Will Someone Please Make the UN Go Away?

I'm sick of the United Nations. They don't actually do anything. Seriously, when was the last time the UN accomplished something of merit? World government sucks. It just does. Every country has its own interests. We're never all going to get along. We're never going to have total peace. To think that's possible is to be so naive and so idealistic that I would seriously tell you to never mate, because you are a danger to the human gene pool. There will never, ever be complete global cooperation. You know why? There's always someone who will be unsatisfied. There's always some jerk who wants to have more power. And what happens to that jerk? Well, one of two things: he isn't given what he wants, and makes a bunch of trouble, or he is given what he wants and later on just makes even worse trouble. On a global scale, it's not really good to be giving people lots of power. There are just too many individual interests to make government on such a vast level effective without employing socialism, which isn't really that good.

Anyway, the real reason I'm pissed off at the UN right now doesn't specifically deal with its existence, although thats definitely an underlying issue. Rather, I'm specifically pissed at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for releasing yet another stupid Assessment Report in which they detail just exactly how much carbon dioxide we are releasing into the atmosphere, and just exactly how that carbon dioxide affects the climate. Let me give you my professional opinion on the IPCC:

It's a piece of crap.

As I said earlier, there are just too many individual interests to make a world government effective, let alone beneficial. Naturally this applies also to the research done by the subdivisions thereof, such as the IPCC. They have an agenda, which is: WORLD GOVERNMENT! What better way to further the UN's ends than by scaring everyone into signing up for some idealistic cause to (surprise!) save the planet from imminent doom? It's a power play, folks. Again, anyone who doesn't believe/recognize that every politician has an agenda (namely, advancing their own agendas) is far too naive for their own good. Some time, ask yourself how much all these bleeding hearts actually care about their hot issues. Just think about the possibility that maybe, just maybe, they say things to, oh I don't know, GET ELECTED?! Really folks, politicians don't pick issues they care about; they pick issues that the people will care about. That's politics. The more people who care about your chosen issues, the better. That's how you win an election. I'm a political cynic. The word "altruism" is completely foreign in the world of politics. Face it: people are out to win. They don't care about fixing things, they want to win. Period.

Is this to say I doubt the research of the IPCC? YES! Tell me, who verifies the research of the IPCC? Themselves, presumably, in which case they are biased. Try to proofread your own paper, or find your own careless mathematical mistake. It's not easy. That's because of bias. Why shouldn't the same sort of bias apply to much more complex data such as that pushed by the IPCC? Let me remind you that the last IPCC report was based on a certain "hockey stick" graph, which itself was based on a formula which, no matter what kind of data was input, even random, trendless, computer generated data, would produce the same hockey stick trend. The IPCC doesn't exactly have the greatest track record. Furthermore, let me introduce to you a tricky little notion: the entire world is a ridiculously complex system. It's more complex than anything you can possibly imagine. It doesn't operate in a linear, proportion-based fashion as everyone wants to believe. It is not difficult to predict. It is impossible to predict. There is absolutely zero certainty as to what any given action will have on the entirety of the massive system that is this planet. Without getting overly technical, it simply can't be done. So what is this all to say? 1. I don't trust the unverified/self-verified (a.k.a. biased) research of the IPCC, 2. The prediction of the behavior of the entire environment is completely and ridiculously impossible, 3. Global warming is more of a political game than anything.

Don't get me wrong, there are scientists who sincerely believe in this stuff. I think they're unfortunately misled. The IPCC is not the be-all end-all, especially while there are scientists who dispute global warming. Majority consensus is irrelevant. If just one scientist has data with which he can dispute global warming, then it remains to be questioned. Science is not a democracy. Science is imperical facts. Science is verifiable results. Science is research that can be replicated, results that can be reproduced. Science is fact, the conclusion of guess work and subsequent experimentation. Science is not open to interpretation, any more than is the simple equation 2+2=4. Right now there are only guesses, computer simulations and models, assumptions, reconstructions, and guesses. That's it. Global warming is not a fact, not a theory, but a hypothesis. To base our actions for the next 100 years (even disregarding inevitable technological advances) is simply foolish, unless we are sure. And we aren't sure.

On the note of technological advances, in a speech Michael Crichton listed a number of words that Teddy Roosevelt did not know the meaning of. Here they are:

airport antibiotic antibody antenna computer continental drift tectonic plates zipper radio television robot video virus gene proton neutron atomic structure quark atomic bomb nuclear energy ecosystem jumpsuits fingerprints step aerobics 12-step

jet stream shell shock shock wave radio wave microwave tidal wave tsunami IUD DVD MP3 MRI HIV SUV VHS VAT whiplash wind tunnel carpal tunnel fiber optics direct dialing dish antennas gorilla corneal transplant liver transplant heart transplant

liposuction transduction maser taser laser acrylic penicillin Internet interferon nylon rayon leisure suit leotard lap dancing laparoscopy arthroscopy gene therapy bipolar moonwalk spot welding heat-seeking Prozac sunscreen urban legends rollover minutes

What is the relevance? Well, just that it's slightly sort of, well, STUPID to try and predict the next 100 years and the climate trends thereof based on the world today. I'm going to make an appeal to history here. It's all about history. How absurdly much has the human race advanced in the last hundred years? Heck, even look at the last twenty years. Remember Super Mario Brothers, where enemies were capable of walking in a straight line or maybe bouncing up and down, effectively acting as nothing more than stupid obstacles? Now, twenty years later, we have artificial intelligence advanced enough to follow tactical patters, select weaponry based on the situation, follow certain orders, and otherwise just act like a more crude version of a human being. The only difference now between computers and humans is the ability to think creatively. Computers can only follow instructions and patterns. Even then, they act very convincingly. It just makes no sense to even try to predict the future, unless you're writing science fiction.

There's a statistic out there that I'm sure many people have heard that the entire population of the planet Earth, given living quarters the size of the average American, could fit into the state of Texas. Texas is a big state, but let's look at the big picture. Texas is a phenomenally small fraction of the entire Earth. That a population that can be placed in such a small land area can be having a serious effect on the whole Earth, especially given the complexity of the system and the sheer volume of other inhabitants, is nothing shy of arrogant. The natural environment is designed to respond to equilibrium shifts, and that's what it will do, no matter what we do to it. There is no irreversible process we can set in motion. Granted, it isn't necessarily fair to make a judgment as to how much effect a given factor can have based solely on size. The point is, though, that humans account for a very, very small amount of the Earth.

It is very important to look at the other sources of variable temperatures, namely the sun and the urban heat effect. The sun is automatically assumed to have a constant effect; we see it every day, it looks the same, and we just accept that. The fact is, the sun is no less complex than the Earth. The sun is capable of its own dramatic changes, which naturally affect the Earth. The sun, of course, doesn't account for all of the temperature change, but it certainly is more important than is assumed. The urban heat effect is also important. Many cities are 7 to 8 degrees warmer than surrounding countryside. Since we're talking about a global average temperature change of .6 degrees, I'd say thats reasonably significant. How about this temperature chart from a car driving around Berlin on a single day?

It is plainly absurd to discount the urban heat effect as a cause for temperature increases.

Let me just quickly address one issue, which is the perspective in which we are given the temperature anomalies over the past 120 years. Take a look at these two graphs:


Would it surprise you to learn that those graphs show EXACTLY the same numbers? This is a fine example of just exactly how data can be easily manipulated to create a desired impression. That, my friends, is the "science" behind global warming. In reality, this sort of manipulation is much more art than science.

See, it's irrelevant when a prediction comes right. When the expected result is garnered, no one is surprised. No big deal, it's the expected result. What matters is when the predictions and experiments turn out to the contrary. A great many things have been learned by testing hypotheses to be false. There's a lot of merit to be had for being wrong in the field of science. What lacks merit are the repeated prophecies of gloom and doom that are issued forth ever too frequently, the sort that never come true. The predictions that come false are readily available over the past few decades, whether it be the population boom of the 1960's which predicted some 60 million Americans starving to death, or the "New Ice Age" and nuclear winter of the 1970's, or the predicted 3.5 million long term deaths from the Chernobyl meltdown in the 1980's (which, by the way saw only 56 deaths, a far cry from the speculated 15 to 30 thousand) which, to date have only numbered 4,000, or even the more recent Y2K scare we encountered at the end of the 20th century. Let me say again, I'm making an appeal to history. I'm making an appeal to common sense. The disaster cries are prevalent. The actual disasters themselves, not so much.

Ultimately, I go back to my fundamental beliefs in order to form my opinions. That is to say, at the basis of all my beliefs regarding global warming is religion. I've already gone through my thoughts on the Earth's creation, I needn't go there again. If, as I asserted previously, the Earth was created by God, it was created in such a way that God would have control over it. To think anything else makes no sense. The Earth was designed in such a manner that we couldn't change it if we tried. The natural order is set up so as to respond to equilibrium shifts. We couldn't destroy the atmosphere if we tried. We could pour so many pollutants into the air that we killed ourselves, and after we were dead it would all smooth out again. Things would return to normal, albeit minus humanity. This is how the Earth was designed. It's not random at all, but rather very ordered, very specific, and very well crafted.

Let me make something brutally clear: I'm not looking for a debate. Read: I. Am. Not. Looking. For. A. Debate. I was slightly upset to realize last night that this is what some people think. I don't say controversial things because I want people to argue with me. That's foolishness. I say what I believe because I hope to bring other people to a new understanding. I'm not looking for a fight. If someone wants to argue with me, fine, but that doesn't mean that's my intention. I state my opinions because I want them known. I state my opinions because I believe so fully in them that I think it is my responsibility to do so. Picking fights just to fight is silly. I don't pick fights. I express my beliefs, and let other people pick the fight. I have no issue with finish it, but don't make the mistake of thinking I'm just a confrontational jerk. So argue with me if you will, but otherwise at least give some thought to what I'm saying. It's not just to hear myself talk.

I urge you to think, to read, to research for yourself. The worst possible thing is to take a blanket statement from a single source as concrete evidence. In this discussion alone I've been influenced by a number of outside sources and numbers. I may not have the credibility of a college professor, or a textbook, or the IPCC report. But I have read. I've formulated opinions of my own. I recognize that something here is out of place. We need to live in the world we have now, not the one that might be in a hundred years. This is the present. We need to act based on our status now, not what's predicted for 2100. We need to treat this complex system as it is; we can't try to control it, we can only examine the current status and make our decisions based on that. We need to let technology advance in its own time, not try to force it.

We need to end the state of fear.

The End