A few weeks ago I watched a special on the National Geographic Channel regarding hurricanes. In this program scientists claimed that hurricanes go through active and inactive cycles, and that we are now on the tail end of an inactive cycle. (I couldn't find a link on the Internet for this program, sorry.)
With the results of their research they discovered that the number of devastating hurricanes will only be increasing in the future. The early part of the 20th century holds the record for the most devastating hurricanes, before global warming came into play, and there have only been a few storms since the 1950's that reached devastating levels in comparison to the double digit number of hurricanes in the early part of the century.
I read blogs ad nauseam posting on the Chicago heat wave during the Clinton administration. At no time did the MSM nor the GOP place blame of a disastrous meteorlogical event upon him. The same supposed global warming situation existed at that time, yet Clinton was not accused of failing to act upon global warming, nor getting FEMA on site fast enough. (My favorite piece on this was done by my buddy Jason.)
The more I read about global warming, the less convinced I am. Historically our planet has gone through cycles. Hot cycles, cold cycles, wet cycles, dry cycles. When you hear of 100 year floods, droughts, et al; these are all facts that are on record and need to be called to attention more often. Recently it was reported that fossil fuel use had little to do with global warming; yet there are scientists at the current time hitting radio and televion programs claiming that the frequency and intensity of this hurricane season is in fact directly related to global warming.
I have decided that science is too much like politics. Different people with different theories coming to different conclusions. The facts on both sides are overwhelming and to the public often confusing. I do think we use too much fuel, and I do think that the government has made deals with oil companies to keep that industry thriving. What do we do? We need reputable citizens, NOT CELEBRITIES, to join this fight. Yes I have a gas-guzzling SUV. I purchased this car partially in protest to the left and their hypocrisy. But I do know that in the future, when hybrids are better performing, or a new technology has come about, that I will leave my SUV behind and enjoy the accountability I owe to the planet that God endowed us with.
In the mean-time, drill in ANWR, drill here in Colorado, drill in Wyoming and Utah. This would impact our dependency on foreign fuel and hopefully make the energy industries focus on the future a bit more.
Technorati Tags hurricanes, global warming, and heat waves
Posted by Stacy at September 22, 2005 12:15 AM | TrackBackDrill 'til it hurts, baby. Oil is BY FAR the most energy dense fuel readily accessible/available for consumption. All these "alternative fuels" are mostly a way for universities to get grant money for their research programs. Gasoline contains more chemical energy per unit of volume than practically anything else known to man (that can be safely used for fuel).
Global warming is widely known by the scientific community to be the equivalent of the "alternative fuels" garbage: just a way for some zealots to grab funding and political cache; there is not one shred of credible evidence that the global climate is doing anything other than incredibly infinitesimally small variations in temperature, well within not only natural variations, but also within the range of error of the measuring instuments used.
Posted by: Jeff H at September 22, 2005 01:11 AMYeah, but you know how they play the "Yeah, but..." game. (not that I'm trying to do that now). Sometimes they concede that their evidence is not all that great then add: "but suppose we are right". following that logic, one could posit the most far-fetched theory imaginable ("allowing known sex-offenders to work in schools will innure them to their urges" for example). That proposition is ludicrous on the face of it. But there would be (and probably are) those that would claim, "...but it could work". Junk science is just that. For us or any country to adopt it as policy is folly.
Posted by: J Rob at September 22, 2005 08:55 AMScience is more like religion than polotics. Some base their faith on logic and some just follow blindly. Junk science is like that very shallow blind faith. It is driven by the cult of environmentalism. And that cult cannot divorce themselves from socialism. What a destructive coctail of beliefs.
Posted by: bigwhitehat at September 22, 2005 09:41 AMOn the news the other day: Hotdogs are now proclaimed "good for you"..The "scientists" are always blabbing something..I just don't buy the whole global warming theory. Michael Crichton wrote that the fear generated by scientists in the 1970's was of an approaching Ice Age....LOL!
Posted by: marta at September 22, 2005 11:14 AMI think I'll quit posting while fatigued, this was crap.
Posted by: Stacy at September 22, 2005 02:21 PMFolks, don't throw out the baby with the bath wather. There is good science going on trying to understand the very complex issue of global warming (and bad science too). It takes much computer power, good modeling, and good data to try to determine what role human activities play in global warming. The devil is in the details.
In the end, though, the models at best will give probabilities, and through the political process we need to assess at what point we should intervene (or not). The problem comes when scientists or others speak with greater certaintly than the data allow, either out of infatuation with their brilliance (an understandable human failing) or out of a political/ideological agenda (which turns science into a prostitute).
To navigate this welter of information will take both healthy skepticism and courage.
Posted by: civil truth at September 22, 2005 09:55 PMMichael Crichton's book "State of Fear" is based on enviromental issues and how the enviromental movement is a politcal organization. It brings up a lot of good questions about how we live our lives. Not sure how much is accurate about global warming but it is an interesting book.
Posted by: meyeet at September 23, 2005 10:59 AM