News Snipet 'Blog

Do Something!
Find Elected Officials
Enter ZIP Code:

or Search by State

See Issues & Action
Select An Issue Area:

Contact The Media
Enter ZIP Code:

or Search by State

Other things
Find Affordable Care!"
Other things
Monday, May 14, 2007
I discuss global warming on a lot of blogs. Global warming is a primary concern to many people. It seems to have trumped world poverty and disease, and the discussion of our freedoms, and seems to be second only to the war in Iraq. The following post is my official position on climate change. I am posting it for friends or fellow bloggers for purpose of referral.

Jack's Official Global Warming...Climate Change Position

1. I believe there may be global warming. Of course, the jury is still out on that one, but I don't particularly discount it.

2. I believe that science is too young to factually establish that global warming is anthropogenic. I am not saying that it isn't anthropogenic, just that it has not been established.

3. I believe that we have a generation of scientist who are untrustworthy in their presentation of data. While science doesn't lie, scientist are subject to the shortcomings of any human and have and do.

4. I believe that even if it is established that there is global warming and that it is anthropogenic, that it would hardly be possible to predict that it will be a crisis of monumental proportions that will bring about the extinction of our planet and its lifeforms.

5. I believe that the contemporary issue is driven more by politics and ideology than science, and it has tainted any evidence we have one way or the other beyond its usability. If the debate became strictly scientific we may arrive at a conclusive position, but until that happens we never will.

Expansion on points above:

1. Global warming AND cooling is supported scientifically. It has happened since the planet has been here. Apparently it is a natural cycle that existed eons before man even walked the planet, and quite possibly will happen long after we're gone.

2. As long as there are two opposing "scientific views" with supportable scientific data, it is not an established fact that we are going to face catastrophe from anthropogenic global warming. Neither side has an established case, nor can it. The jury is still out--if you have made up your mind already you are either:

  1. Ignorant,
  2. Gullible, or
  3. An ideological nut case.

(And I say this will all due respect!)

3. Keep in mind that it has been scientists (not science) that has told us that:

the world was flat,
that a nuclear bomb detonation would destroy the whole world,
that leaching blood would cure disease,
that the earth's population today would be 10 times greater than it is,
that the universe revolves around the earth,
that the Titanic was unsinkable,
that continents do not shift, etc.

It is also scientist who have lived off the accumulation of unbelievable sums of money in the name of science. SETI comes to mind--an amazingly expensive mechanism and project listening for the mother ship--aliens! I'm amazed they didn't hear the ET's that came and took away all those poor souls from the Heaven's Gate cult. It would be foolish to believe that the countless monies being spent on global warming research does insert a degree of bias into the "scientific" equation.

Scientific error, says Robert Park, "has a way of evolving ... from self-delusion to fraud. I use the term voodoo science to cover them all: pathological science, junk science, pseudoscience, and fraudulent science." In pathological science, scientists fool themselves. Junk science refers to scientists who use their expertise to befuddle and mislead others (usually juries or lawmakers). Pseudoscience has the trappings of science without any evidence. Fraudulent science is, well, fraud--old-fashioned lying.

4. Man has been crying the destruction of the world from the street corner for as long as we have recorded history. "Repent, for the day is at hand." is a cry familiar to all of us. As human beings, we are fascinated with catastrophe and crises--it is what sells in our media, what fuels our weather channels, and what dominates our conversation on a daily basis. It is also our propensity to create fantastical scenarios where they are not, sometimes as a means of self-affirmation, sometimes to control the behavior of others, and sometimes simply for the thrill of the moment.

5. This is the crux of the matter. It doesn't matter what the evidence will say. The earth could be covered completely with ice from pole to pole from an ice age and it would not matter. Facts are immaterial to the political and religiously ideological mindset. With the intellectual and powerful--the issue is political, with the ignorant and simple-minded it is ideological. The rich and powerful will use this issue to leverage power and the all-too-willing sheep who follow them will be more than accommodating because of the emotional and spiritual affirmation they receive as a byproduct. While it may be scientists who may be swayed by money to present less than factual data, it is often the hangup of our leaders to exploit issues for their own profit or power. How many "crises" have we faced? Counting down from the most recent: 1. Recession 2. Oil depletion, 3. Energy, 4. Outsourcing, 5. WMD's, 6. Y2K, 7. Asteroid, 8. Ice age. The list is endless.

Also, keep in mind that as we progress, every time there is an climatic anomaly that doesn't support the global "warming" model, the term "climate change" will be used. For example, we have experienced record cool temperatures in the the South United States for this time of year. The reason is because of "climate change", which is "global warming" propagandized. (Sort of like in the '70s when pro-abortion became "pro-choice").


The News Snipet has been and is about making predictions. The prediction is that governments world-wide will use this issue as a means of increasing taxation and regulation. They will use is as a means of taking freedoms and eliminating personal property. Many people will suffer as a result of draconian policies that are issued based on faulty data. Problems like world poverty and disease will be placed on the back burner for a pipe dream.

Collateral damage in the WAR ON CLIMATE CHANGE.

Visit here for your Global Warming Fix.

Labels: , ,

posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/14/2007 03:23:00 PM  
  • At 5/14/2007 04:54:00 PM, Blogger Dan said…

    This was a nice post Jack and I am completely with you here. I have seen both examples for and against evidence of global warming- I am just so uncertain as to whether it is we humans that are causing any problems.

  • At 5/15/2007 08:57:00 AM, Blogger Jack Mercer said…

    Hi Dan!

    A friend, Helen, had mentioned that my blog was turning into the "Global Warming 'Blog", so I thought I might just post an article summing up my position for those I discuss the topic with, and just add articles to my resources page. Of course, I largely do the News Snipet for myself as a means of archiving thoughts or articles that interest me, and any time someone reads something I post its a bonus. :) I don't pretend to have anything profound to say--its just my sounding board. :)

    Dan, you fit the category of a classical liberal--one of the good ones and a rare find in your generation. Its good to know we still have thinking young people!


  • At 5/15/2007 07:53:00 PM, Blogger Dan said…

    I just never realized how much things have transformed and how our contemporary liberalism today has little to nothing in common with the classical version. Amazing how things do transform over time. Today's classical liberals seem to be our political moderates, where I would seem to fit in.

    Of course, as a moderate I feel kind of lost in that a lot of the time, I cannot absolutely decide an official stance on many things. But at the same time, that helps keep an open mind too- I never feel bad if I say or think something, and retract it if I learn something new that could change my mind. A lot of people seem to have trouble with that.

Post a Comment
<< Home
About Me

Name: Jack Mercer
About Me:
See my complete profile

"Snipet" (pronounced: snipe - it) is not a word.It is a derivative of two words: "Snipe" and "Snippet".

Miriam Webster defines Snipe as: to aim a carping or snide attack, or: to shoot at exposed individuals (as of an enemy's forces) from a usually concealed point of vantage.

Miriam Webster defines Snippet as: : a small part, piece, or thing; especially : a brief quotable passage.

In short, "Snipets" are brief, snide shots at exposed situations from a concealed vantage point.

WARNING! With due reverence to the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment there is NO comment policy on the News Snipet.

Other things
Template by

Free Blogger Templates


free hit counter