<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Doug McNash <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dmcnash@charter.net">dmcnash@charter.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
It appears that the paradigm is shifting from the "consensus" of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) to probing the depths of how deep the fraud goes and who stands to benefit.<br></blockquote><div><br>Sadly, people _do_ have failings at a personal level. There are loudly promoted cases of scientific misconduct and that very publicly undermines the general public trust of the scientific community. But by the same illogical arguments below to condemn the field based on the single person bad ethics is the same as punishing the class for the bad behavior of a single student. I don't hear people harshly criticizing the fraud science surrounding cold-fusion to the extent that climate science is denigrated. Is it perhaps the personal financial interests of those who stand to loose the most as the population shifts to mitigate the current bad behaviors contributing to excess CO2 production? Is it instead a general opposition to new ideas? Or maybe is a deep seated fear of of change? I suspect is a blending of all of the above plus some good old fashioned laziness. <br>
<br>It took nearly 40 years before quantum mechanics was understood well enough that it became universally accepted as a solid model of subatomic interaction mechanisms. It took 30 years for the periodic table to become fully accepted. Climate science has been around for about 25 years. Prior it was a mix of distinct fields (sort of still is) so it is still assembling itself as a single cohesive field. <br>
<br>The notion that humans can have a deleterious impact on a global scale is anathema to many people of a less progressive personal philosophy. Partly this seems to be related to religious dogma that forms the core beliefs of modern conservatism. If God created the Earth and Man is less than God, how can Man impact the Earth without elevating himself to the status of a god. To do so is fundamentally denied in the acceptable behavior models in western religious practices. Additionally, western religion has a phrase (too lazy to look up the exact wording in any bible version or the exact reference) that is something like "and God gave all of the land and seas and creatures to man to do with as he chose". Again that's a bad paraphrase but the point there is a core belief that Man has the right to extract all the wealth and use from the planet as he can and there are no consequences for him doing so because God said it was OK. <br>
<br>Before I made the deliberate choice to walk away from all religion, I found that attitude repugnant. To think that a person today has the right to eat up all the resources we are supposed to be holding in trust for our children and their children and do it all for the sake of making a sack of gold heavier stinks of the highest level of arrogance and irresponsibility that even the buggering priests and the vermin church scum that hide them can't compare to. <br>
<br>At the point where the climate change naysayers on this list go and get a PhD in physical chemistry or geology or physics and have the mental athleticism to actually perform research and have the competancy to draw solid conclusions instead of relying on the weak minds of modern journalism for their thoughts on climate change, I will stop further rants like this.<br>
<br><what a freakin' rant. can you tell it hit nerve?><br clear="all"><br></div></div><br>-- <br>-- <br>James P. Kinney III<br>Actively in pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness <br><br>