Climate Change Debate Never Over

Ughhh. . . just when I thought I could ease the cognitive dissonance on Catastrophic Mankind Induced Warming, I’m reminded about how politically charged this whole debate has become and it becomes impossible to trust either side.

We get a glimpse of the true bias of the Sierra Club President when he says, “our planet is cooking up and heating and warming.” Eminent catastrophe. Eminent doom. And in order to combat this global terror, we need the increase the tyranny of government and individual livelihoods to be hurt. And then he keeps repeating “97 percent” like a mantra as though that’s enough reasoning behind his case (which you can research on your own is a highly misleading figure).

Yes, the majority of scientists agree that mankind has influence over the Earth’s climate (duh, I don’t think anyone’s seriously arguing that). Then the next questions:

To what degree are humans responsible and what is a natural Earth cycle?
How severe of warming and in what time frame?
What will the effects be?
How should we respond? (Political question)

You can’t jump from “humans have some influence on the environment” to “emergency level government controls” without going through the thought process in the middle (ie. Roy Spencer: This mantra of blindly following the “majority” of experts without considering the original data or bias of those Scientists using your own reasoning is intellectually lazy. Don’t worry, we’re all prone to it. Grant money is highly politicized by whichever government party is in power, and of course, who can TRULY take the oil companies’ studies seriously?

To think that you need to be an “expert” to properly interpret raw data is understandable to a point, except when the raw data is so flawed even the “experts” need to make an “educated guess” on “adjusting” the data (AKA “Computer modeling”). I call it the “margin of error.”

The gist of it is that temperature gathering is much harder than it seems. So even the satellite data gets “adjusted” by different scientists. Land temperature gets biased. Sea temperature by buoys are flawed, etc. So, in other words, one huge cluster fuck privy to whichever scientists (with whichever funding source) decides to “interpret” the raw data.

Let’s list some items that historically the “government” or the “experts” commonly agreed upon which is now understood to be objectively false:

Only the Catholic Church is qualified to interpret the Bible & Science
Fat is bad, Carbs are good.
Slavery is good!
Some races are superior to others
There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq by Saddam
The government isn’t spying on you!

So basically, when it comes to just about EVERYTHING, you’re in a world where you have to critically think about every issue, the biases behind different opinions, review the raw data, review opposing views, and you can’t simply rely on “group think” (and ESPECIALLY the government) to help you find the truth. Yeah, it’s a bitch, but it’s the reality.