Posted on 11/11/2002 4:48:58 PM PST by dila813
Global Warming
I can hardly pick up a newspaper anymore without seeing one story or another making reference to so called Global Warming.
This term provides me with a daily irritation for its wide spread misuse that relies more on its connotation than its actual meaning. By relying on a word’s connotation rather than its actual meaning, a statement can be made and accepted as fact or agreeable by a wide range of professional groups. Other people reading works with references to these terms would take this to mean that these professional groups (Not having publicly disputed the work and using the same terminology themselves) have endorsed this particular view or statement.
Global warming describes a phenomenon of the global mean temperature increasing. This term appears in all kinds of works as Global Warming not global warming. I don’t know when this started to occur but the results demonstrate a mass miss-communication that is currently driving politics and activism on a global basis.
I have in my frustration frequently searched the internet and library resources for the term, “The Global Warming Theory”. Those familiar with accepted scientific methods know that before something can be referred to as a scientific fact it had to be proved out as a theory first. Since no one has ever submitted a formal paper defining this theory the term seems to have appeared out of thin air. Each work published seems to rely on a previous works use of the term.
When people read articles and they see the term Global Warming they take this as a synonym to Green House Theory (a theory that Green House Gases cause heat to be trapped in the atmosphere causing increases in global temperature).
This has caused a huge communication problem between the public, activists, journalists, and the scientific community. Journalists reporting for the public ask the scientific community if Global Warming is a fact and if it is occurring. The scientific community interprets these terms using the literal meaning and answer in the affirmative that this is a fact. The journalists then report this to the public as a whole and the headline usually ends up saying something like, “Global Warming is Real!” The public, upon reading this and previous articles they have read, believe this is confirmation of the Earth warming being caused due to Green House Gases released into the atmosphere by man.
When the scientific community publishes data that shows what they think global warming over the last 100 years has been based upon ice core samples or whatever, it tends to be reported in the newspapers as, “Global Warming responsible for Temperature Increases over Last Hundred Years!” The public again interprets this to mean that the Green House Gases released by man over the last 100 years are responsible for the increases in temperature being reported.
I think the reason that this bothers me so much is that I care about the planet so much because I want to ensure a good quality of life for my children. As long as people are talking apples and oranges, we can not have an intelligent discussion about what is happening in the environment.
I believe that the reason that this has continued so long is that many in the scientific community realize that the public is misinterpreting the information and that activist groups are reinforcing this with misinformation, but with this flood of concern came a flood of research dollars. Since they don’t feel they have violated any scientific ethics in their release of data they don’t feel the need to go out and try to correct these misconceptions. I hear some of them justify this because their job is research not trying to get involved in what they view as politics.
I wish someone would fix this so that when someone puts together the headlines for news articles that they choose better terminology instead of global warming.
If people realized how much we don’t know about this phenomenon, they would push their elected representatives to prepare for the coming climate change instead of trying to resist it with expensive strategies that may or may not be worth it.
'Pod
The winters have been warmer and the summers hotter and drier, especially during El Nino years.
What I don't believe, and I don't believe that science has proved, is that Global Warming is a man-made phenomenon. And it's that fact that the leftist media, the U.N., and the enviro-whackjobs constantlly get wrong.
Good article and I agree with you. Back in the '70s, I worked very hard supporting environment issues.
Unfortunately, the more I worked in the field documenting actual pollution cases, the more I realized something was wrong with the picture.
Oh sure, I was able to take some horrifying film of a waterfall with 3 feet of soap suds at it's base. Everyone was disgusted with the images and thanked me for my work. What I did not show, was a thriving community of fish only 3 feet away. Why? Because my job was to document the horrors of pollution! Although my films were factual, it was a classic case of selective editing.
Eventually, I became so disgusted with the fraud, that I left it forever. Today, I am proud to be labeled an Anti-Environmentalist!
Nothing to be proud about. Do you truly desire that our water be toxic where any fish eaten from that water will cause neurological damage? Air that causes lung cancer? It is simple greed that causes chemical companies to bypass EPA regulations in the manner they dump their toxic wastes. It is a matter of survival for not only us, but for our children and grandchildren.
What many polluters fail to consider is that is it THEIR children and grandchildren that will be forced to consume and breath toxins as well as the rest of us. I suppose greed causes madness to the point where they simply don't care...
Wow, that was quite a list you just put out. Obviously, the EPA has not achieved one darn thing over the years and should be abolished.
If the environment keeps getting worse since the 1970's then all of these government programs have been a total failure.
Are you saying that they haven't cleaned up any toxic waste dumps?
Is the environment better today, than it was in 1970? If so, in what ways?
You can not have it both ways!
BRRRRRRRRR...
In contemporary context, the term environmentalist is associated with groups that burn homes under construction, burn or trash research labs, sue, not for merit,but to create obstruction, chain themselves to trees and damage personal vehicles because they do not fit their environmentally "correct" perceptions. The contemporary environmentalists riot in Seattle, Washington DC and Paris, obstruct justice and vandalize.
I too was once an environmentalist. I was and will always be concerned with the quality of the air that I breathe and the water that I drink. But, I will never ever, allow my ethics and my personal values be compromised to the point where I could be called an environmentalist today.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.