Climate change is the hobbyhorse of the age. Of the decade, anyway. But there’s a laughable studious refusal to take a scientific look at it.
Even by the scientists, especially by the scientists.
The whole thing is about the Earth’s climate changing in a way that will adversely effect human beings, right?
Well, when was the last time you saw any kind of rundown on just what changes you might find in your area and what effect they might have on you?
When was the last time you heard anything about provisions for the coming changes?
When was the last time you heard politicians developing policies to cope with the coming changes?
When was the last time you listened to or saw or read scientists in earnest propounding of the deleterious (to you and I) changes that we need to make provision for and may hope to mitigate?
When did you ever see anything listed never mind quantified?
If there’s a danger we first need to identify the nature of it and then we go into harm minimisation mode, combating the danger, making provision for the danger, etc…
In this instance we’ve had an immense furore over whether or not to implement a ‘carbon tax’ and over whether or not human beings are really responsible for climate change. And that’s all we’ve had and that’s all we’ve got.
But it seems fairly obvious that a carbon tax is going to do nothing whatever to mitigate or obviate the unwelcome effects of global warming – whether we implement it or not, whether humans have contributed to global warming or not.
Read what Phil of the University of Adelaide has to say.
And read what he has to say about the major identifiable ‘adverse effect’ of global warming. Which is: rising sea levels. Which are predicted (he says) to rise by up to 4 feet by the end of the century.
But he’s not the only one. The US government says that global warming is inevitable. They claim that if ALL greenhouse gas emissions were to cease immediately we would still get appreciable warming (and sea level rise).
And here’s some Yahoo answers that conclude the same thing and give us some interesting new stuff, too.
So if it is inevitable then first and foremost, front and centre, should be facts and figures and discussions and provisions and policies for dealing with it.
But all we get is this same old crap about carbon taxes to – what? – end it? Global warming? End it? Prevent it? Nonsense. Not possible.
So it is all about a nonsense while the real problem gets closer and closer.
So why is it carrying on? Why persevere with this nonsense?
Well my guess is sheer conceit. My guess is that it is all motivated by sheer conceit.
On the part of politicians who want to ‘go down in history’.
As simple as that.
And scientists of the same ilk.
We should remember that scientists are sworn to stupidity. Sorry to have to say it so bluntly but it is a simple fact.
A scientist cannot believe anything until it has been subjected to ‘scientific analysis, investigation, testing’ – ‘proven’ scientifically.
We are all familiar, surely, with the numerous times, the numberless times, we’ve heard of scientific studies that earnestly investigate something so obvious it strikes us as completely without an need for study.
But that IS science. That IS the ‘scientific method’ – to investigate the seemingly obvious to check whether or not it is really true.
And science proceeds like that. Painfully. One step at a time.
And this progress, this method, needs people with good maths, for instance, for analysing data, and excellent placid, patient, plodding minds that can gather data meticulously for years sometimes without ever any earth shaking or even locally significant results.
The vast mass of science is performed in this tedious manner.
They know what they know about their field and they know it in particular by the results from their investigations….
And they know almost nothing else… they are no more knowledgeable about other things than you or I, quite possibly less because it is easy for them to think of themselves (it seems, nowadays, anyway) as somehow superior and automatically more correct, simply because they are scientists.
So I think many of them support the climate change debate in a wrong headed and confused fashion just like the pollies.
To be other than wrong headed and confused they would constantly strive to point out that the change is apparently inevitable and we should be preparing.
That’s the climate change thing.
But there’s more earth change than climate change. Why isn’t it being looked at?
There’s environmental change from many points of view.
Take resources – mineral resources – they are being mined out of existence… soon we’ll be scrabbling for the last few remnants of many things and we’ll have great difficulty continuing our present lifestyle across the planet without these things.
Take living space for indigenous peoples…
Take timber, the forests, the biodiversity…
And no doubt many more aspects that I haven’t thought of.
For the problem isn’t Climate Change – the problem is Earth Change – the Earth is being changed in a way that seriously compromises the future of earthlings.
That’s what it really is about, should be about.