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.
Perhaps you should pursue a contract with the EPA to do just that. I'd have no problem with it..
Simple, but profound words!
Why are those toxic waste sites so dangerous? Because the chemicals were concentrated in a small area.
Dig them up and spread it all over the United States. Heck, divide a single toxic waste dump into 270,000,000 million doses (population of the USA) and I would personally eat the tiny little pill given to me.
Shocking? Or do I actually understand the concept of dosage?
Try 1) a mis-interpretation of 2) aging ground-stations influenced by 3) a growing "urban heat-island effect" that tends to skew readings coupled with a political agenda that is dead set on blaming MAN for natural global changes ...
PS. Balloon data and satellites don't show this 'warming trend' that the ground station data minutely indicates ...
Au contrair, they do just the opposite. But if you'd like to continue believing that, go right ahead...
You get the idea....
Oh c'mon, you can't be serious. Perhaps you'd like to take a little plutonium pill to 'dilute' it? With our technology, it'd be fairly easy to neutralize toxins and THEN introduce the resultant substance into the environment. It WOULD cost money though, and of course we don't want to spend ANY money on anything we aren't FORCED to...
Radioactive wastes, well, they aren't so easily "neutralized". Perhaps they should be reprocessed into nuclear fuel, perhaps they should be handled as they currently are. But all the other toxic wastes COULD be reprocessed or neutralized if so desired...
Sounds alot like the Bolshevik revolution doesn't it? Two percent are in control of the useful idiots.
I once knew of a family that lived next to a lake. That lake was contaminated with mercury, and there were signs posted that warned not to eat the fish. This family had eaten the fish anyways for many years. The children were deformed and retarded.
Yes, send me my share of the US Radioactive wastes (divided by 270 million) and I would have absolutely no problem dropping this tiny pill into a hole in my back yard.
DOSAGE!!!!!
To each his own. I wouldn't follow your lead however, nor would I want my kids to be forced to do so either..
Now that should be very simple for you to medically document.
You know, every time it rains in Minneapolis, a few minutes later it rains in St. Paul Minnesota. Obviously, Minneapolis is causing the rain in St. Paul.
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.