What I'm saying is, this current warming trend may or may not be caused by mankind; however, the fact that it has happened in the past is absolutely irrelevant to whether or not we are actually causing it. I prefer to rely on the data, rather than just assume it's history repeating itself.
It is not irrelevant in the slightest. In fact, past warming and cooling periods cannot be more relevant. It is also not an assumption; it is an explanation of a possible cause of current observations. It is just as possible an explanation as industrial emissions.
Don't get me wrong; I don't argue that climate change is occurring. I lack a sufficient base of knowledge to refute it. As an historian, I simply argue that such environmental phenomena as the Maunder and Sporer Minima actually happened, completely and obviously without being affected by human heavy industry. To ignore that, to simply dismiss it as irrelevant, is folly of the purest sort.
Reverend JC said:
Do you remember when our good buddy Al Gore said Gas should be 5 bucks a gallon? he said it needed to happen according to him to save our planet from ourselves. if you ask me, he said it needed to happen so he could sell carbon offsets.
While I find that a bit 'conspiracy theorist', I completely agree that petrol should be $5+ per gallon. America has had an artificially-depressed fuels market for decades, while other developed countries have seen comparatively dramatic rises. The current elevation in fuels can be attributed to a concatenation of several factors:
1. The artificially-depressed fuels market in the USA is finally adjusting to the global fuels economy;
2. The $USD is suffering in the international currencies market;
3. The currency pegged to the price of crude oil is the $USD;
4. The USA economy is principally consumerist, and is reaching the point where continued consumption will be unable to support itself;
5. The USA economy is becoming alarmingly inflationist.
I'm sure I missed some rather more obscure indicators. But the main point is that the rise in fuels prices should come as no surprise. The world's other developed nations have been paying much higher fuels prices for decades. We're just catching up!
PeteOz77 said:
While I agree with Edwort on the theory that there is nothing we can do about "Climate Change", I still think that the rising fuel prices are the BEST thing possible for the entire world. We MUST stop burning fossil fuels, or at least decrease our usage.
If Carbon Credits are the only way to force industry to tighten their belts and pull their head out the sand, then so be it. When it gets too expensive to burn oil, we WILL find an alternative...
I agree wholeheartedly that we humans should make every effort to not pollute with wild abandon, should decrease our usage of fossil fuels, should explore alternative means of energy supply, etc. The problem is that this requires a complete shift of mindset on the part of humans everywhere, a shift from "What's in it for me?" or "How can I entertain myself next?" to "How is this thing I want to do going to affect other people and the big blue marble we live on?" That's a very big, seemingly impossible paradigm shift.
When it gets too expensive to use fossil fuels, it'll be because of a lack of supply. Simple as that.
Noisy123 - so what you're saying is that nobody who doesn't understand the minutiae of climate modeling is entitled to an opinion, that "underinformed" means one cannot express feeling on the matter? Is that right? If that's true, we shouldn't have opinions on foreign policy because we're unfamiliar with the processes undergone in diplomatic dialogue. Neither should we have opinions on anything else we understand less than credentialed specialists in that field.
Sorry; I'm throwing the "Excessive Hubris" flag on this one. We are all entitled to our opinions, informed or not. I prefer that opinions are informed, but accept that they need not be. Please don't be so politically naive as to attempt to frighten the underinformed into believing other people because they, the underinformed, cannot comprehend the high science involved. I don't fully understand the science involved. I barely passed high school algebra; there's a reason why I'm a humanities geek. But I can observe dissension within the scientific community as to what exactly is going on.
Have you forgotten that "majority rules" science has been wrong before? History is replete with examples. "We all
know this is the way things are," grump the Majority. "But what if!" pipes the Upstart, who is then smacked down until he supports his position, long and loud enough, that the Majority finally listen. Moreover, 51% belief by experts does not make
fact. A majority opinion, perhaps, but not scientific fact. Scientific fact only comes when someone who doesn't agree with the fact looks a fool to the most uninformed of bystanders. See "flat earth" theorists.
=Evan!You do not do anyone any justice by engaging in ad hominem attacks, because that's exactly what the "other side" does too. They paint anyone who doesn't agree with their environmentalist agenda as corporate apologizers who just want to be able to drive their land yachts around. Meanwhile, the staunch deniers paint anyone who thinks differently from them as hippies, communists, socialists, etc. It's patently irresponsible on both sides, and I'm sick and goddamned tired of it! It's exactly this kind of ********* polarization that leads to the "with us or against us", digging-in-the-trenches kind of crap that plagues this debate incessantly. Either you're a hippie socialist who believes in global warming, or you're an SUV-driving corporate apologist who doesn't. Who exactly is served by these foolish stereotypes? WTF do motivations really matter? Why can't we look at the facts, rather than these meaningless association games?
My sentiments exactly. But that's the new standard of political debate, and it's not going to evaporate anytime soon. Besides, it's easier to make
ad hominem attacks than attack the statements. It's easier to label someone who disagrees with Megan's Law as someone who hates children than someone with a thoughtful stance on individual human rights. Sad, innit?
Regards to all,
Bob
