Maybe Man IS To Blame For The Climate

I used to be a "climate denier". By that I mean I believed that climate change was real, but man's impact has been minimal to nonexistent. But that has changed.

Back in August of 2020, Death Valley, California posted a temperature of 130 degrees (Fahrenheit, cause, come on, if Celsius we wouldn't be here!) This was reported as the highest temperature since 1913, when it reached 134. What has happened between 1913 and 2020?

We had an industrial revolution that pumped a lot of pollution into the atmosphere.

We had reports of Global Cooling in the 1970s - the world was going into a new ice age. I know, you can't believe that - but that was what scientists reported.

We started a campaign to address the pollution. The EPA got its start. The Cuyahoga River in Cleveland stopped burning. The catalytic converter became the norm in our cars.

Then around 2000, the Rev. Al Gore (Minister of Mother Earth) started showing a slide show of the dangers of Global Warming.

And in August of 2020, Death Valley, California posted the highest temperature since 1913.

So what does this tell us? Man, by his pollution, brought the earth to the brink of an ice age, and by eliminating pollution, brought the earth to the brink of a worldwide Death Valley. 

Maybe man IS the reason for global climate change. 

The thing that scares me is that we have scientists telling us what we need to do to fix it. And each group has a remarkably different method. For instance, some want to "seed" clouds with reflective materials to bounce sunlight away. 

What if scientists are wrong? What if what they tell us swings us deeper into the embrace of Heat Miser - or, back to Snow Miser?  

I for one have little faith in what the scientific experts of 2020 tell us. After all, the experts DID tell us of the coming ice age in the 1970s. 

"But J.P., the scientists of today are much smarter than those in the 1970s. They have more data and know more of how things work."

Can you tell me that the scientists in 50 years aren't going to prove today's scientists wrong too?

Does man have an impact on the climate? I believe so. But can man fix it? I don't know. I'm more afraid that he will cause more damage in the process.

©Emittravel 2021

Five Out of Four Scientists Agree

April 22, 2017 was the March for Science.

(A side note that has nothing to do with the topic: Why do we use Month/Day/Year to express the date? It is different in other parts of the world. In the military it was Day/Month/Year. But none of those make a lick of sense to me. Ever try sorting anything by date? Why not go from the broadest to the finest construct? You wouldn’t go Minutes/Hours/Seconds would you? When I need to label something with a date, like in my journal for instance, I use Year/Month/Day.)

I’ve written my fair share of articles concerning science. I’m not anti-science, but I’m not an all-in advocate either. The reason for that is that the term “science” is used in such a broad manner, that to simply say, “Yay science!” can be considered a bit naive.

(Thus my oh-so-clever title.)

I didn’t participate in the march. I find those types of events to have very little impact overall. Mostly they are used to make ourselves feel good. If that is the impact you are looking for, then go get some comfortable shoes and get out there.

(To clarify, most marches TODAY have very little impact. Gone are the days of Martin Luther King where marches had impact. Today they are mostly anti-Trump speech.)

Most marches (I didn’t say “all marches”) are for some type of protest. To say you are marching FOR science means you are marching AGAINST the lack of funding or education, or AGAINST those who don’t agree with your particular scientific “bent”.

What I want to know is, why were you marching? What kind of science were you marching “for”?

Do you agree with advertising? Do you like being manipulated in subtle ways to purchase the latest gadget? Did you like then-candidate Trump spouting off on Twitter to get people riled up? No? Then you don’t agree with the science of psychology, because it is precisely that type of science that provides the basis for human understanding that allows such manipulation.

Or do you agree with “clean energy”? You like that birds are being killed by wind turbines? Or that the global temperature is going up in part by the reflective heat from solar panels that are OVER 60% INEFFICIENT? Or that whole towns that depend on mining coal are becoming ghost towns?

The thing is, we have this overly high opinion of ourselves that says we are SO much more intelligent than those who came before. You know, we aren’t idiots like those so-called scientists in the past that said that machines heavier than air cannot fly, or that if you traveled over 50 miles an hour you would suffocate, or that eggs are good for you (Or is it bad for you? I forget. It keeps changing.)

Remember that complete moron who only changed the way we looked at psychology? You remember: Sigmund Freud? No one would dare follow his scientific discoveries today.

But not all science is bad. It's just that much of it is financially or politically (or am I being redundant?) motivated.

So again, I ask you: when you March for Science, exactly for WHAT are you marching?

© Emittravel 2017