Dear blogger friends, do you remember the time when everything was incredibly simply to understand and explain?
I do; it was my childhood. I enjoyed that time, feeling confident in the knowledge I easily gleaned from my surroundings. How does a plant grow? You give it water and put it in the sun and voila! How does a car go? You put gas in it, press the pedal and push it along. Why are people so mean? Because they're dumb. Actually, I still believe that one. ;)
But there comes a time when your mind changes, your spirit becomes more sensitive to grey areas, and you begin to realize that your instinctive, superficial observation about something does not always yield the correct answer. Suddenly you have to rely on more than meets-the-eye to draw conclusions about people, situations and the way the world works. Call it a "quickening" if you like, or simply a maturing of your mind.
As a result of this change, you're bound to see that explanations about the world are significantly more complicated than you thought. How does a plant grow? Well, the same is true about it needing water and light, but how it changes the chemical compounds in the water and converting the sunlight into chlorophyll, which form cells, which then multiply, causing the plant to "expand" in a symmetrical way... The true reasons it "grows" are now beyond me.
Or use the engine example. Yes, gasoline is necessary for it to function, but so is oil and fluids of varying viscosity, which travel into different parts of the engine. Some parts grind, some belts snake around to cause other parts to move which generate... electricity? Which is sparked by the battery? Which has what to do with the gasoline? I know there's a combustion aspect to it, but other than that, I'm at a loss. Give me one of those simple machines any day; a lever, a wedge. Now those I can understand!
Duly noted, things are complicated, especially in nature. So in the 80s when climate scientists said that holes in the ozone were causing more sun to shine onto the earth, which was heating it up, you had to wonder if that was all there was to the data. It didn't seem to take into account previous temperatures of the earth, how the sun interacted with cloud cover and precipitation, sun spots, other matter in the atmosphere, etc.
Now, at the time when I heard about so-called "global warming," I was in middle school and wanted to save the world (meaning, the Earth) from disrespectful, self-interested human beings who didn't care about the planet! So the story about global warming ultimately being caused by selfish, hairspraying humans who put their evil CFCs into the atmosphere suited me fine. Without knowing anything about the issue, I determined that scientists - who would never be wrong, either deliberately or innocently - must be correct in their simple conclusion.
Granted, some of the data (like extensive information on sun spots, for example) wasn't known at the time of those initial reports. But as research concluded, it seemed natural to assume that the diasnosis would change, and the idea of "man-made global warming" would be adjusted. We have seen in recent months, however, that not only did climate scientists have data to the contrary, they concealed and rewrote this data to ensure that the ideology of evil humans out to destroy the earth would be propagated.
Today Hot Air has a story about climate scientists at the University of Leeds (England) reporting that holes in the ozone are actually preventing global warming. Here's an excerpt:
"The Leeds team found that beneath the Antarctic ozone hole, high-speed winds whip up large amounts of sea spray, which contains millions of salt particles. This spray then forms clouds, and the increased spray over the last two decades has made these clouds brighter and more reflective – helping to keep global warming in check."
The reporting scientists seem especially - ahem - cool about the new findings, simply stating that the salt-filled sea clouds' reflective quality is an "unexpected and complex climate feedback," and concluding that this does not mean the ozone holes should be allowed to "remain open." Citing the Montreal Protocol (the international treaty that banned the production of CFCs and other "ozone-depleting" substances) as responsible for stopping the ozone holes from expansion, Leeds scientists say that major carbon emission stoppage must be implemented in order to... well, he doesn't actually say why they should be decreased, but the implication is that they're having the same effect as the CFCs once did.
Let me get this straight, in a simple way: The earth's atmosphere was able to correct itself by creating a new kind of cloud that reflected the sun's rays away, keeping the globe cool on its own. At the same time, CFCs were banned internationally. The Ozone has started to repair its holes, but instead of attributing this to an ability to regulate its own temperature we're going to chalk it up to our own actions. Likewise, banning or limiting carbon emissions - whose effects on the Ozone or other portions of the atmosphere are not yet known conclusively - will produce the same effect, namely that the innocent Mother Earth will be protected from the evil humans who selfishly like driving cars.
Wow, sounds like something I would've said when I was twelve. And I would've had an easy time believing it, too, because it sounds good, right and righteous to someone who already believes humans are the cause of global warming, er, climate change. That is without even questioning whether climate change is bad! How can "change" have a moral value attached to it? The seasons change; is that wrong? Of course not.
Throw into the mix that global warming theory enthusiasts use every tactic in the book to try and convince people they're to blame for the earth's problems (again, if they can even be called that), including, but not limited to:
* Coersion - Everybody else believes in global warming; what are you, some kind of denier?
* Scare tactics - We have to stop carbon or the earth will DIE!
* Guilt - If you don't save the planet, there will be no planet for your grandchildren.
* Concealing of the evidence - remember ClimateGate?
* Distortion of the evidence - see above
What do you think, can we trust these same scientists with NEW information on global climate change? Should carbon emissions be taxed, curbed, or eliminated?
Ozone holes now helping stop global warming