The Power of Prime

Through the millennia, our planet has gone through cyclical periods of warming and cooling. There is pretty compelling evidence that in the last 20,000 years the Earth has been much hotter than it is now at least three different times. The degree to which "man" and our greenhouse gasses are responsible for global climate change is debatable (IMHO).

However, I think one thing upon which everyone, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum or climate change debate, should be able to agree is that poisoning our air and water supply is a bad thing.

While I personally think that most of the global climate change rhetoric is agenda-driven hysteria to create a "crisis" to which we must react, my wife and I compost our organic yard and household waste, pay the city extra for the privilege of having two recycling bins, use non-petrochemicals on our yard, actively participate in projects to plant trees in our area, and grow our own vegetables. I don't believe that being skeptical of climate change is mutually exclusive to wanting to be a better steward of Mother Earth. Many industries should do better, but they shouldn't be punished into it (i.e. cap and trade), but rather incentivized to do it (i.e. tax credits, profit potential).

Unfortunately, with too many politicians and not enough statesmen to represent us in Washington these days, our elected officials are too busy trying to brand-build the particular party to which they belong rather than focus on pragmatic solutions.

Given the different agendas at play, perhaps focusing on our children would be the fastest and least painful way to interject common sense into the issue.

==> First, who are the experts and how well they predict future events.

Yes, Time Magazine did consult the same community of experts who have the education, training, and experience that demonstrated competence in June of 1974 when they wrote of a potential coming ice age. In fact, they wrote ...

"scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval."

==> An independent panel judged that, though those involved used poor judgment, there was no evidence that their data were manipulated or their conclusions incorrect.

Specifically, the panel found ...

“We found absolutely no evidence of any impropriety whatsoever. That doesn’t mean that we agreed with all of their conclusions, but these people were doing their jobs honestly.”

"we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention. As with many small research groups their internal procedures were rather informal.”

Technically, the panel didn't attempt to validate the conclusions, they reviewed internal procedures to see if there was any kind of smoking gun regarding a conspiracy to cook the books.

Regardless, I have a couple of questions.

First, isn't the basis for the scientific method being able to replicate results? As the independent panel found (and as was confirmed by the head of the Climatic Research Unit), the original climate data upon which so many of the "experts" rely to form their opinions was purged to free up space. So, there is no original work product to review.

Second, while "independent," was the panel really objective? The panel members were stakeholders in companies and academic institutions that have a vested financial interest in a climate crisis. For instance, the head of the panel was Lord Oxburgh, who just happens to be the president of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and chairman of wind energy firm Falck Renewables. And their review consisted of several short interviews with university staff and analysis of 11 peer-reviewed articles published between 1986 and 2008. Some might argue a whitewash. Yes the seven panel members were independent from the University of East Anglia, but they were far from neutral in the outcome.

Finally, Phil Jones, the scientist who headed the Climatic Research Unit, did choose to step down amid the growing dissention about his admission of using a "trick" in presentations on global temperatures to accentuate the "crisis".

I couldn't agree more. The real problem I have is that the Al Gore's of the world tend to bend, fold, staple and manipulate the issue so that the uninformed have a dramatically skewed perspective ... and that often snowballs into legislation that is ill-served for the American citizenry. For instance, Cap and Trade on the horizon.

However, as your most recent article on the Huffington Post (and it looks like it may now be posted on this site) argues, it's the common ground. Like I say, most reasonable people agree that its a bad thing to poison our earth, air and water ... so let's start there.

the most profound gift you can give to the earth is not having a child of your own. Adopt! Put your money where your mouth is. Less people mean less trash and pollution. It is the only guranteed way to contribute. This is what i have done and guess what its not so hard.