Some who care

LRC has two articles that agree with my point in OINK 15 last week.

First - Baltzersen

'It has a lot to do with the tragedy of the commons, which really is a tragedy. It also has to do with factories getting and having gotten government permission to pollute the private property of others. As for carbon dioxide, it is highly debatable whether this is pollution. Humans emit carbon dioxide when breathing. It is needed for life on this planet. If the global temperature rises as an effect of increased radiation from the sun, and all else is equal, the oceans will release carbon dioxide due to temperature-dependent capacity.'

Second - Rozeff

'We greatly deceive ourselves if we believe that we will be led into the light by government reports, especially reports of inter-government organizations such as the U.N. We greatly deceive ourselves if we believe that panels of scientists working under the auspices of government agencies will lead us into the light of true knowledge.'

Now back in Dr. Lenny voice - Control of any kind is imposing order into a chaos field. Ignoring the problem, or business as usual approach is imposing chaos into an order field (or a mine field, your choice). We have forced creativity out of the minds of most of the population, by keeping them saturated with inconvenient truths which are truths only because the language has been parsed. Climate change does occur, always has, always will.

Dynamic systems do that. Stagnant systems set and accumulate and don't change with time. The stagnant system generates hot air and can't control itself - and its order degenerates into chaos. The dynamic system generates wind, growth and other alternate forms of power - and its chaos degenerates into order, as people figure out what works and do it. Without imposed controls and 1500 scientists to tell us how to do and what to do and when to do and what to use and ...

We can each be our own scientist and think about what we see and do what is intentional and convenient. If you think something is happening, collect some data and see if it supports what you think. If somebody says something that makes you think, ask a question that can be answered as evidence for or against. Taking the basis of fact and applying it in another different field is one way of building capacity and finding symmetries.

Singer spin, from a climate watcher.
'A commonly cited proof for human-caused global warming claims there is a scientific consensus. This claim is based mainly on a flawed essay by Naomi Oreskes of the University of California, San Diego, which appeared in the journal Science in December 2004. But even if a majority of scientists had voted for human-caused global warming, that's not how science works. Unlike in politics, the majority does not rule. Rather, every advance in science has come from a minority that found that observed facts contradicted the prevailing hypothesis. Sometimes it took only one scientist; think of Galileo or Einstein.'