The Searchers
52 Authors: Week 9 - Ronald Blythe

Of Course

I saw this headline on Google News yesterday:

Huge New Holes In Siberia Have Scientists Calling For Urgent Investigation Of The Mysterious Craters

and immediately thought "Someone will blame it on global warming/climate change."

I clicked on it and read the story, at the Huffington Post. Sure enough: 

The leading theory is that the holes were created by gas explosions triggered by underground heat or by rising air temperatures associated with climate change, the Siberian Times reported last December.



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I seem to recall that that's an abnormally remote area and one never quite brought under central government control during the Soviet period. I seem also to recall that there has been in the past anxiety about the implications of oil and gas drilling in that part of Russia and the possibility of geological catastrophes.

IMHO, here are the left/MSM rules of evidence for "climate change" (presumed to be man-made, of course):

1) Any local hot weather, dought, hurricanes and tornados are considered evidence of man-made global warming.

2) Lack of hot weather, drought, hurricanes (eg very few hurricanes have hit the US in the last decade or so), etc has no evidential value. Cold winters and the fact that average global temperature has remained flat for the last 16 years or so must be ignored.

3) Any extreme weather event (eg this winter's snowfall in Boston) is evidence of man-made climate change. Ditto for oddities such as the Siberian craters.

To summarize: the only possible scenario that does not point to man-made climate change is one in which the climate remains completely static and no unusual weather events occur anywhere on earth.

The phrase "unfalsifiable theory" comes to mind...

That's about it. There is only one thing I feel really sure about in this debate, and that's that there's a huge amount of religio-cultural passion on both sides. I'm not persuaded by the "consensus" because it's so obvious that there is a big emotional investment in it, and a great desire to use it for political purposes. My basic view is that if there is an effect (the warming seems to be reasonably well supported) it is nothing like the drastic one being claimed.

Katrina's effects were felt where I live, though nothing like what the New Orleans area received. It came at the end of several years of high hurricane activity, and of course it became almost dogma in some circles that global warming was the reason. Not too long after it I heard a presentation from a local scientist on the topic of (1) what causes hurricanes (2) was global warming a factor. His view was that there are so many things at work that the slight temperature change described by global warming could not be held responsible. And since then of course we've had roughly zero hurricanes. I hope it stays that way.

"implications of oil and gas drilling in that part of Russia and the possibility of geological catastrophes."

Which reminds me: does anyone know anything about the fracking controversy? It seems on the face of it plausible that it could upset the local geology.

Rich Lowry wrote a piece a few days ago about a Congressman who's going after "seven researchers who harbor impure thoughts about climate change" -- A Shameful Climate Witch Hunt -- which contains a winner of a "religion" quote:

The other day, the head of the IPCC [the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], Rajendra Pachauri, quit amid a sexual harassment scandal and noted in his letter of resignation: “For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion.”

the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems

This drives me insane. If one thing is clear, it is that, according to history of evolution as taught by evolutionary scientists, the survival of all species and sustainability of ecosystems is absolutely not part of the natural development of the planet. Most of the species that have existed on earth were extinct before the arrival of man. Ecosystems changed before man had any influence on them. Only by meddling can we achieve the goal of Mr. Pachauri's religion.


Yep, as Gary says, it's like the machinery is supposed to just stop now that the progressive has arrived, except maybe for the further progress of the progressive. The whole evolution-as-religion thing is madly incoherent, except maybe for a few people who are hard-headed enough to accept the very harsh implications.

I will say though that it's nice to have Mr. Pachauri's religious p.o.v. stated openly.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)