I was looking back at the rate of ice loss. This has interested me for many years and still fuels my imagination. I still remember very well the vivid dreams I had as a child, of raging rivers scouring through valleys on a mad dash to the sea. As a result, the debate about global warming has always kept my attention. I have to admit that I was a little leery of the bandwagon effect of suits earning money for nothing from taxpayers.
This is a constant in society. It doesn’t change – the only thing that does is the banner under which that money is gouged from the average man.
Way back, as a Science Fiction reader, the idea of Terraforming (a term coined by Jack Williamson from in the genre) also grabbed my imagination. Imagine my bemusement as the SF concepts surrounding this leaked over into the Green Lobby. I’ve no issue with Green (especially Percy’s Green ‘Gold’ – Blackadder Series II / Money) – it’s just that figures have to add up. Figures give lots of people the heebie-jeebies until they are put into context. Let’s do that to the figures I quoted from the BBC and the New York Times back in May 2014 on projected rates of ice loss. (I’m a number junky)
Given the disparity between melt rate projected facts; and their huge difference to what actually occurred per the Ice Age records, I have to ask: What is their value?
Science is a matter of fact. When I am asked to believe something, I want facts. The projected facts would need a lot of bogus argument to make them stand up. Draw your own conclusions.
Now I oughtta get back to writing honest science fiction.