The polar ice cap is melting! The ozone layer is disappearing! Whales (or whatever) are at risk! Blah, blah, blah. I'd like some irrefutable proof please, not speculation like - maybe, probably, it appears that, I predict, etc.
---
It’s time now for Two Minutes with Murphy, published every week in your hometown Nugget newspaper. Sponsored by the Country Lard Store, where 'Fat is fine, anytime!'
Country Lard! Country Lard!
It's always soft and squishy!
It's never cold and hard!
Yee haw!
---
Two Minutes with Murphy
What is this Global Warming You Speak Of?
This morning, I listened to another ‘expert’ hammer the audience with his views on global warming. The gist was that humans are destroying the planet and that we have to change our ways. The evidence, he said, was irrefutable.
For a moment, I thought that I was in church listening to an old time fire and brimstone sermon, delivered by one of the faithful. After he finished ranting, I turned off the radio, disappointed. It was the same old, tired message - heavy on gloom and doom, but short on hard evidence. He told me that the evidence was irrefutable, but failed to tell me what it was or where to find it.
What did I learn? Nothing, except that environmentalists continue to bray. Like repeatedly burping up a bad meal, their continual warnings of our impending demise are wearing thin. Because of the non-stop whining, people are switching them off. It is reminiscent of the boy who cried wolf.
I am not a scientist and claim no special knowledge or understanding of what’s happening weather wise on this rock. I will not take issue with any paper that supports or disputes global warming. The reason is simple: I have no credentials in that area. While I may not have any scientific qualifications, it does not mean that I am bereft of the power to reason. Moreover, I will question anyone who, without proof, continues to scream 'The sky is falling!'
Based on personal observations, I have chosen to ignore the global warming crowd. The reason? Every scientific paper I've read is pure speculation. These papers speak of past events, but never effectively connect what happened to what will happen. They conclude with dire warnings, but use these words and phrases - 'might...', 'if we keep doing this we might see...', 'it's probable that...', 'it is reasonable to expect...', 'this will likely cause...' In short, their arguments aren’t convincing.
I cannot live my life based on what ‘might’ happen. If the earth’s scientific community cannot find consensus, then it is pointless to lose any sleep over global warming, droughts, or a melting polar ice cap. Simply put, there are too many wildly differing opinions coming from the experts. It seems to me that they are no more qualified than soothsayers when it comes to accurately predicting the future.
Former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien’s whimsical observation about providing evidence to back an assertion belongs here. He said,
“A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven."
So I must ask the environmentalists, where is the proof?
These brainy Bo Peeps are taught to follow what is called ‘the scientific method’. It is described in the Oxford English Dictionary as, ‘a procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses…’
In other words, scientists use logical, time proven methods to formulate an opinion about a problem like global warming. Supported with evidence, they propose a solution that should be for everyone’s own good. And there’s the rub. The scientific community has yet to find that irrefutable evidence and communicate it clearly. They are the thinkers, so we depend on them to find the solutions to difficult questions, based on hard evidence.
What have the scientists managed so far? Not a lot. All sides have arrived at different conclusions, and the result is muddled. Hundreds (or thousands) of research papers have been written and debated, but the scientific community cannot come to an agreement. In the meantime, we're still waiting for someone to break the logjam.
But what about us, the general public? We're the people that have to be convinced, one way or the other. We see most of this as long winded, confusing, and generally unintelligible. We cannot understand why similarly credentialed individuals have contradictory opinions. Whom are we supposed to believe?
Based on what I have seen and read, and by simply staring out my front door, I have concluded that some of these professionals are fear mongers. There are also a few using ‘the environmental crisis’ to pad their pocketbooks. This is shameful.
But what about those who genuinely believe that, unless we change our ways, mankind is fated to die in some imminent environmental disaster? Keep researching and bring the world some hard evidence to prove your assertion. Show us the way forward, but be aware that until you can convince us otherwise, you’re just another crackpot.
---
It’s time now for Two Minutes with Murphy, published every week in your hometown Nugget newspaper. Sponsored by the Country Lard Store, where 'Fat is fine, anytime!'
Country Lard! Country Lard!
It's always soft and squishy!
It's never cold and hard!
Yee haw!
---
Two Minutes with Murphy
What is this Global Warming You Speak Of?
This morning, I listened to another ‘expert’ hammer the audience with his views on global warming. The gist was that humans are destroying the planet and that we have to change our ways. The evidence, he said, was irrefutable.
For a moment, I thought that I was in church listening to an old time fire and brimstone sermon, delivered by one of the faithful. After he finished ranting, I turned off the radio, disappointed. It was the same old, tired message - heavy on gloom and doom, but short on hard evidence. He told me that the evidence was irrefutable, but failed to tell me what it was or where to find it.
What did I learn? Nothing, except that environmentalists continue to bray. Like repeatedly burping up a bad meal, their continual warnings of our impending demise are wearing thin. Because of the non-stop whining, people are switching them off. It is reminiscent of the boy who cried wolf.
I am not a scientist and claim no special knowledge or understanding of what’s happening weather wise on this rock. I will not take issue with any paper that supports or disputes global warming. The reason is simple: I have no credentials in that area. While I may not have any scientific qualifications, it does not mean that I am bereft of the power to reason. Moreover, I will question anyone who, without proof, continues to scream 'The sky is falling!'
Based on personal observations, I have chosen to ignore the global warming crowd. The reason? Every scientific paper I've read is pure speculation. These papers speak of past events, but never effectively connect what happened to what will happen. They conclude with dire warnings, but use these words and phrases - 'might...', 'if we keep doing this we might see...', 'it's probable that...', 'it is reasonable to expect...', 'this will likely cause...' In short, their arguments aren’t convincing.
I cannot live my life based on what ‘might’ happen. If the earth’s scientific community cannot find consensus, then it is pointless to lose any sleep over global warming, droughts, or a melting polar ice cap. Simply put, there are too many wildly differing opinions coming from the experts. It seems to me that they are no more qualified than soothsayers when it comes to accurately predicting the future.
Former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien’s whimsical observation about providing evidence to back an assertion belongs here. He said,
“A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven."
So I must ask the environmentalists, where is the proof?
These brainy Bo Peeps are taught to follow what is called ‘the scientific method’. It is described in the Oxford English Dictionary as, ‘a procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses…’
In other words, scientists use logical, time proven methods to formulate an opinion about a problem like global warming. Supported with evidence, they propose a solution that should be for everyone’s own good. And there’s the rub. The scientific community has yet to find that irrefutable evidence and communicate it clearly. They are the thinkers, so we depend on them to find the solutions to difficult questions, based on hard evidence.
What have the scientists managed so far? Not a lot. All sides have arrived at different conclusions, and the result is muddled. Hundreds (or thousands) of research papers have been written and debated, but the scientific community cannot come to an agreement. In the meantime, we're still waiting for someone to break the logjam.
But what about us, the general public? We're the people that have to be convinced, one way or the other. We see most of this as long winded, confusing, and generally unintelligible. We cannot understand why similarly credentialed individuals have contradictory opinions. Whom are we supposed to believe?
Based on what I have seen and read, and by simply staring out my front door, I have concluded that some of these professionals are fear mongers. There are also a few using ‘the environmental crisis’ to pad their pocketbooks. This is shameful.
But what about those who genuinely believe that, unless we change our ways, mankind is fated to die in some imminent environmental disaster? Keep researching and bring the world some hard evidence to prove your assertion. Show us the way forward, but be aware that until you can convince us otherwise, you’re just another crackpot.
