Sunday, March 18, 2007

Global Warming Cures Might Be Worse Than The Disease

There's even a reference to Mt. Pinatubo in this article, but not to the fact that it spewed more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in one eruption that mankind has in his entire history as a species. While I don't agree entirely with the following quote, it does point out a little of the inconsistency of those who want to try to "fix" what we've "broken":

Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said mankind already has harmed Earth's climate inadvertently, so it's foolish to think that people can now fix it with a few drastic measures.

Update: I've updated this global warming post a few times in the last few days. Go take a look-see.

Update #2, 3/19/07: Here's a nifty post about the Scientific Method as it applies to global warming hysteria.


Cameron said...

People can be in accidents and paralyzed for life. They can use a wheelchair, and may one day recover and regain the ability to walk. Or, I suppose they can drag themselves around everywhere by their hands (or teeth, if they're quadriplegic). If we do nothing about our harm to the environment, we're choosing the latter scenario. The best thing we can do is to do our best to fix our problems. We may reverse damage, and we may not, but we won't be causing further damage.

Darren said...

I'll certainly grant that you have a talent for hyperbole. Get that from 'An Inconvenient Truth', did you?

Anonymous said...

NCAR's part of your Church of GW...

and LLNL is, too.

Good thing you know better than all those scientists.

Darren said...

Good attempt at a rhetorical flourish.

I don't accept that *man* is the cause of these temperature rises. I believe them to be natural variations.

Better pray to your Ice God again.

Anonymous said...

The "scientific method" is a construct developed by science educators.

Working scientists--the kind that win Nobel Prizes and such--do not use the "scientific method" as described in science textbooks and ill-informed blogs.

Darren said...

They certainly didn't use it in this instance.

Can you show where it might lead to an incorrect result? Or are you just pissed because it's another nail in the coffin of your pet religion?

The Church of Global Warming. I think the clergy are getting angered that the rabble are challenging them.

Ellen K said...

I find it funny to the nth degree that while Global Warming is theoretical and as such should be open to debate, so are Creationism and Evolution. If we are to advance as a society and culture, we MUST be able to debate these issues. And anyone who states that they KNOW FOR A FACT anything about the last 100,000 years of global change is fooling themselves. We have only recorded temperatures for the last hundred or so years. That's a drop in the bucket in terms of the entire spectrum of climate change. BTW, how come NOBODY on the left wants to address what happened during the Dust Bowl years of the 1930's? There were fewer cars, little industry in Oklahoma to speak of, but it became a virtual desert. And that predates all this Global Warming hype. If they can't address that clearly, then they have no business trying to tie Global Climage Change to any manmade phenomena. Also, if they aren't willing to include the burgeoning populations of India and China in the Kyoto Accord, then they aren't serious about Global Warming, but simply addle minded liberals trying to once again look good for the media.