Last week, while driving to give a presentation in the northern part of the state in which I live, I drove through blizzard conditions three times. One of the cities I drove through had nearly 6" of snow on the ground - on April 28th!
Now, if I were to use the logic of Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney, Australia, I should start stacking up on minnows to feed the penguins that will migrate to the area where I live (which is closer to the north pole than to the south pole - those penguins will have quite a trek to the north to reach me).
Cardinal Pell claims that since temperatures in Greenland were warmer in the 1940s than they are today, there is no need for any worry about global warming. Go to: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/global_warming_and_pagan_empt.html
Apparently, Cardinal Pell doesn't understand the the meaning of the term "trends". The period from 1940 to today is a "blip of a blip" in history. Statisticians will tell you that basing future trends on such "blips" will result in the likelihood that related predictions will be inaccurate.
Now, I believe that Cardinal Pell is accurate in stating that some global warming activists are "over the edge". However, just as one shouldn't predict trends based on "blips", one should not judge the validity of various movements on the extremes of those movements. We should be concerned about global warming. My guess is that the world will eventually end due to reasons other than global warming, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't worry about global warming. That is like saying that, since a person will likely die from cancer rather than glaucoma, the person shouldn't worry about seeing an eye care professional. I don't think they would look forward to having a cancer-free existance while being bling.
Cardinal Pell should leave science to the scientists or become a scientist himself.
No comments:
Post a Comment