What’s Your Problem With Global Warming? A Rant.
Mon, 26th September 2005What’s my problem with global warming? Equilibrium and the lack thereof.
I accept two types of global warming; that which is actually happening, which I term complex , and that which people believe to be happening, which I term imaginary.
Complex global warming has no sensible causality. Rather, it is an effect of the natural equilibrium between, primarily, our world and its sun. As such, change occurs over many generations and therefore at a rate compatible with evolution.
Imaginary global warming has sensible causality. These promulgated causes all produce the same effect: uncontrolled warming of our world. The ensuing changes are thought to be occuring rapidly, possibly within a single human generation. As such, imaginary global warming represents a threat to evolution and therefore the natural order of things.
I don’t have a problem with complex global warming. I have no difficulty accepting that our world’s temperature falls and rises over time. I do have a problem with imaginary global warming. In fact, I think it has the potential to threaten our future happiness. I am likely to hold this skeptical view until someone enlightens me with the answers to the following questions.
At what temperature should our world be?
and the derivative
At what rate should the temperature of our world change, if at all?
Quite simply put, I can’t do squat about imaginary global warming without this information. I doubt anyone can. The climate of our world isn’t like an air conditioner or central heating - there’s no dial to turn or knob to press. It can’t ever be “just right” and there’s no engineer to call who can fix that. Fortunately, that also means that our world’s climate will never punish us for our mistakes. It’ll never freeze us for leaving a window open or boil us for getting drunk and forgetting to switch it off overnight. OK, it leaks and occasionally floods, but that’s true of all fluid-based climate control systems.
Don’t think that my humour lacks seriousness. The very thought - that we can and/or should have some measurable control over our world’s climate - is primitive and potentially dangerous. It is the same seed that sprouted rain dances, fertility festivals and sacrificial virgins which is the generative force behind imaginary global warming. Quickly from it comes the notion that our world is capable of hurt and healing, of anger and appeasement and of punishment and reward. Quicker still then comes our certain ability to be the agents of our world’s sensation and the recipients of its wrath. In time, behaviour deemed to potentially incur the wrath of our world is outlawed and infractions attract rightly harsh punishment. We have done that before. The evidence is in our language.
“Heresy”.
When people start using that word regularly, I smell trouble. We don’t seem to be at that point. The worst that seems to be flying around at the moment is “loony”.
Maybe that’s why I have a problem. I’m happier being a loony than a heretic but it’s not my call. Loonies can hope to be loved as geniuses. Nobody loves heretics.
;D
Ann Onymous said: February 11th, 2006 at 23:29
Nobody loves heretics.
I do.
ReplyLibertus said: February 12th, 2006 at 14:53
I hear the Inquisition are recruiting again…
Most heretics aren’t really - they’re just people who dare to question conventional wisdom rather than actively preach revolution. In a liberal culture, such people are valued. In a defensive culture, such as that evoked by the axiom “if you’re not with us, you’re against us”, non-conformism is heresy.
ReplyLibertus said: February 12th, 2006 at 14:56
ROFL at Google again. All four ads selling air conditioners. Perfect!
Why does no-one blameair conditioning (that is, climate control) for climate change/global warming, eh? Too close to home?
ReplyAnn Onymous said: February 14th, 2006 at 22:13
If the Catholics were still in power I would be dead by now. Pope Ben 16 was the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the historical Inquisition!!!!!
Replyme_lkjhgfdsa (formerly Ann Onymous) said: April 11th, 2007 at 23:16
People who belive in human CO2 afecting climate on a large and ireversible scale, I’ve got a chalenge for you. I’m running a wager. Any person who can convince me that this is a corect theory wins £50. I want evidence that I can conferm for myself and I will not be convinced by nicely correlating graphs nor by 300 scientist saying so. I’m runing this on my site and on a forum I’m involved in here.
ReplyLibertus said: April 16th, 2007 at 19:32
Hi Me_!
Also considerBrignell’s law of scientific consensus :
:D
Replyme_lkjhgfdsa (formerly Ann Onymous) said: May 10th, 2007 at 21:59
Maybe the fact that the consensus is wrong is why I have recived no attempts. People aren’t willing to make a bet where they can only win the science is that bad.
ReplyLibertus said: May 11th, 2007 at 11:13
I’m unsurprised that your bet has had no takers. Perhaps if you raise the stakes, one of the scientists will take time off from experimenting with the planet’s climate and write you something in layman’s terms. Bear in mind that they are probably very well paid, so you’ll have to be extremely generous.
Have you read the latest IPCC report? I’ve not done so yet, lacking both interest and time, but if someone were to ask me nicely, I’d likely spend some recreational time on it and offer some opinions. Anyone interested?
Replyme_lkjhgfdsa (formerly Ann Onymous) said: May 25th, 2007 at 20:46
I haven’t read the IPCC report because I have no indterest in reviwing anything said by government agencies, lots of government agencies fighting with eachother while pressured to agree to unsound science by eco-nazis and week scientists.
Reply