On Second Thought – The Point When It’s Not Made Is The Point
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
After rather loudly debating my viewpoint with the television screen and the report over the extremely bitter cold snap in large portions of the country and world the night before, this account originally elicited a rather cynical first draft carrying the theme – “Your thermometer can only give you weather information – it takes especially one-sided statistics and single-minded scientists to actually give you climate data.”
Re-reading Mr. Yeager’s analysis prompted more careful reflection and a new thought that if the point he is making (regarding a relative short-term cold snap) also was publicly made when an unusually warm spell took place over a short period…maybe the context of climate vs weather would be less scornfully perceived.
The biggest problem with the “science” of global warming is the politics of global warming and the manner in which an agenda seems to drive both aspects in a manner that one purpose is indistinguishable from the other. If the information of actual temperature trends were simply factual documentations and not the inspiration for greater government intrusion and higher taxes, rational reactions might be an easier outcome.
There is something about command and control intentions, looking for any possible opportunity to be implemented, which tend to rub some (myself, admittedly) the wrong way. Whether on a national scale or through an international shake-down scheme for wealth redistribution the purpose of the politics has gotten intertwined with the information of the science. That result (beyond those scientists who are looking for more dollars and greater exercise of their own authority) has not been to the advantage of science as science.
It sort of comes down to that analogy of lying down with dogs and also getting fleas.
I’ll be looking for Mr. Yeager’s reminder of the difference between weather and climate next July and August and although giving the points he is making a much more reflective evaluation – I’m still not convinced that the theory of global warming is getting closer to becoming an established scientific fact. Likewise, the degree to which we as mankind influence climate or weather is even more disputable as is the political question of why our elected officials should inflict greater tax burdens on us in hopes of achieving their centrally planned, social agenda.
After rather loudly debating my viewpoint with the television screen and the report over the extremely bitter cold snap in large portions of the country and world the night before, this account originally elicited a rather cynical first draft carrying the theme – “Your thermometer can only give you weather information – it takes especially one-sided statistics and single-minded scientists to actually give you climate data.”
Re-reading Mr. Yeager’s analysis prompted more careful reflection and a new thought that if the point he is making (regarding a relative short-term cold snap) also was publicly made when an unusually warm spell took place over a short period…maybe the context of climate vs weather would be less scornfully perceived.
The biggest problem with the “science” of global warming is the politics of global warming and the manner in which an agenda seems to drive both aspects in a manner that one purpose is indistinguishable from the other. If the information of actual temperature trends were simply factual documentations and not the inspiration for greater government intrusion and higher taxes, rational reactions might be an easier outcome.
There is something about command and control intentions, looking for any possible opportunity to be implemented, which tend to rub some (myself, admittedly) the wrong way. Whether on a national scale or through an international shake-down scheme for wealth redistribution the purpose of the politics has gotten intertwined with the information of the science. That result (beyond those scientists who are looking for more dollars and greater exercise of their own authority) has not been to the advantage of science as science.
It sort of comes down to that analogy of lying down with dogs and also getting fleas.
I’ll be looking for Mr. Yeager’s reminder of the difference between weather and climate next July and August and although giving the points he is making a much more reflective evaluation – I’m still not convinced that the theory of global warming is getting closer to becoming an established scientific fact. Likewise, the degree to which we as mankind influence climate or weather is even more disputable as is the political question of why our elected officials should inflict greater tax burdens on us in hopes of achieving their centrally planned, social agenda.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 1/7/2010 8:45 AM 
Categories: Global Warming
Tags: Politics of Cold Weather Climate Change
Categories: Global Warming
Tags: Politics of Cold Weather Climate Change
Comments