One report said that it will take a thousand years to "undo" the atmospheric Co2 levels we have caused. Another report stated the melting ice caps would flood Washington DC. Yet another report said the severe winters would worsen, droughts would widen and heat waves would intensify. All recent articles on global warming, and all atmospheric phenomenon that are fairly regular in occurrence. The one exception here is our contribution to the Co2 concentration in the atmosphere. (That is our fault and must be why the weather is so unpredictable).
Wrong. One has little to do with the other as it is represented in these reports. The world is doing what it does, what it has done in the past, what it will do in the future. Why then all these horrific reports in such close proximity? Simple, government spending. One of the administration’s agenda items is to prove global warming to be true. How do I know this? Because I just cashed in on the farce, that’s how.
A colleague of mine (Matt) was in weapons development and since moved to scientific research platforms. (It is something we all do, the data collection systems are very similar). It is normal to see a developer assisting in other forms of research or even "moonlighting" in other fields. Here (at work), what we have done is bring in an entire department designed specifically to strip current platforms down and fit them for atmospheric, oceanic and geologic data collection. The idea behind it is political; democrats reduce defense spending dollars. It makes little sense to keep squeezing a rapidly drying rock for water. A portion of the monies that were once allocated for defense spending have been moved to the research of (to prove) global warming. Making the early transition here only made sense. Given that all we had to do was remove components made it all the easier. The removed components were forwarded to lines currently in manufacturing and moved up our delivery dates (for most there are early delivery bonuses).
My old colleague sought me out a few months ago asking for help on a system. Turned out the system was flawed but one of our units did the exact same thing he was looking to have done. (I told him he could not have the technology - it’s business, it’s not personal). In talking to him I learned of the dollars that had become available in such research. I want nothing to do with this research but I will supply the technology; and that is just what I did last night - and to the tune of 2.3 million per unit! (Double what the DoD was paying with two thirds more technology included).
This morning I had 17 messages from other companies wishing to purchase similar technology. It made me wonder; what difference does it really make? One thing stands out here; Co2. Sky rocketing the concentrated Co2 from 275 ppm to 380 in "our lifetime" (assuming we actually caused this) is not a good thing. The 275 ppm is consistent with natural emissions for our current time in history - that last 105 I think we can collectively take credit for in that all indications are that they may not be naturally occurring. (Understanding of course that Co2 increases historically follow; not proceed temperature increases). From that aspect I think we are beginning to get an idea as to how to better use our resources. Beyond that, climate is just a touch beyond our control. Paleoclimatology paints a clearer picture to the severity of global climate changes; climate changes that are naturally occurring. And when you stop to think about all of this; control (or lack there of) drives our motivation to understand this.
The reality of an ice age begs to question both the frailty of the human condition and mortality of the human species. It is better to deal with "warming" than it is to deal with freezing. In global warming we have a sense of control and it is perceptually easier to cope with in terms of survivability. Further, we think can prove it because its interpretation must be man made. (Historic scientific data simply does not support it). This collection of data is being reported to the highest payer in the terms they want to hear. They are literally paying to prove a theory; a theory that is little more than conjecture at best. (I don’t know about you, but the last time I checked that approach blows scientific theory clear out of the water). Every iota of data will therefore be grossly skewed. It will then be glorified and publically presented; and you will buy it because you believe anything anyone tells you, right?
So really, what is this about? Are we dumping huge dollars to conclude something we already know? The Co2 level is too high. Or are we fleeing from the reality of our own mortality? Global warming has become a punch line, it is the scapegoat for every severe storm and pigeon dropping out the sky of old age; and it is very subjective - so subjective that all you have to do is turn the page of an eighth grade science book to disprove the average supporting theory. Yet we buy it hands down and question little about it.
Here is a twist for you. Maybe the concentrated Co2 levels are not such a bad thing. Given the pattern of historic climate changes we know cold follows the warmth we are currently enjoying - and in part fighting against, perhaps insulating the atmosphere with Co2 could prove beneficial. A swampy Venus-like atmosphere may be better than a frozen planet. (At least to us, Panamanians may object to this though).
I continue to contest global warming as a farce. Actually, look outside right now. Look at the almanac. This has not exactly been a mild winter and it has actually cooled since 2006. Granted, these are specifics and it is easy to use specifics to cast shadow on any large scale theory, but it is the large scale data (from the last 450,000 years) that consistently disproves the theory of global warming. Global temperatures simply have not responded to the increased Co2.
But in the end I appreciate the panic none the less. It seems to pay well.
-T
0 comments:
Post a Comment