Fluttering Carefully

It is ridiculous to think that I can cover so many bases in one story. I am only posting it now until I can pull it down and piece it out into separate stories.

In a recent story in news.com.au, Sarah Kate Templeton (London) said that children are bad for the planet, in her story, Children ‘Bad for Planet.’ Her thesis is basically this: the more children people have (especially in developed nations) the more resources we use, which leads ot a greater carbon footprint. Neat! What does that mean to real people?

Of course that means that the world is headed for gloom and doom. The fallout is going to be terrible if we don’t change our ways. What is carbon (dioxide) really doing for us? In 1997, Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT gave testimony to the senate on this subject. During which he cited from the American Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):

Our ability to quantify the human influence on global climate is currently limited because the expected signal is still emerging from the noise of natural variability

There are a couple problems with this whole global warming thing: it is at its root godless. It presumes that science is king, not God. But science is man’s knowledge, where the Bible is God’s knowledge. Men constantly waffle and bend on their views, noteworthy among them is the fact that in the not-so-distant past, American scientists thought we were headed for an ice age, and thought it was prudent that we ramp up to curb the ebb of that activity. Now we are saying that we are headed for global warming.

The hypocrisy of the media is not helpful. They continue in the pattern of Dan Rather, Jayson Blair, CNN’s Iraq coverage, and the BBC’s coverage of all things American, to spin things that they think are appropriate. The problem with that is that they don’t have the knowledge to keep them from being bowled over by their interviewees. But they do not mind, because they are looking for a scientist to support their own theses, not for the most honest or correct. This is the very problem that science has always had: if you go into your work with a hypothesis, you will slant your work. If you go in without a hypothesis or direction, you will not know where to begin or end or what to collect.

Reporters are no different. They don’t know what they are talking about, they only find people who seem to. If reporters knew what they were talking about, they would be the expert and reporters would be asking them the questions. So where does this leave us?

We need reporters, because we live in a democratic system, and they help us to make informed decisions, they ensure that our right to know is maintained, and a bunch of other cliché tripe: We are not guaranteed (so far as I know) a right to a fourth estate (which acts more like a fifth column anyway). The only right to know we seem to be guaranteed is by the Government, and that is only the stuff that they say we are allowed to know with the freedom of information act. We are not a democracy or a democratic republic. We are a representative republic, we are probably most akin to an aristocracy.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (2001, May 2). On the Climate Change Debate. Cambridge, MA: Lindzen, Richard S. Retrieved July 17, 2006 from the World Wide Web: <http://eaps.mit.edu/ /faculty/lindzen/Testimony/Senate2001.pdf>