As Lawrence Solomon has reported, with little fanfare—certainly none from pseudo-scientific, apocalyptic, anthropogenic warmists and their uncritical (if witless) media and political champions—Jasper Kirkby et al. have just published a seminal paper in Nature (“Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation.” Nature Volume: 476, Pages: 429–433 (25 August 2011) DOI: doi:10.1038/nature10343).
Solomon’s pellucid lay description summarizes the key study findings and their devastating impact upon the so-called “settled science” of greenhouse gas- mediated, “anthropogenic warming”:
The research…comes from über-prestigious CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world’s largest centres for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories. CERN is the organization that invented the World Wide Web, that built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and that has now built a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth’s atmosphere. In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and thus cooler it will be. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth.
Read the rest here.
If you enjoy the content at iBankCoin, please follow us on Twitter
Cool!
…. pollute (the fuck) away!
It’s all been settled; to wit, man has NO effect on his environment. Corporations and individual humans can do whatever the fuck they want, common sense be damned!
Fire up the engines!
Juice, that is not at all what the article says. Did you even read it? All it covers is how CERN has discovered that cosmic rays determine the amount of clouds in the sky, which in turn determine the earth’s temperature. This is the most important breakthrough in climate research in our lifetime.
Your title – “The Truth about Global Warming” implies that those who claim that man also contributes and has an effect on global warming, are wrong.
Do you believe that man has no significant effect on climate and therefore profit-greedy, profit comes before common sense corporations, and all those on their payrolls, those earning a living off the degradation of our home-world, aka Planet Earth, should be able to continue to fire up the engines of irresponsibility? Iow, do you shit in your own house, the Woodshedder family abode?
This is because their palms are greased with amounts of money in the millions from big petroleum and tobacco companies as well as from notable multinational chemical companies and other companies, whereby, false experts’ reports are constructed by these purchasable “experts” and they tell lies to the effect that there is no climatic warming and no catastrophe threatens.
The criminal companies, which relate to this, gather behind them many of the scientists and organizations they have purchased and which are dependent on them, because they act on the premise that the population of the Earth, which is ignorant in the matters – and those scientists who point out climatic warming – would prefer to grant their belief to the lies of the purchasable scientists and organizations.
It is therefore intended that the impression is thereby aroused that there is a very large number of good scientists and organizations which could prove that there is no climatic warming and, consequently, also no catastrophe is to be expected in relation to this.
Truthfully, it does not only involve amounts of millions, rather high amounts in the billions, whereby the profit-greedy do not care if the world and the fundamentals of life for the entirety of humanity are destroyed.
Everyone who is involved leads a conspiracy campaign through which the effective truth of climate change is disputed and thereby the enacting and implementing of worldwide, effective climate protection laws is meant to be prevented.
Were such laws namely enacted and put into effect, then enormous amounts in the billions would be lost by the companies, and so forth, just as would the profitable sources of money dry up for their dependent scientists and organizations.
So they are vehemently at work with the false expert reports, which are pregnant with lies, with which they make an effort to boycott the really serious results of research by honest and good scientists and revile them as constructions of fantasy.
Thereby a delay of decades has resulted in relation to measures to protect the climate, whereby the companies, and so forth, which disputed climate change, have earned many billions.
But the truth is that climate change is taking place, and, actually, not alone through circumstances which, since time immemorial, have been emerging in natural ways, rather, more than 75 percent is taking place through human-evoked factors.
And, ultimately, climate change will not only have effects on the Earth and its waters and on nature, because it is already demonstrable that the glaciers and poles are also melting in a catastrophic manner and that the ocean currents are also changing, as a result of which new gravity waves – although slight to begin with – are already forming, and also rush out into outer space with very great speed.
Therefore, the gravitational field of the Earth will also thereby change, not only through the threatening solar storms in the year 2012, which is, however, not only confined to the planet alone, rather it also has an effect out into outer space, that is to say, as an outer space gravitational tsunami.
Climate change therefore does not change only the Earth, rather the effects are also carried into the solar system as far as the Kuiper Belt, and perhaps still very much further out into outer space.
Therefore if the ocean currents are muddled up, then they create enormous quantities of energy through their gigantic masses of water, which influences the gravitational field. Additionally, as a result of climate change, the Earth’s atmosphere also contracts and becomes more dense, which is already starting to happen unnoticeably.
As a result of the entirety of the climate change which is already occurring, the inevitable first changes in the fauna and flora have also come about, which are unfortunately not yet recognized by the scientists, but, from which, in the short or long term, visible consequences will emerge.
It has already gone so far that the climate change is shifting gigantic masses of ice and water, whereby dangerous effects of pressure on the crust of the Earth occur, and tectonic displacements are evoked.
That inevitably increasingly leads to severe earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, as is also the case as a result of big dams, which the narrow minded scientists still, always, dispute, and, not seldom also because they do not want to admit the truth, or they are paid for their false calculations by billion dollar companies.
But what is not heeded with the necessary care is the fact that – as a result of the melting of the inland glaciers of all the countries as well as the melting of the glaciers of Greenland, the Antarctic and Arctic – the sea level is caused to rise and ultimately leads to catastrophic geological consequences.
The gigantic ice expanses of Greenland, of both poles and of the inland glaciers of all countries, press, with many billions of tonnes of weight, on the lower stratum which is pressed deep into the crust of the Earth and in which powerful consolidation results.
If the gigantic masses of ice now melt, then the pressure on the lower stratum diminishes, consequently this very quickly moves again towards the surface and the reduction of tension thereby leads to the disappearance of the consolidation.
That is not, however, without danger, because, through the release of tension, tectonic movements likewise occur, whereby earthquakes of all magnitudes are increasingly triggered.
As a result of the melt-water, the sea level rises elsewhere, whereby, in turn, the coastal regions are plagued by new pressures of water.
Thereby, in turn, the lower stratum changes, however at great depths, where great masses of magma move and become driven into volcanoes, which leads to new and increased volcanic eruptions.
The entirety of the enormous increase of the masses of water in the seas still leads, however, to a further evil effect, because they influence the Earth’s rotation, and indeed such that the planet begins to turn faster and an alteration of the length of the days is evoked.
All that is, however, not the only result of climatic warming, because, truthfully, through this the human is also negatively influenced in physical, psychic and mental ways.
So depression occurs, which takes hold more and more with many humans on the Earth and becomes a chronic state.
Also disturbances of consciousness emerge more and more often and, so, states of angst, and states comprising thoughts and feelings of loss, take hold more and more, as does the cooling of thoughts and the numbness which results from it.
Brutality, violence and absence of conscience become more and more stark and lead to the murder of one’s fellow humans.
All evils get more and more out of hand, as does greed for pleasures and addiction to alcohol, medications, drugs and adrenaline kicks.
That therefore happens because, as a result of climate change, the humans’ mental health is damaged and the anatomy of the brain is altered, even if that initially only happens unnoticeably and has not yet been recognized by scientists – and is also now indeed disputed, as I openly name the facts and the truth.
Wood.. I’ve read the article.. understand the science.. and really recommend you stick to trading systems analysis and backtesting. Alarmist, uninformed headlines such as this only serve to obfuscate the issue. There is no further debate among rational scientists adhering to the scientific method and subject to peer review. I’ll not go into a debate consisting of misinformation, pseudo-science and a lack of understanding of climate science and basic physics/chemistry. When free thinking individuals see that espousing certain views ( no matter how poorly founded) because they see it as a sine qua non of being a true fiscal conservative. then and only then shall we make some progress on the issues that bind us . IMHO
Cato…
1. The journal Nature is perhaps the most prestigious and is definitely the most cited scientific journal available.
2. The article, “Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation.” had to have passed the peer-review process in order to be published in Nature.
3. It is absurd for you to assert that CERN would produce, and Nature publish research “consisting of misinformation, pseudo-science and a lack of understanding of climate science and basic physics/chemistry.”
4. You are asserting that CERN, Nature, and Jasper Kirby et. al. are not-rational and have not adhered to the scientific method. That is an absolutely absurd and patently false.
4. I did not write the headline, nor did I alter it in anyway. I just posted the article.
Juice, you sound like a crazy person.
I can’t even respond to your comments because they are so whacky and all over the place.
Point out what’s ‘whacky’, and I’ll be happy to simplify.
It sounds like you don’t mind leaving this planet in worse shape for you children & grandchildren,… and for you yourself, if reincarnation is in fact reality, and not eternal heaven and paradise promised by planet earth’s religions. Nor do you mind the destruction and degradation of this planet, your home world.
Considering your reduction of risk strategy associated with stock investing, I am perplexed by your throwing caution to the wind regarding planet earth, home to you and your loved ones; If you are correct in that man has no deleterious effects on his environment and in particular the weather, then the upside is we continue as we have been; however if you are wrong, and we continue to practice our environmentally abusive to human life ways, the results may be disastrous and cataclysmic.
The specifically whacky parts are those that allude to AGW causing a destabilized universe, with universe meaning the Milky Way Galaxy, and possibly beyond.
Your assumption that I want to destroy the planet or want to do nothing to stop the destruction is ludicrous. I am an outdoorsman. My family loves camping, fishing, hiking, etc. and we own shares in a community supported agriculture operation. I could go on and on with this, but it doesn’t really matter.
The fact of the matter is that loving the earth and preserving the environment has nothing to do with AGW. There is no proof that humans are causing the planet to warm. Could they be? Sure. AFAIK, humans could be causing it to cool. You know, Greenland was once, uh, Green, and its not anymore. Did we cause it to be covered with glaciers? Did you know that only 120K years ago the average temperature on Greenland was 9 degrees Fahrenheit higher than what they are now?
There is no downside, upside, whatever to preparing for global warming. It is a ridiculous notion that we can in any way accurately predict what the temperature of the earth will be 200 years from now. Perhaps we will have that capability in the future, but we do not now.
Greenland was warmer was back then because the north & south magnetic polarity poles at that time were not where they are today, and Green Land was closer to the equator, about situated where Florida is now.
To say that 8 billion humans have basically no effect on climate is illogical. For example, go back to when Native Americans were the only inhabitants of North America; no cities, no power plants, no planes, trains, automobiles, no industry .. do you not think that what is being put into the atmosphere in this day and age does not contribute to a noticeable degree to climate altering effects compared to several hundred years ago when earths population was less than 1 billion, which it reached in about 1850? Not to mention the insane population densities in other parts of the world also spewing heat, chemicals, waste into the environment, and that has essentially zero effect on climate?
I meant to say ‘way’ back then.
Also, do not forget the concreting over of the planet .. the buildings, roads … take for a mini example New York City. It is generally 5 degrees warmer in NYC than in the surrounding areas because of population density, the heat generated by the concentration of humans, the atmospheric pollution creates a sauna effect, and the concreting over of the earth itself in that vicinity.
You are you saying humans have no effect and that there is no evidence that humans have an effect on climate there.
ohhhh Wood… to say there is no evidence of causality? :(…there is no lack of consensus…
science is not an equal time proposition like what you see on Fox news.
The data leads the way and the path that is being put down is clear and lucid.
Denialists are following the footsteps of their progenitors: the young earth creationists and flat earthists.. straight to the dustbin of scientific history
Cato, what caused the global temperature to warm 120K years ago?
Wood – To play “Devil’s Advocate” (Yeah, I wwent to parochial schools just like Jake did.) Just because something is published in a peer reviewed journal does not make it true. It just means it was reviewed, published, and can now be picked apart, its results replicated, ignored. There’s a tonne [sic] of “bad science”. That’s not the point though. The scientific method and working scientists will eventually sort through the published and sometimes non-published evidence, and eventually come to some agreement as to what the truth is at that point in time.
It’s really important for lay people to understand that the point of science is to prove itself wrong on a continual basis. Einstein “proved” Newton wrong. Of course Newton is right under a set of conditions. Once those conditions are exceeded (for instance at high speed), they no longer hold.
Climate science has been progressing for over 100 years. Neither the science nor the models are simple or easily understandable to the lay person. Furthermore, there is much still to be learned about climate and climate change.
Rather than discuss the policy implications of the known science, which is what we SHOULD be doing. Climate “skeptics”, or rather people with an economic position that is furthered by no action whatsoever, have attacked both climate science AND more dangerously science in general.
We should be discussing the policy implications. What should we do about the changing climate REGARDLESS of whether or not it is being affected by mankind’s actions. We can choose among multitude of actions or we can choose to do nothing. We should be having THAT debate, and not attacking either the climate science or the scientists.
Here’s a link to RealClimate’s view of the paper: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/the-cerncloud-results-are-surprisingly-interesting/
Yogi, I don’t disagree with much you have written. I very much agree that science is in the business of proving itself wrong. And that is the reason why climate science has gone radically astray.
Like Cato above, many of the climate scientists like you’ll find on RealClimate have decided that the science on AGW is settled. Then along comes research like that above, which shows how complex the science is, and how little the scientists truly understand about climate.
Even in the RealClimate view of the research, they are left with many questions. How can scientists with so many unanswered questions claim that AGW is settled?
AGW believers love to complain about economic interests which seek to preserve their position in the economy by denying AGW exists. Clearly, this is no different from AGW believers trying to make new profits by pushing the idea that the AGW theory is settled. One side is claiming it doesn’t exist. The other says it is settled. Both want to make profits. Both are wrong.
I do disagree that science itself is being attacked. IMO, this is Main-stream-media Democrat-media-complex ploy/meme designed to color Republicans as stupid, Bible-beating knuckle dragging neanderthals.
But to my point, if you drop the “A” from “AGW”, where is the policy debate? There is none. To my mind that is the more important point. There will be winners and losers as the climate warms whether or not man has ANY hand in it, and we are not discussing those implications.
For any number of possible dimensions,e.g. agriculture, drought, coastal flooding, severe weather, wildfires, water resources, etc. the impact of rising temperatures on civilization will be great.
Just to be clear, are you in fact saying that there is no rise in global temperatures, or that the temperature rise is not attributable to human activities?
Yogi, the whole policy debate is a waste of time and money. Only special interests and governments benefit.
You’re assuming that the climate will warm, beyond a shadow of a doubt. It might. There were certainly periods when the Earth’s climate was warmer. There were also periods when it was cooler. Are you not concerned about global cooling? 🙂
I guess I could get behind some policy debates as long as they gave equal time and research to the possibility of global cooling.
To be clear, what is the perfect temperature for the Earth?
I’m not saying that there has been no rise in global temperatures. I’m saying that global temperatures have always fluctuated, and that I’m positive that we have not yet figured out how to accurately measure the temperature of the Earth. There is still debate over at RealClimate and other places about whether we are truly measuring the global temperatures accurately.
I am saying that human activities have had a negligible effect on global temperatures.
Wood ,
I’m not sure my point came across clearly. I do not dispute the authority, scientific integrity or reputation of ‘Nature’ nor of CERN. I have colleagues working at CERN and am well aware of the quality of work that comes from within its confines. Also, I’ve personally reviewed submissions for ‘Nature’, ‘Science’ and the ‘Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences’ . The true intent of my reply was to point out that the conclusions.. or implicit conclusions being drawn by the article and ergo your post, were not completely clear.
The conclusions of the research only serve to add to our understanding of the Albedo effect of different etiologic factors on global temperature. They are merely pointing out another potential forcing. As you are full well aware, as are scientists such as myself.. looking at complex systems like climate from a univariate perspective is fraught with danger. Those of us who study complex systems understand truly that true comprehension and study only comes from a multivariate analysis and perspective. None of us are so prescient as to draw profound conclusions from single data sets or small sample sizes.
What I can tell you, from reviewing all the available data, is that there is compelling evidence for real time temperature elevation due to elevations of man made emissions. Our real concerns should be coming up soon with the release of more powerful greenhouse gases, ie methane with the initiation of much more devastating positive feedback loops. Therein lies the real dangers ahead.
To assume that there is some secret, evil minded cabal of scientists and environmental wackos is disingenuous at best. We seek the truth through a process. This process has served humanity well throughout the ages and is known as the scientific method. No scientist will tell you that they are ‘certain’ of anything. We take what evidence we have and draw inferences and conclusions. Can we conclusively say that gravity is why an apple falls to the ground? No we cannot. But we can say that there is a preponderance of evidence that gravity is the cause of this phenomenon. The underlying debate is much richer. We can look at gravity as a manifestation of Einsteinian Relativity with a true curvature of space time. Or should we look at things from a particle perspective where every force has a counter particle.. in this case the graviton. Is information conserved when we warp spacetime with the apple falling. How is that the information of ‘gravity’ is transmitted instantaneously ( which we know) when we know that this is against proven tenets of Relativistic Mechanics, particularly that nothing, information or substance or energy can travel faster than the speed of light. These quandaries don’t diminish our underlying understanding of the process of gravity.
My point is that the scientific process is rich and diverse and full of introspection. This is what makes the process so great. We cannot and do not fall into logical fallacies and assume that one piece of data makes a conclusion. Such ‘Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc’ analysis is pure folly.
The evidence is compelling. I’ll not delve into it here.. but it is there for you to review.
There is no secret organization seeking to label you as a cretin lacking in knowledge. We are merely going where the data leads us.
And as Yogi points out.. we do know that changes are occurring. Is it so wrong to seek changes that would prevent irreparable damage to the one planet we have? I worry about this for my two daughters.
Should we continue to ignore where the evidence leads us and worship at the altar of unbridled ideology, we are doomed.
Oh and one more thought. To answer your query. “Is there one perfect temperature for the Earth”. In reference to what? That is the wrong question to ask. The real question to ask is what is the right temperature for human civilization. The earth will persevere as it has done for 4 billion years. The question is whether or not we will. We are but a speck on a mote in a vast universe and our place in the grand scheme of things is far from decided.
Enlightening conversation gentlemen and your respectful discourse is indeed a pleasure to read when compared with the screaming and hyperventilating seen so often in all forms of MSM. Nice to know there are still people who can express different points of view without unsheathing their swords.
The great mistake of the AWG crowd, scientists involved included, was to assume they knew all there was to know about the subject (what makes our climate what it is) when nothing could be further from the truth.
The fallacy of assuming one knows all there is to know about any given thing is a lesson that should have been learned in kindergarten.
I agree Heater… rational, courteous discourse is something that is sorely missed these days.
I would caution you, however, in assuming that the scientists who document the evidence in favour of climate change are full of hubris.
My earlier point was that humility and a sense of introspection are the hallmarks of the scientific process and that the entire endeavour is one of expounding on what one already knows.
Your statement is otherwise entirely true.
global warming is a fart in the wind. a pointless exercise in nonsense. like debating the existence of god. no one knows.
Cato,
What I see is a coordinated attempt to limit research and publication of research when said research leads to skepticism of AGW.
Take for example the recent resignation of the editor of Remote Sensing (Wagner), after publishing Spencer and Braswell’s paper.
Funny that the editor remarked that an earlier paper, Trenberth’s from 2010, supposedly shows Spencer’s paper to have errors. According to Spencer, he was responding to Trenberth’s paper.
You may remember Trenberth, as he is the “Kevin” referenced by Phil Jones in his infamous statement, “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” – Phil Jones 8/7/2004
I have to get to the gym so I will not be able to write a lot more right now but there are so many issues that can lead one safely to be skeptical…for example the recent research that shows the sea levels have actually dropped…
Then there are the problems with the models.
Anyway, I want to respond more but it will have to wait until later today.
We can pull out exceptions til we are blue in the face. All I can tell you is that there is no concerted effort to conceal research or findings. The East Anglia emails were some mistakes made some boneheaded scientists. You cannot, however, throw the baby out with the bathwater. We all make errors in our own research, yet this is how the process advances.. by producing testable hypotheses with replicable results.
Science does not come to conclusions by offering equal time to all dissenting opinions. I usually don’t offer wiki references in lieu of papers.. but the data offered in this link is comprehensive and real so I offer it for you to review. If you are claiming that we should review all data and scientific evidence, you cannot chose which papers or scientists you want to believe..You cannot offer your own selection bias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
There is precious little debate any more.. just as there is no further debate regarding evolution, gravity, the age of the universe,and the origins of humanity.
Viz Roy Spencer.. he’s always had a conspiratorial bent and pointing out the errors in one journal that is not known for climate research does not a broken system make.
Yes the models are flawed.. but so are all models. none are perfect.. we are working on all of them.. that was my point in showing our multifaceted understanding of such a common force as gravity.
I’ve long ago decided to not debate people on topics like this and will likely not continue debating details with you .. but my main intent at this time is make sure that the true intent and functioning of the scientific method is understood. This is all I hope for…changing an adults mind is as much a winning proposition as hoping to strike it rich in daytrading 🙂
And.. thanks for discussing this without ad hominens and shouting and screaming.. It speaks volumes of your gentlemanly person.. and this I do appreciate.
Cato, I do not necessarily distrust the scientific process as it has been applied to the Earth’s climate.
I understand your unwillingness to debate these things much further, but I would appreciate your insight on this issue. The issue for me is not distrust of the scientific method but rather it seems to me that there are a few gatekeepers of the data that the scientists are using. The gatekeepers would be NOAA, NASA, and East Anglia.
If indeed ideology has trumped science in any of these institutions, then the very data that is being used by hundreds of scientists may indeed be faulty or even purposefully manipulated.
A climate researcher can get global temperature readings going 100 years or more only by using the data provided by the institutions I mentioned above. Perhaps there are other places that I am not aware of.
Therefore, is there really any way to independently replicate results when all the data is coming from the same sources? Do you see what I’m driving at?
Its like o,h,l,c data from Yahoo, Norgate, CSI, etc. Some data will be better than others. But if I wanted to, I could personally go back 100 years and build my own database from the actual trades that took place.
Again, maybe I’m wrong here, but I do not believe climate researchers can do this, since they are all relying on the same sources for data and there is no way to go back and independently build the database.
Its not that I can’t see that the data series show warming. Its not that I can’t verify that CO2 PPM is rising.
The key for me is that I do not trust the gov’t. I could list numerous reasons why the gov’t might manipulate temperature data. There are even more reasons why employees of NASA, NOAA, etc. might manipulate data. I am troubled that these gatekeepers have all the data. Again, perhaps my assumptions are way off base.
Finally, part of my skepticism comes from my belief that our gov’t, and indeed all gov’ts are inept and will not be able to solve such a complex problem as climate change. Indeed, we couldn’t even stop the housing/credit crisis from happening, even though there was plenty of data showing it was coming and plenty of examples of why it would occur. Instead, some people just got very rich while most people suffered.
I believe that any coordinated effort by gov’t to stop climate change will result in the exact same scenario- some people will get rich, gov’t will get more powerful at the expense of our liberties, and the rest of the people will suffer.
This has been a good discussion and I appreciate you lending us your experience and insight.
I equally share your disdain of governmental meddling.. trust me. But I do firmly believe that most problems we face in this generation and those before us can and have been solved with a proper mixture of governmental oversight and private sector initiative. The climate catastrophe that awaits us if we fail to act will far outshadow any and all problems we will face under an all powerful governing aegis.
As far as previous temperature data. We have dendroclimatologic data using tree rings, ice core data that goes back to approximately 800k-900k years ago and carbon and Nitrogen isotopy data that goes back hundreds of millions of years. The data is definitely there. .and yes we can argue that there are gatekeepers that control the data.. but again, I cannot stress to you enough how much scientists abhor external influences. Sure, there will be some out there who bow to the pressures of funding etc. but I can assure you from first hand experience that intellectual integrity trumps charlatanism and whoring oneself almost every time.
Out of the company I keep ( and some smart fuckers at that).. I have not one of my cohorts who doubts what the data is showing us viz climate change. And this group comprises fiscal conservatives such as myself, liberals, neo-liberals, libertarians and all other comers.
But we all put our fickle sensibilities aside and realize that we are in dire shape .. and once we abandon our myopia as the relatively young species that we are.. we can truly understand things on a grander scale. Therein lies the majesty of what the human mind is capable of.
Now I must go celebrate my rather juicy short @ES position :).
No problem at all. An excellent discussion it has been.. At least we didn’t have Le Fly coming in and chastising us for being too raucous and cretinous!
I’ll give you some sources on temperature data in a bit.. must bathe my lil ones.
I too appreciate the tenor of the discussion.
Wood, I think your mistrust of government might come from the times you grew up in. I grew up in the 1960’s. We had a common enemy in the Soviets, which was the target of those feelings of distrust. Our government still had the goodwill of saving the world from the Nazis and the Japanese during WWII. We were engaged in the “Space Race” and on our way to the moon.
Even the during tumult of the 1960’s and the Viet Nam War, and the changes occurring in society, there still was an underlying optimism that permeated everyone and everything I knew. My paper route was filled with families whose dads had fought in WWII, Korea, or both. No one discussed it. I only had an idea, when I would see them marching alongside me during the Memorial Day Parade, or when one of them would slip me a couple of tickets to the Memorial Day Picnic.
We’ve learned to distrust the government by politicians, but who is the government but ourselves? Should I distrust my friend who runs for the local school board because he is now part of the government? Should I distrust my neighbor because she has been elected First Selectman of our town?
Yes, I’m cynical about many of the buffoons we elect to serve us in Washington and our state capitols. I still scream at the TV a lot more than I care to admit. I’m not giving up yet though. The world can change in an instant.
Indeed