Social Sense
You ask good questions- the same ones I asked about all this.
Reasonable arguments and debate need to happen with this, not just hype.
Mustang,
The sky is falling. The end is near. All this global warming crap just seems like a more sophisticated way of saying those two things. IMHO.
The sky hasn't fallen and the end has not come, despite people saying it since I have been alive. And with that in mind, I will say that the world will nor succumb to global warming either. It is more likely to fall prey to a nuclear holocaust, because the inhabitants of the world do not recognize that a portion of that world wants to dominate the rest.
Mustang, I've been on the case of the GW true believers for almost as long as I've been blogging. None of those folk can even grasp the concept of proof because a "consensus" of selected scientists says it's true. Oh, well, the battle sure is fun though and I can't think of a more talented warrior than you to pursue it.
Mustang,
I bet that you, like I, get lots of "heat" for taking these positions and always using the formula: "Who says so? What proof do you have? What is your source? The "Everybody knows" deal ISN'T a valid proof." etc.
So very many people (myself included from time to time) hold opinions (sometimes violently...see "terrorists, fanatics, et al") that they have no real proof for. The "news media" are often the source (or passers alongers) of much of the drivel that passes for fact among so many.
Meanwhile, I am waiting to see who really won the election in Mexico...right. Here's my take...the people of Mexico didn't "win", and will not until real reform is made...which will not happen in my life-time, if ever.
Weren't some of the past wildfires ignited by arsonists? Maybe not many, but some.
My husband is from Southern California, and his siblings still live there. They maintain that one reason for the fires is the regulation against cutting back undergrowth. I don't know if they're correct, but I'm certain that they have some experience with living in arroyos which serve as funnels for blazes to reach the multi-million-dollar mansions built overlooking what was once naturally a desert. My in-laws know firsthand about wildfires: the family home in Pasadena burned to the ground on October 27, 1993. No mention was made of global warming.
From Hotz's article:
the changing climate was the most important factor driving a four-fold increase in the average number of large wildfires in the Western United States since 1970
And since 1970, smog-control has greatly improved in the Los Angeles area. No longer does the city reek of automotive exhaust. But the greenies can't be satisfied--now they're drumming on and on about global warming in much the same way they drummed on and on about air pollution in the '60s and '70s.
The same environmentalists in the '60s and '70s were also big on zero-population growth, but the left doesn't seem to want to apply that concept to the reproduction rates of immigrants. I just had to put that in, even if I am a bit off topic!
Not off topic at all, AOW. High population densities compound environmental problems. Human beings, by their nature, are very messy. The more people there are, the greater the mess.
It is true that there are more people living in Southern California than the infrastructure can support, which means that the costs of basic services goes up as governments struggle to find solutions to overpopulation problems. Note several law suits between CA and NV over the issue of water.
The natural state of Southern California is savannah scrub. The addition of hundreds of thousands of "new arrivals," all with manicured lawns and flower gardens, significantly changes that natural environment. IMO, everyone living in Southern California is on a very short environmental tether.
Mustang,
IMO, everyone living in Southern California is on a very short environmental tether.
When that wildfire raged at my in-laws' house, the water was cut off so as to furnish the fire department with an adequate amount. Therefore, the sprinkler system failed, once the water from the pool was exhausted. The network of private roads in that neighborhood make it especially difficult for the firefighters to locate and quickly reach the houses which were burning (The fire jumped in weird ways; whole blocks weren't burning).
I'm glad that we don't live in Southern California! A nice place to visit...You know the rest.
Yup yup its gettin hotter n hotter n hotter. whew wheres mah fan?..lol.there have been some excellent rebuttals by REAL scientists..this is a great roundup Mustang!
One blogger recently posted this GEM:
The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited release, or read the book.
But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
(See also: http://quinnell.us/b2evolution/
i...ive_arguments_0
MOST scientists had not seen the movie. But the FEW who did said that GORE conveyed the science correctly.
So then a minority of scientists agreed. Does this sound like overwhelming support to you? Me, either. In fact, could we ever expect climate researchers, who fervently believe that global warming is a catastrophe in the making, to make any other conclusion? Let me ask this question: What would happen to research funding, professional reputations, and inocme potential (tenure), if in fact global warming were found to be in the natural order of things?
But here's what really bugs the dickens out of me. Assuming that global warming is entirely our fault, and the sky is falling, and we're all going to die . . . which I do believe we all are going to die . . . what plans do these research scientists have for "saving" mankind?
Several years ago, one research scientist was provided with a ONE MILLION DOLLAR grant from the U. S. government to study the effect on the Ozone Layer of methane gas emmissions from sheep and cattle in New Zealand. In other words, he was getting some big bucks to study animal farts. What was the solution to this problem? Corks? No, there was no solution. It was just a boondoggle for some research fellow who lived high on the hog until the money ran out.
In the absence of solutions, aren't these people part of the problem? Should we stop flying all aircraft because the produce exhaust? Should we stop driving our cars? Should we stop using electricity?
What ARE the solutions, you research fellows? I'm listening . . .
Hello?
I hope you dont mind that I included your very well written site in my latest post. Cheers!
Thank you TP. I appreciate your taking the time to review Social Sense, and of course I'm flattered by your compliment. I've bookmarked your blog -- I'll stop by as often as I can.
Semper Fi
Science is for Girls (still love you though ladies, no offense)!
Real men use bull sh!t and fish tales to get their point across..
Did I ever tell you about the time I kicked a bear's tail while smoking a cuban cigar and flirting with the Sweedish model? No? Well, after I tell you about global warming, I'll get to it.
Sorry for that anon post there folks... was writing in disguise... lol.
G: I thought you wanted to keep that a secret . . . Now everyone knows!
LOL
These environmental impact studies are pointed in the wrong direction.
If we truly can affect the weather in the ways the quacks claim, we should be weaponizing this data. Calculate where to build factories and other pollution generating systems and when to fire them up to launch tornadoes at our enemies at will.
Trust Beamish to use everything as a war strategy. 
I would not be surprised if such was not already considered. Just imagine if one could create weather or horrendous "natural" events. Let's see -- 20' snow drifts in Saudi Arabia . . . heh heh heh.
Sometimes ya just gotta demonstrate absurdity by being absurd
And then there are the climatologists who believe that the warming trend associated with the cyclical retreat of glaciers of the ice ages isn't quite over yet.
In my humble opinion, this makes sense. We have a normal, natural, cyclical phenomenon that has been repeated many, many times in the past, with accompanying climate changes of massive proportions.
In fact, satellite evidence for rivers in Saudi Arabia a looooong time ago, when the glaciers were further south, is abundant.
The process of periodic climate change doesn't stop just because we humans are here driving cars etc. The postmodernists call the rest of us "arrogant" because we have air conditioning and automobiles and factories and refuse to do without them; well,how "arrogant" is it to believe that our recent emergence on the planet, and our even more recent ability to industrialize etc., has suddenly effected massive climate changes of the sort that Mother Nature has been pulling off for millions upon millions of years?
While the process of "global warming" continues, "desertification," as it has in the past, also continues, with drier conditions marching northward behind the retreating glaciers - just as it has in the past. Plants - including many species of trees - which evolved under wetter conditions can no longer survive, and as they begin to die out, they are more subject to fire - just as they were in the past. These plants re-emerge to thrive further north, in conditions more like the ones they developed in when the glaciers were further south, while plants better adapted to desert conditions will move in and take over - just as they did in the past.
The climatologists who think we are still experiencing an interglacial warming period also tell us that we are just about at the end of it, and just as has happened in the past, the warming period will become a cooling period.
Sorry, postmodernists, they do NOT think that we are on the verge of a "runaway greenhouse effect" and will soon turn into Venus!
At that point, whenever it is, glaciers will again advance south (just as they did briefly for about four hundred years during the "Little Ice Age" which contributed heavily to the many political revolutions of the period, including our own), climate will begin to cool again, with glaciers advancing perhaps to their former latitudes.
One thing the postmodernists always do is blame US for whatever ills beset the world. It's the eternal "blame the victim" mentality. They blame our kind for everything from climate change to the idea that we brought attacks by Muslims on ourselves or even that we set up the destruction of the Twin Towers. Same ol' conspiracy theories.
Gee - you'd think no data existed prior to the beginning of record-keeping in modern times, like ice or sea sediment cores etc. that tell us about these things.
So, postmodernists, you wish for an end to "global warming." OK, but be careful what you wish for.
Oh, I'm so glad that Cubed stopped by to comment on this posting! She is a font of information on this type of thing.
Mustang,
Our comms seem to be down. You alright - all right?
Tad
Mustang,
Chirp, chirp.
Commenting by HaloScan
