i know i am not qualified to interpret scientific data. i never claimed i was qualified.
IDRGAF about the last political campaign - that's an obfuscation argument.
my remarks were about the intent of the fiction novel. what the book was attempting to portray as part of the storyline.
i don't see the correlation between boeing engineers and global warming.
actually. correlation is a good word here, as i think laypersons often confuse correlation and causation. more importantly, mainstream media is likely a bit sloppy in the distinction between the two. it is common for an everyday person to make a statement like "polar bears are dwindling because of global warming" - now that is certainly a sensational statement and perhaps even tragic in that polar bears may be dwindling, but the statement implies that global warming is CAUSING polar bears to dwindle. that is certainly one theory in explaining the correlation, but it is hardly a fact.
there may be a correlation between rising temps and polar bears. but that does not mean we should pull out our jump to conclusions mats and start playing.
even the term global warming is in dispute - and the layperson's definition of it is manufactured by media reports and accepted at face value without any understanding whatsoever as to it's meaning and implications. largely those definitions typically include doomsday scenarios, death and destruction, etc. presumably because that puts a picture to the idea and makes it more emotionally relate-able.
the book is a novel, with a storyline that takes a certain point of view and validates it within the structure of it's characters. i think those who immediately cry foul, who claim the author is the devil, part of a right-wing conspiracy, an enemy of science, a bush-appointee or secret confidant, etc. are a little too attached to their own dogma. but in that way, the book is very effective in touching something deep inside the reader too. taking some of the theoretical counter-arguments to popular belief and posing them as legitimate ideas in the context of the storyline can be very entertaining, even informative!
i stand by my earlier statements that the sciences posing the arguments supporting the theory of global warming are politically and financially motivated. that their field is based upon interpreting inaccurate data and/or relying upon subjective computer simulation models. that the media plays a large role in the spread of disinformation and that the fear-mongering is part of a larger objective to pacify and make submissive the population.
Quote:
|
The simple fact of the matter is that climate science is a complex science, and therefore we are generally only really beginning to understand everything that is happening. But that doesn't mean we don't understand anything about what is happening.
|
i could not agree more. given that it is so complex and that we barely understand even a little bit - it seems a little premature to begin issuing doomsday press releases for the purpose of instilling fear, making money, securing support or winning elections, adoration or ego-building.
the challenge is not in understanding what is happening in the here and now - the challenge lies in understanding the WHY and how past events have affected or not affected the path to here. those issues may never be fully understood due to their complexity and our lack of ability to measure our own impact upon natural events.