Politics...At The Expense of Science

The current co-chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Sir John Houghton was quoted as saying once that, "Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen." This is precisely the kind of thinking where one can see the beauty of this "global con" for all its worth. It really comes down to the newsworthiness of the subject matter...and the issue of climate change (the new "catch all" phrase that is sweeping the globe...just in case something other than warming is occurring, they are able to blame it on the same thing...handy) is loaded from top to bottom because it uses the daily weather (erroneously) as a means to convey the hopelessness of the situation if "we don't change our murderous ways!" It also plays on both our physical and mental emotions. I mean, when it's hot out, we feel it sensibly and now we have something to blame it on...your next door neighbor and his or hers SUV and regardless of the fact that it is summer and is supposed to be hot (it always seems to be "hotter" than it used to be...at least that's what we are told). When there is a severe storm or hurricane that tears through a community or whole country, our sympathies immediately go out to those affected, and according to some litigators and their lawsuits...you can blame the EPA or the entire United States for these atrocities. And, these situations are headline material! When nothing in particular or the contrary is happening, we never hear about his because none or little change in anything boring and not worth putting up there on the front page. Except that now, with the trade-off of the phrase "global warming" for that of "climate change," a whole lot more ground can be covered...where before only the warming and consequences of said warming applied, now everything applies.

Politically, I'm an independent although I've walked both sides of the tracks in my early years for one reason or another. Even then, however, I supported or voted for what or whom I thought was right after looking into the issue or individual. I have worked in or around the environmental sciences for over the last twenty years and dearly support my idea of environmentalism...not what is shoved in front of me as "green politics." There are far more important things than just clean air, clean water, or saving the world from itself...there are humans and their lives, thoughts and ideas at stake. I am a father of three and want the world in EVERY way to be a better place for my children and their children. But, just what is better? And should I or anyone else tell me what that is? Of course, at the base level, it's all relative, as anything that returns a better quality of life to those living at the time could be deemed worthwhile. But...and this is a big BUT...what and whose quality of life are we trying to improve? And should any means possible be used to get this...including the decimation of the foundation of science itself? Well I say no! Yes, I partly say this as a scientist and because I'm tired of seeing other scientists selling their collective souls in order to perpetuate a scientific fad for their careers or political affiliations. I also partly say this because I want a better future for everyone. Everyone should have the ability to weigh the consequences of a particular outcome based on the facts, not the facts according to the highest bidder.

I recognize and acknowledge these kinds of political tactics as they have been going on forever...the old, "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" mentality. But there is no room for this in the science disciplines. Not if you are in the pursuit of the truth (philosophically anyway). We are at a juncture now (actually, a bit past the "fork in the road," if you know what I mean) that is becoming evermore important each day that we let this global climate lie go on...but I still think that there is time to backtrack a bit and recover the purity that was once science itself. The only way to do this, however, is to think calmly outside of the climate change box and say, "Wait a minute, let's wait and see what is actually going on instead of spreading the word of the latest doomsday model." It's funny, but we used to say things were an "act of nature" or an "act of God"...but not anymore. If there is something to be gained by someone or some group, then another individual or group will pay for it...it's that simple. Imagine what we could do for those living today (and subsequently their progeny) with all the energy, time and money spent proliferating a lie. Actually, it's worse than a lie...it's a mix of truths and lies together...propaganda...which completely distorts reality and is therefore much harder to defend yourself against.

In the end, ask yourself who or what stands to gain from this kind of misinformation and then why. Look for alternatives...especially if something sounds larger than life or out of control all of a sudden. Be a champion for the environment, but do it for the right reasons...not because you are being told to or because you feel guilty for breathing too much today. Just do the best you can within the limits of your given life. I read a story earlier today whose headline was, "Belching Moose Add to Global Warming." I'm not kidding either. Again, there is a modicum of truth to the story based on the amount of methane gas that they spew out on a yearly basis. Methane is a much more important greenhouse gas (more than 20 times "stronger") than carbon dioxide (CO2)...and as such is deemed much worse for the environment. However, what do you suppose those same eco-activist groups would say to the killing of a large population of those wondrous beasts for the sake of saving the planet from climate change? It's both ironic and conundrum for those people...maybe it'll keep them busy enough trying to figure what to do that they'll drop the whole thing. Not. By the way, one of the arguments put forth by the professor, who came up with this deadly scenario, to save the moose population was that they were ruminants, and as such eat grass. So what you ask? Well without them (the moose) there would be too much grass! The local and regional eco-systems would topple like Rome. Imagine that...killer grass. But grass is good for the atmosphere as it uses up deadly CO2 to produce oxygen. Another puzzle. I guess that you have to ask yourself which is more deadly, the moose or the grass? (The answer is moose...you can't get trampled to death by grass. On the other hand, you can eat a moose! You can eat grass too, but it'll lead to indigestion and methane gas and carbon dioxide production...putting you on the "most wanted" list.)