there’s no contrary opinion worth taking seriously at this point to say otherwise. 94% of scientists agree and all that. When has 94% of scientists ever agreed on ANYTHING?

The thing is, the only valid choices from your list are:

1 or 2. The days of 3 and 4 have passed.

There’s a hole in the Ozone Layer. I remember that one. They banned CFCs. It was a good thing. But before the banning of CFCs was finished, the hole closed up. Oopsie.

By then it was fixed in our mindsets as True. CFCs aren’t good for human beings. Fluorocarbons are nasty to the lungs if I remember right.

[Fluoride eats through silicon – skin]

So was the hole correct? It was at the time, the cause for greenhouse gases. But it wasn’t and it’s wasn’t.

Maybe “this time it’s different”. Again, I support the efforts. It’s just hard to believe the sky is falling after a few doomsday scenarios.

Maybe we fixed it just in time. Maybe it wasn’t a problem at all. There’s no way to tell. Given the two choices, between “just in case, let’s do it” vs “Let’s not bother in case we’re wrong”, the “just in case let’s do it” is the stronger of the two.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

+ three = 10

Leave a Reply