I haven't had much to say recently about Global Warming, Climate Change, Anthropological Climate Change, or whatever else you wish to call it. Awhile back I did comment on JoNova's "Skeptic's Handbook" but I haven't followed up on that thread since. Now there are "Climategate" and the Copenhagen climate talks to add to the mix.
It's getting harder and harder to take Global Warming seriously. On the one hand there are scientists so set in their ways, so convinced of their mastery of the subject that they won't belittle themselves by engaging the deniers in debate. On the other hand you have the deniers so set in their ways, so convinced of their mastery of the subject that they won't belittle themselves by engaging the Global Warming advocates in debate. By debate, I mean a point by point open-minded discussion of the related issues such as whether there is reduction or increase in polar ice, whether the oceans are on average warming or cooling, whether the high-mountain glaciers are growing or receding, whether the sun is in a warm cycle or a cold cycle, whether Global Warming scientists as well as deniers are fudging their proofs, the list goes on and on. There doesn't seem to be any honest debate going on.
In my mind the reason why this debate seems more political than scientific is because the debate is political. It isn't science-based even though it purports to be so. Both sides of the debate have ulterior motives that really aren't being expressed.
People who have long been concerned about air pollution, runaway commercial consumerism, depletion of the earth's nonrenewable energy resources, and imperial wars over those resources have openly and warmly embraced Global Warming theory as the "gotcha!" moment in the debate. Here finally is proof that all the warnings about mindless consumerism will prove right.
On the other hand, Global Warming can't be right. There's no real evidence that the majority of people here on earth have in any way been impacted negatively by consumerism and even if there were to be such evidence, we can't afford to change. It would bankrupt the world's strongest economies. And to boot, it would mean that all the many ways we have found to use energy resources to further our comfort and pleasure as well as our recreation would have to go. We simply can't afford to do that right now so Global Warming has to be a farce.
So until and unless we as a world start taking this a little more seriously and start debating the real issues, it's hard for me to take anything about this seriously. That doesn't mean I don't think we need to conserve energy or develop cleaner renewable resources. I'm all for that. But I'm not about to support world socialism in order to maintain American/European/Asian commercial consumerism. Commercial consumerism will die of it's own suffocating weight. Its death doesn't need to be forced down our throats by power and wealth-hungry socialists.