Big Blue Owl wrote:
Zep, I envy your science knowledge. I wish I could make sense of so many scientific issues and anomalies, but I have to rely on my limited, home-grown "wisdom" to drag me through.
As to Gore's hype; I liken it to a fire in a theater. If there is one, no matter how small in origin, I won't admonish the usher for yelling at the top of his lungs if it helps us hear over the din of the opera.
With all the immediate 'entertainment' that keeps our minds jellied (war, terrorism, Anna Nicole, illegal immigration, intolerance, American Idol, politics, etc.) a bit of hysteria and hype may be what snaps us out of it long enough to get our attention.
BBO (and anyone else, for that matter), I would like to appeal to your "home-grown 'wisdom'" (personally, I think that is some of the soundest wisdom in many cases).
In your comparison to an usher yelling fire in the theater in order to exceed the din of the opera to the global warming alarmists. I would like to point out that it is likely that a unattended flame could very well burn down the entire theater. This has been witnessed on more than one occasion. There has been no evidence, however, that a mild increase in global temperature can ruin our environment. This has never been witnessed. In fact, there is solid evidence that there is a cyclical pattern of global thermal variations.
In the realm of science, there is a thing called an unidentified variable. This is anything, yet unknown, that influences the outcome of an event. Since it is unknown, it cannot be known what influence it will have on the event. In the global warming debate, I can think of atleast 50 known variables that are still not definitely identified as contributors to global warming. They may actaully be inhibiting the warming for all we know. How many unknown factors are there? We don't know, as they are unknown.
What we are seeing here is a cycle that has been documented previously, and there has been no hysteria . . . that is, until the extreme left wingers have found that hysteria leads to political (and financial) gain.
Granted, there may be some minor occurances that may lead to an increase in temperature, and they may seem to be related. But one must always keep in mind the scientific axiom, "correlation does not constitute causation" This means that, just because some events may seem to be related, it doesn't necessarily mean that one causes the other. It's like seeing two people who resemble each other, yet that doesn't automatically mean they are related.
Before someone jumps on the global warming bandwagon, I think it would be wise to consider the facts for themselves and come to their own conclusions. I always warn folks to be careful what they accept as fact. A person rarely declares something fervently unless there is something in it for them. Just ask Al Gore.
