Climate Change
Man-made climate change due to the "pollutant" carbon dioxide (CO2) will destroy civilization! We must take drastic measures to save the planet now! This has been the multi-decade international campaign of some scientists, Hollywood types, leftist politicians and the media, popularized by the 2006 documentary film with Al Gore, "An Inconvenient Truth". The upcoming 5th Assessment report [AR5] of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is being trumpeted as further proof (they are now 95% sure of man-made global warming). The Gray Area actually believes that humans are doing harm to the environment, but the facts don't support that climate change is affected by humans. This is not just from the 2009 "climategate" scandal, but a growing number of scientists also agree. This will come as heresy to the leftists who have built their belief systems or careers on this campaign, but it is nonetheless true - facts don't support the claim. The Global Warming Primer, Second Edition, by the NCPA provides counterpoints to the film's message. "The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today." The Earth has had cyclical weather patterns since its creation. Ice sheets covered and retreated around the globe four times. We are currently in the 5th warming cycle over the last 400,000 years, and it is the least severe, according to "The Big Picture" at There is scientific data ad-nausea-um on the subject of climate change at that site. So why the high volume messaging that man-made climate change exists - follow the money and the political advantage that comes from it. Government funding for academic research, growth of government bureaucracies, excuse for raising taxes, tax payer funded subsidies and a big lure for charitable donations. So, as you read the left and right positions on climate change below, remember, the truth is "petroleum saved the whales", "coal saved the forests" and "wealthier is healthier".

Our polarized acceptance of data, we can do better

from The Gray Area:

I found this Twitter debate about the Icelandic study that COVID re-infection rates increase with the number of vaccine doses a patient receives interesting in the context of our polarized acceptance of data. In this debate, a right leaning person highlights the study's hypothesis regarding COVID reinfection rates. The left leaning person accuses the right leaning person of purposely misinterpreting the results.

It appears they are both correct. The study does illustrate the reinfection rate and there is a disclaimer at the end. Does the disclaimer mean we should not take the study seriously? Does the hypothesis mean we should ignore the disclaimer?

No, and no, if we are a truly intelligent and curious species.

Lets take this to another topic, climate change. The world is panicked about the supposed existential crisis of man-made climate change and the world ending if we don't take dramatic steps to correct it before 2030. Yet the data the climate alarmist use to come to this conclusion comes with its own disclaimer, these scenarios represent a low probability. Climate alarmists ignore this disclaimer. Climate deniers point to this disclaimer. Is that a selective analysis by both, based on confirmation bias? Or, is it just the nature of scientific study to present the data completely?

Manipulation of numbers and science is not a new technique. What is new, is the wholesale support of the effort by political leaders, government leaders and the worldwide media establishment. One would expect those groups to be more mature and thorough in their analysis of data. But, sadly, they are not.

I suspect, though I do not know, that the person in this debate who wants to use the disclaimer to discredit the COVID reinfection rate hypothesis in the Icelandic study, is also a climate change alarmist person who ignores similar disclaimers in the climate change scientific studies.

We both can and should do better.

365 Days Page
Comment ( 0 )