They tell me that there is a US state which is called "The Show Me" state, and they even put that on their licence plates. I wonder...when did sceptisim go out of fashion?
Of course, as anybody that knows me has noticed, I have a remarkable level of sceptisism in my day to day life. I mean, we all know that the kid at MacDonalds really doesn't care if you "have a nice day", and that perhaps Ford really doesn't HAVE a better idea. And that guy on TV, the spokesman for the auto company who is saying "everybody talks about quality cars". As if "quality" has any meaning....a true sceptic fills in the missing words..."everybody talks about the HIGH quality of their cars (does anybody have a LOW quality car? I thought not.) And the luxury, best in its class. (there are classes?...you mean surfeit of luxury don't you? Or did you mean to say LACK of luxury? Neither "quality" or "luxury" have any existance without qualifiers.)
Make no doubt about it...if they had a greater quality than the other guy, or a a softer, cozier, better luxury than the other guy, they would have said it.
Now we have the great global warming debate. Is it a debate still? Well, anything which the world's government has spent (get this) 50 Billion dollars on had better be a topic for debate. The debate is not, of course whether global warming is happening. Of course it is happening. The money is all being spent on how to stop, alter, or live with it. Good work if you can get it. There is a "green" movement which is attracting a lot of money.
So shortly after our eyes glazed over from the Bob Dole movie and shortly before the economic meltdown, we came up with a way to develop carbon credits. This happened in something called the "Kyoto Accord", a conference which has pretty much been ignored, possibly unfairly. I usually say when people ask me about it that "Tell ya what, you bring out your scientists and I'll bring out MY scientists and see if we can agree on anything.
Turns out we all agree on global warming. What we don't agree about is what is causing it? And we REALLY don't agree how to reverse it.
Dr. David Evans wrote this article in the Australian. He is the scientist I am trotting out in favor of the idea that it is all a big shell game and a money grab by special interest groups.... Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html
So, I kind of like Dr. Evans...he would clearly be a great candidate for a "show me state." He states categorically and in writing, and I quote... " There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming." unquote
I suppose I could, in the interest of balance, bring an article by David Suzuki, but then, Dr. Evans doesn't have a TV show like Dr. Suzuki so maybe it will all balance out.
I am finding that I am applying my "grumpy old man" outlook to more and more things these days.
Anyway, I believe we can all agree on a few things...like perhaps life without smoke in the air would be better, (though the alternative might mean freezing to death) so maybe we may have to agree to a trade off.
I was going to add a paragraph about this latest censorship by the city of Ottawa transit system in which they refused to allow a billboard stating "There is probably no God, so just get on with your life". but I have a hockey game to get to. So TTFN. Stay sceptical....grin!
(I may move this to my "rant blog". But this is not quite as wild a rant as usual...the censorship one will DEFINITELY need to go there though!)