Global Warming

I'll just let it be known again that my claims to expertise are along Gechmir's lines, in that I am also a geocience major, although I am not as well read in the literature as he is, but I'd rather take extremely broad viewpoints.

Personally, I've accepted the idea that Earth experiences shifts in climate because that is a natural assumption in the general state of things. The Earth is a dynamic system prone to changes from multiple sources. I'm also open to the idea that humanity can harbor and effect on the Earth. Since there is plain proof of how we can effect things in a small scale, it shouldn't be too hard to envision that we can effect change in a large scale.

However, where I depart from the mainstream in terms of the issue of global warming is the manner in which the issue is carried out. Frankly, the way it is treated in media and governmental policy is highly unscientific and I have seen evidence (can't procure it immediately yet) that some in the science community have deliberately wanted to exaggerate the threat that global warming presents.

I've already said this in the last incarnation of this topic on PP, but I can still say it again since I've been talking with a friend every other day about this subject. The way I see it, our vision is misguided. Global warming is the least of our problems. The reason why it was chosen is because it has the most emotional impact amongst a susceptible audience. And I am no fan of employing pathos in the name of science, which should not have any underlying sentiment at its core. Global warming and environmentalism in general have this underlying sentiment that I find distasteful and smug.

To be honest, I don't think humanity has that great an impact on the climate in terms of temperature change. I'm of the belief that Earth and the very essence of nature is a cruel tyrant and we, the humans as well as other living things, are at its mercy. Those of the sort who think the environment is a gentle and motherly kind are deluded and not worth existing.

The Sun has far more influence of our weather system. The Maunder Minimum were responsible for what we call the "Little Ice Age" and this was well before humanity had the capacity to put so much into the air, so we can see to what degree the Sun is capable of doing.

In my opinion, I would prefer that our problem be stated in a more economic and human-centric manner. Instead of looking at some unsure predictions on global temperature, why not set our eyes on measurable levels of emissions and usage of fossil fuels? I think those are far better reasons to free ourselves from carbon energy than guessing how high the oceans will rise by the end of the century. I would think people would be more convinced if they are presented that the alternative would mean cleaner air and more energy independence. Instead we get slapped with scare-mongering propaganda that proclaims the support of (a very warped) science.

I could go on in various tangents on the sort of things that are tied in with this issue, but I would rather not get carried away with myself. I think I set up a useful idea to dwell on.

Jam it back in, in the dark.