Politics – Global Warming, Emails, and Scientific Fraud

Apparently global warming “skeptics” got a little boost today as a hacker posted a bunch of emails from a major climate research center that show scientists may have fudged the data a bit. We’ll have to see how accurate these emails actually are; let’s not forget these are illicitly obtained communications posted by somebody with an agenda, and forging emails is child’s play. But even if this is true, it still doesn’t change a few vital facts: namely, that skepticism of global warming is centered on wishes and dreams (and lies) instead of hard scientific fact.

Let’s leave aside the fact that global warming skeptics have been busted, and repeatedly, for misrepresenting everything from serious, peer-reviewed scientific research to support from the scientific community. Remember that list of 500 names, and how some of them were fake and a good chunk of the rest called and immediately demanded their name be removed? It’s worth bringing up, but let’s set that aside. Let’s look instead at what they claim.

Namely, that we are dumping billions of tons of chemicals, some of which are incredibly nasty, into the air, every year, and it has little to no effect whatsoever. So therefore we should just keep doing it.

This is really the key reason I just don’t give global warming skepticism the time of day. Maybe the science has some flaws, and I’ll cheerfully agree I’m not a climatologist. If a global warming skeptic with climatological training wants to take me on in an argument, he’ll probably win.

But I do have some basic common sense. Billions of tons of crap don’t just disappear. Sure, trees may consume carbon dioxide, but they don’t consume nitrous oxide or methane. Halon and CFCs don’t exactly pop in nature in high quantities. Who takes care of that shit? Leprechauns?

It would be one thing if the skeptics were arguing that it isn’t global warming, but rather something else. That’s not, as a rule, the argument, because these are people well-paid by groups who don’t want to reduce emissions because it would cost them money and give their stock price a temporary knock. No, instead we’re supposed to accept that nature can just absorb all this crap they’re releasing into the air because they’re too fucking lazy and cheap to do anything about it.

Sure, the worst case scenario boils down to a complete shift in literally everything, but that’s not worth losing a couple of billion in paper wealth, amirite?

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Politics – Global Warming, Emails, and Scientific Fraud”

  1. Mark Says:

    How about some kool-aid with that? It’s a little more involved than what you might think.

    • seitzeeing Says:

      :::pats you on the head::: It’s cute how you try to compare people who don’t believe what you believe to Jonestown cultists, but it undercuts your ability to debate.

      Sarcasm and condescension aside, don’t get me wrong, I know there are some people who are skeptical of the science who offer different explanations for what’s happening, some of which I understand are solid science if missing a few key pieces. But they’re not a key part of global warming skepticism. No, that crowd is the one throwing a hissy because people dare, dare to imply that private industry might just put its own interests ahead of the public. Gee, I can’t imagine where they got THAT idea from.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: