Inconvenienter Truths

I'm a pretty simple liver: vegan, recycler, don't drive (never learned), and, as a wage slave, I don't fly anywhere. I live in a smallish apartment and am too cheap to be lavish with the hot water and electricity. I like hiking and the outdoors. I have a fondness for an eggless delicacy called 'Nayonnaise', so I often head to the nearby Capers to stock up. Circumstantially, this puts me in with a whole lot of people who are shocked to find out I’d love to kick David Suzuki and Al Gore in the nuts.

Until earlier this year I was fairly gung ho on the theory of human-caused global warming. However, whenever I was pressed to explain my position, I couldn't. Not really. After a spell, referring someone to "An Inconvenient Truth", or urging them to "just look out a window!" didn't exactly strike me as being armed with the facts. I looked into the sources a bit more, at the time in the hopes of getting some ammo I could fire off in small bursts, because of course a large part of this debate isn't even about reason or intelligence, let alone the state of the globe, it's about being able to harrangue the other guy into the ground!

Interestingly, the side I was "on" doesn't have a lot to back up their claims. That is all there is to it. And it is only the one side, in the camp of Gore and Suzuki, et al., where the debate has been declared "over." Other scientists, real scientists, who have spent their careers dedicated to studying various aspects of climate, must be surprised to hear the case is closed. That sort of declaration coming from any so-called scientist frosts my arse!

Most people I know have their minds made up firmly that humankind is causing these changes and don't want to hear the following. Maybe it is easier to make up your mind when one is not overburdened with information.

Here are some of the experts whose years of immersion in various related sciences have made it worthwhile for us to listen to what they have to say:

Richard Lindzen, atmospheric scientist at MIT. He has an investment in the science that precedes it's current trendiness, and we find it unsettling to see less knowledgeable men trying to discredit his whole career.

Michael Griffin, Administrator of NASA, holder of 8 degrees (and not the pansy 'honorary' kind), the most relevant being a Masters in Applied Physics & another MS in Aerospace Science...

Dr. Timothy Ball, PhD is geography, with a specific focus on historical climatology. He's a friendly, straighforward Canadian man, and replies to your emails. Google him, I like this guy.

Hennrik Tennekes, director of research at the Royal Dutch Meteorlogical Institute. Tennekes pioneered methods of multi-modal forecasting and challenges the use of incomplete or unproven scientific models by those trying to explain complex phenomena such as global warming. But these same models pretty much propel the whole premise of "An Inconvenient Truth" and the arguments employed by armchair climateologists.

Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

I literally could go on and on but unless you look into it yourself, I'm just reeling off names here like a smartass, and personally that is my least-favorite means of being convinced of anything so I don’t expect it to win any converts. I'm just sayin’. It's not rogue fucksticks that are the skeptics. It is the legitimate scientists, because it's a scientist's job to be skeptical.

This issue is always a tricky one to hold forth on, especially when you're a regular prole like me with no interest in seeing the world go to shit.
It shows the extent of the PR job done by the likes of Gore & Suzuki, that paints any skeptics of their models as "deniers." But the facts are there for people who can get by the PR job and indoctrination. And "indoctrination" is exactly the right word: I know a recent graduate of a local Vancouver high school who says he had to watch "An Inconvenient Truth" no less than 7 times in his senior year then regurgitate the information as fact for a passing grade. It is creepy and annoying to see the death of debate in this "scientific" discussion. That is why I hold such contempt for scientists like Suzuki. Observing his actions in the media, whose devotion he thrives on, it seems clear he's an intellectual bully, bolstered by fame and a life cushioned in academia. He's clouding the issue by encouraging the belief that people not on the "green" side are advocates of wholesale environmental slaughter, or are on Exxon's payroll, or in any case should be silenced, because they bother his fine feelings! Whinge, wah!! While many climate scientists are skeptical of the popular assessment of global warming, not one is saying "See you in Hell!" to Mother Earth. Only certain egotists scientists are spinning it that way. And these spokes-bullies are making boatloads of money and a good name for themselves so the slander continues.

You know what I wish? No, Grumpus, tell us what you wish. OK, I wish potential Global Warming Bandwagoneers would look into all sides of proposed scientific ideas before hopping on. The only gas I advocate the reduction of is that most plentiful of human-induced atmospheric gases…hot air.

Zing!