We can talk about “courage, natural sports talent, above average IQ or abnormal leadership qualities” - to name but a few.
However, most of those natural abilities are either inherited from parents or are as a result of above average nurturing during the juvenile years when we began to focus on future careers - some would call it obsessive, parental control.
Fortunately, the best scientific breakthroughs occur when individuals with above average intellect stumble upon discoveries in the natural world that enable us to take another giant step on the pathway to a utopian existence.
Sometimes, these breakthroughs only build on what is already known but any new scientific discovery is, in itself, usually good news for mankind as a whole.
But discoveries themselves - no matter how much of a “game changer” they appear to be for the way we live our lives - can only contribute so much to human progress.
The missing ingredient is too often the ability and aspirational desire to make things happen that will benefit us all. It is the most selfless act rated just below the ultimate sacrifice during times of war.
Mind you, it is not a given that any scientific examination of natural events that can be catastrophic will ultimately provide the answers to our questions about its origin.
And even aspirational scientists can add little to the sum of human knowledge when advocating false doctrines as the basis for their investigations.
The current debate about the origins of global warming (Climate Change) has done a massive disservice to humanity and yet we still see some world scientific leaders (IPCC and Others) peddling their false narrative in spite of their predictions of doom being proved wrong after being overtaken by time.
These discredited former “truths” might be something we could just ignore as the new evidence suggest the earlier studies were based on none recurring data.
It seemed an accurate description of where things were heading at the time but no longer so.
Unfortunately, the best type of scientific endeavour are the investigations where the principal researchers remain sceptical until their findings are proven beyond reasonable doubt.
While there is no question that Climate Change is happening and the frequency, intensity of adverse climate events are becoming more common place, that in itself doesn’t prove that global warming is a result of increased man-made carbon emissions in the atmosphere.
I say that because history proves we have been here before.
In fact it is the scientists who deny that current global warming is part of a cycle where the planet either heats up or cools down due to some natural re-occurring phenomenon. It doesn’t mean each new cycle will be an exact repeat of the last.
For example, approx 600 yrs ago, the Thames froze over and yet parts of the Arctic Tundra had little snow at all. Global warming, such as it was then, was occurring in isolated parts of the planet
Of course, today the opposite appears to be true. It is happening all over the planet.
Another naturally occurring phenomenon is the Earth’s distance from the Sun.
For my money, it just seems logical that the closer the Earth gets to the Sun, the more likely our planet will experience higher average temperatures and the occupants of our world ( humans, animals, fish and birds will have to adapt - which they do.
And why should this matter at all if we are simply backing the wrong horse?
Surely , sooner or later, the world authorities will be forced to abandon these false doctrines as the research based on a more likely premise proves them wrong.
In the meantime, the most likely outcome is that greater numbers of sovereign states abandon the UN led IPCC membership, not so much because they have lost faith in the research but more because membership is longer affordable.
There is a lesson here for all of us.
Scientific research and those who undertake it are the most important contributors to a world in harmony with itself.
But the research itself will be worthless if it is not undertaken by men and women who aspire to promote the truth - no matter the consequences to their own personal standing in society.
Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, that type of person is very hard to find. Maybe we should be looking in areas where freedom of expression is a valued commodity- not one controlled by other less competent mortals.
Science should provide the lifeblood for development of the human race but petty jealousies are too often the handbrake on discoveries that are there for the taking The survival of the human race will depend on our ability to make the right choices by promoting people with genuine ability and integrity to positions of authority ensuring the truth will out.
Clive Bibby is a commentator, consultant, farmer and community leader, who lives in Tolaga Bay.
6 comments:
I think you will find there is already evidence that frequency and intensity of events is NOT becoming more common.
It is a myth that suits the alarmists.
Abandon the UN altogether. My Earth Science 101 textbook (13th Edition) must be old as it says "Always remember that nearly all of the energy that drives Earth's variable weather and its climate comes from the Sun."
"The survival of the human race will depend on our ability to make the right choices by promoting people with genuine ability and integrity to positions of authority ensuring the truth will out." Just like Donald Trump, eh Clive?
No Ewan, Just like Jacinda Ardern and Chris Hippkins
"...promoting people with genuine ability and integrity to positions of authority" - IF ONLY - not in these days of DEI in which the race and/or sex of the applicant beats competence as a selection criterion hands down. You can thank Ardern & Co for that, not Trump.
I disagree is in the suggestion that climate science has somehow abandoned those principles or that the overwhelming evidence linking modern warming to human greenhouse gas emissions has been “discredited\.”
The findings of climate science are not the result of one organisation, one study, or one political ideology\. They are based on decades of observations from thousands of independent researchers around the world, published in peer\-reviewed journals and continually challenged by other scientists\. The reason there is broad scientific agreement isn’t because dissent is suppressed \- it’s because repeated attempts to explain the observations without accounting for greenhouse gases have failed\.
Earth’s climate has changed naturally throughout history\. The Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age are well\-documented examples\. However, those events don’t undermine the current understanding of climate change; they help us understand it\. Scientists know the climate changes naturally because they study those periods extensively\. The question has never been whether natural climate change exists—it is whether natural factors can explain the rapid global warming observed since the Industrial Revolution\.
So far, they cannot\.
Solar output has been measured directly for decades and has shown little long\-term increase while global temperatures have continued to rise\. Likewise, Earth’s orbit changes over tens of thousands of years through well\-understood cycles\. Those orbital variations explain ice ages and interglacial periods, but cannot explain the rapid warming over the past century because the current orbital trend would, if anything, be expected to produce very gradual cooling over millennia rather than warming over decades\.
Similarly, examples such as the River Thames freezing several hundred years ago don’t demonstrate that today’s warming is simply another natural cycle\. In fact, the freezing of the Thames occurred during the Little Ice Age, when Europe experienced unusually cold conditions for a combination of volcanic activity, reduced solar output, and local factors\. It is not evidence against modern climate science\.
Another important distinction is between prediction and projection\. Climate models don’t claim to predict the exact weather or every individual year decades into the future\. They project how temperatures and climate are expected to change under different greenhouse gas emission scenarios\. Many of the broad projections made decades ago have been remarkably close to what has actually occurred, especially when compared against the emissions that ultimately happened\.
I think it’s worth distinguishing scientific disagreement from scientific uncertainty\. Scientists debate the magnitude of particular feedbacks, the regional impacts, and the effectiveness of different policy responses\. That is normal science\. But disagreement over details is very different from rejecting the central conclusion that human activities are now the dominant driver of recent global warming\.
Finally, I share your view that integrity matters\. Science only works when researchers are willing to revise their conclusions if the evidence changes\. But integrity also means accepting conclusions when they are supported by the weight of evidence, even if they are politically inconvenient or personally uncomfortable\.
Good science isn’t about choosing the explanation that feels most logical\. It’s about following the evidence wherever it leads\. If tomorrow compelling evidence emerged that overturned the current understanding of climate change, the scientific community would eventually accept it\. That willingness to change is precisely what makes science trustworthy\. At present, the evidence continues to point overwhelmingly to the conclusion that while Earth’s climate has always varied naturally, the rapid warming we’re experiencing today is primarily driven by human greenhouse gas emissions.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.