Fad science and self-made a monkeyof-ism

Hi readers. Thanks for coming by.

Some of you thought I was joking with my recent post about climate change and the current yakyakyakyak by the excitement industry concerning ‘manmade global warming’.

Some of you probably also didn’t notice the comment by Trapper Gale remembering a time four-or-so decades ago when the previous generation of the same institutional experts ran in increasingly small circles setting their hair on fire predicting a coming ice age.

AmericaLaurentideIceSheet.jpg

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/01_1.shtml

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/AmericaLaurentideIceSheet.jpg

The last of the ice ages in human experience (often referred to as the Ice Age) reached its maximum roughly 20,000 years ago, and then gave way to warming. Sea level rose in two major steps, one centered near 14,000 years and the other near 11,500 years. However, between these two periods of rapid melting there was a pause in melting and sea level rise, known as the “Younger Dryas” period. During the Younger Dryas the climate system went back into almost fully glacial conditions, after having offered balmy conditions for more than 1000 years. The reasons for these large swings in climate change are not yet well understood.

Which is an understatement.

Academians have a vested interest in manmade climate change today. They get their names in the journals and newspapers through the power of positive speaking. If they can stir up enough fear by presenting what they don’t know as ‘not yet well understood’ they generate government grants, jobs, power and prestige within their fields. Further study of what they don’t yet well understand, it’s assumed, will provide better understanding in the direction of their assertions.

Somehow the fact their disciplinary ancestors also didn’t yet well understand similarly the precise opposite interpretation of the data. Mined it for all it was worth at the time in study, grants, power and prestige. Opened new frontiers for their progeny when the time came, by reversing what a few decades later remained not yet fully understood.

I’m not suggesting there’s no manmade climate change. Maybe there is. And I’m not suggesting that if there is, it won’t speed the natural progress of planetary warming.

What I am saying is that anytime scientific observers examine data with an expected, hoped-for outcome, [especially when power, money, career advancement and prestige are factors] they have a way of observing selectively.

Same as human beings are prone to do in all other walks of life.

What I’m also saying is that three, maybe four decades from now there’s a reasonable possibility they’ll have mined this crisis dry and be setting their hair on fire with a new crisis to be mined for power, prestige, money and career advancement. Humanity induced plate tectonics, maybe. Earth’s decaying orbit because of atmospheric drag created by airliners.

Maybe they’ll be right. Hell, there’s even a remote chance they’re right about of what they’re saying today. Some piece of it-or-other.

The damned problem is you can’t trust them. They watch the same television you do. They know which way the wind’s blowing and muddling along trying to sail downwind getting the most out of it while it’s hot. Joining the gold rush with the knowledge when this one plays out there’s another lode in Alaska or Nevada they can move to.

Same as the rest of us.

Old Jules

About these ads

12 responses to “Fad science and self-made a monkeyof-ism

  1. We’d be a lot better off if we’d turn off the TV.

    • elroyjones: We’d certainly be different. A tv came with the RV when I bought it, and I’m figuring it works … runs DVDs, anyway. If I ever get buried in a conventional grave I’m going to have it installed in front of my face in the coffin, catch up on the reruns. I’d do it now, but something else always gets in the way. Gracias, J

  2. Burning the TV works best, be careful of the CO2 emissions though, they can be a real bitch to get off of you once they hit the atmosphere ;-).

  3. The science that was predicting a new ice age was sporadic and seldom supported. Compare that to the body of science on atmospheric warming correlated to rising CO2 levels and it was but a pop gun. When you and I are no longer here in 3 or 4 decades it will be those who follow who will be victims of our fractious short sightedness and our willingness to be ornery because it suits us to be contradictarians.

    • lenrosen4: Possibly. Or possibly you’re merely the victim of self-delusion resulting from what you choose to believe. Three or four decades from now things will be as they are, whatever you might believe and I might believe. But I won’t attempt to persuade you to shed the responsibility you feel for where things are going. I’ll almost certainly be dead in three or four decades, and I have a lot of trust that the people alive then will believe whatever-the-hell they choose to, right or wrong, self-delusion or feelgood anger. And they won’t be able to do any more about conditions they might be contributing to than you and I can do about conditions we humans now are creating [or not creating, depending who you choose to believe]. Gracias, J

  4. From what I understand, the earth has to go through a warming period to cause an ice age and for the glaciers to build and move south. When it is really cold, there is not enough moisture to produce snow and and ice.

    • Hi DizzyDick: You might enjoy Immaneul Velikovsky’s THE EARTH IN UPHEAVAL. Several chapters of the book were edited by Albert Einstein during the last months of his life, and he examined extensively and discussed the evidence with Velikovsky while IV was writing the book. Velikovsky makes an overwhelming case the last ice age began suddenly and entirely unexplainably by current understandings of such things [current then and now]. Einstein mightn’t have entirely agreed, but he didn’t disagree. A worthy read. Jack

  5. Jules,

    You sound like a spurned academician whose pseudo science of intelligent design has been debunked by using him as proof that there was no intelligence in his design, only an accident of evolution!

    Human impact on global warming and other aspects of environmental impact is not an academic theory or an axe to grind it is indeed a scientific fact that only extreme conservative politicians and religious fanatics deny.

    I believed you to be a rational, common sense, get it done kind of a guy, but this epitaph following the elders of Zion diatribe add up to a carmudgian, oops I said it even though I am older than you!

    • Hi leanpower. No doubt I sound many ways to many people. I appreciate your comments, whatever you might have believed, still believe. You are and you remain what you are. Thanks for coming by for a read. Jules

    • Truth is, leanpower, I doubt anyone anywhere puts much stock in whatever you might believe or disbelieve. You happen to be a person with a lot of opinions and a streak of ugly inside you. Your hope to spread the ugly around is of zero consequence. It’s not easy to imagine anyone you’ve exposed yourself to paying enough attention to care.

      On another note, I think I might have met you in real life around 1965-1966. Port Lavaca, or Point Comfort Texas.

      Might be mistaken though. J

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s