|
|  |
|
|
|
| |
| Jan 24, 2010 3:54 pm |
|
re: Global Warming - Dimming the Sun |
James Booth
| |
.
Denigrating any other person does nothing to provide a sustainable future for anyone.
Vilifying any scientist does not produce results which might overcome the possibilities of *climate change* which have potential to make life very difficult not only for humans, but for all species.
Yet for some reason only an individual can be sure of, there is a tendency to attack a person, or a reputation, in frustration, perhaps for not having sufficient knowledge to understand what is happening to our climate, much less to make any decision about what positive actions to take to keep our planet liveable.
Defining "easy" terms like "climate change" is one of the first things we have to do in order to have any real, effective dialogue.
*Climate change* can refer to the natural cycles of changes in our atmosphere, or it can signify a lasting change, perhaps caused by "unnatural" input to a natural system.
I suggest that such terms are crafted by those who believe, and apparently rightly so, that most of us will not properly define such vague terminology as we take some political stance on an issue such as "global warming" - another term which needs proper definition.
Yes, there are "more than a few grandiose schemes to use various Rube Goldberg solutions to "do something" about global warming" - including "schemes" which have been ongoing for decades that we know very little about, the existence of which some people are not yet aware, schemes which may have beneficial effect, or may have made matters worse for us overall.
Being "scared witless" is not my style of operation in any case, but I do strongly protest "covert" measures which more than "experiment" with "weather modification" but now appear to have produced significant changes in our weather, weather patterns, rainfall, and the temperature in our atmosphere - measures which were not begun through any "mandate" of any people, but by agencies which have their own agendas, of which We, The People, are seldom informed.
As I have previously stated, we need good data, unadulterated science, from which we can make rational determinations of what IS happening, and then what we might do about it; therefore, half-baked schemes which further modify our atmosphere when we do not even yet know the long term effects of human "every day" action are dangerous.
As was said earlier, "... if they get it wrong, an entire planet is screwed: roasted, frozen, asphyxiated, poisoned, starved, whatever."
No "computer model" yet exists which takes into account all the variables which affect - determine - our weather and the condition of our atmosphere.
Science which improves computer models by discovering variables which must be included is required, and that science must be allowed to do its work free of political agendas and financial manipulations.
Attempting to review "current science" which has been falsified, whether knowingly or not, is of little use to any of us, and is a waste of time for which some individuals will just give up even trying to understand the situation, much less do anything about it.
Headlines and other "communications" which are blatantly untrue, intending to mislead the public in regard to something on which our survival hinges, should perhaps be considered criminal activity.
Misleading the public about something so serious "inadvertently" - by those who pretend to know something - might well lead to their dismissal as a "credible source" of vital information.
On the personal level, it is essential that we shed the voices and urgings of "commentators" and others who are paid to influence our opinions and settle down to clear thinking and a real comprehension of what we face, of what we are doing, of decisions we all have to make, on an individual level and collectively.
The *actions of mankind* HAVE effects on "the environment" without question.
Because mankind is not yet able to accurately measure what those effects are does not negate existence of those effects.
In my view, the most obvious thing "mankind can do to change" whatever effects humans are causing to our atmosphere, and to our environment, is to act in ways which *change* our atmosphere and environment as little as possible.
Balance is "the way nature intended to be" and "mankind" - humans - currently tilt the balance Nature will ultimately restore, at which point whether humans survive or not will be inconsequential.
JBPrivate Reply to James Booth (new win) |
|
| |
|
