Global Warming
This is Steven Petrick Posting.
Is global warming true, and in fact a product of the activities of humanity, or is it just hyperbole?
History says that there have been periods of global cooling and global warming before, most of them predating Man (really severe events), some of them (most less severe) during the period of Man's existence as a species, and some (again of the less severe variety) during Man's ability to record events.
One of the things that is really needed (perhaps this has been done) is a correlation of known weather patterns with known historical incidents. There was a period when the Scandinavians were wreaking havoc on Northern Europe and the British Isles, and reached down through Russia and even into the Mediterranean Sea. During this period they even attempted to colonize North America, and did colonize Iceland and Greenland. There was a bumper crop of young men in Scandinavia, and that population pressure drove much of their accomplishments.
What was going on with the weather at that time? It could not have been a result of industrialization, but there was quite clearly a period of global warming, and this had to have been going on for a while, since Greenland was habitable and "Green". (Archaeological studies of the Viking settlements have established that this was a fact, not Leif Ericsson tricking fellow Vikings into going there through false advertising.) What was happening in the rest of the world at this time, climate-wise? What was the cause?
Note that just because there was not massive industrialization in that period, it does not mean that Man's efforts are not affecting the current climate patterns. While all Man's isolated efforts might not be enough to shift the climate, it might be enough to tip an existing balance. Perhaps overload things enough that when the next "event" happens (say a major volcano) there will be world wide disaster because we have eliminated a previously existing safety factor through our activities.
The problem is that right now we do not know, and it seems cannot know.
No "computer model" of the climate works. If they did, then weathermen would be able to forecast the weather with near 100% accuracy a week in advance. The number of hurricanes could be predicted with accuracy. The Climate system is currently way too complex for the abilities we have to figure out what it does and why in precise terms, rather than the generalities we have now (and that is all they are, generalities, or predictions would be far more precise). Worse, every computer model that has been held as a proof that man is causing global warming have proven to be wishful thinking of their programmers. (The programmers seem to want to prove man is at fault for global warming, and causing them to weight things to that end.) This results in predictions that the world will end in forty years unless we do the things the Man is causing Global Warming true believers want us to do. If you start the model in 1900, it still says that the earth will be uninhabitable for man in 40 years, i.e., we all died in 1940.
So, Man might be "THE Cause", might be "A Cause", might be "A Contributing Cause", or everything Man is doing actually has zero effect on what is happening with the global climate patterns.
There is ample room for doubt, and those who have sold their souls to the "Man is the Sole Cause of Global Warming" have seriously hurt their cause by their frequent overstatements and willingness to twist anything and everything to prove their point, even to the point of denying that Global Warming events have occurred in the past (the "Greenland was never Green" argument for example).
Man may be a contributing cause to global warming, but just now the real jury, as opposed to the Kangaroo jury used by the Man caused Global Warming enthusiasts, is still out. That does not mean that the real jury (the Climate itself) will not ultimately find in their favor and make all of us wish we had listened, but they have utterly failed to make their case to reasonable people and have earned great discredit by the very shoddy manner in which much of their case has been presented.
Is global warming true, and in fact a product of the activities of humanity, or is it just hyperbole?
History says that there have been periods of global cooling and global warming before, most of them predating Man (really severe events), some of them (most less severe) during the period of Man's existence as a species, and some (again of the less severe variety) during Man's ability to record events.
One of the things that is really needed (perhaps this has been done) is a correlation of known weather patterns with known historical incidents. There was a period when the Scandinavians were wreaking havoc on Northern Europe and the British Isles, and reached down through Russia and even into the Mediterranean Sea. During this period they even attempted to colonize North America, and did colonize Iceland and Greenland. There was a bumper crop of young men in Scandinavia, and that population pressure drove much of their accomplishments.
What was going on with the weather at that time? It could not have been a result of industrialization, but there was quite clearly a period of global warming, and this had to have been going on for a while, since Greenland was habitable and "Green". (Archaeological studies of the Viking settlements have established that this was a fact, not Leif Ericsson tricking fellow Vikings into going there through false advertising.) What was happening in the rest of the world at this time, climate-wise? What was the cause?
Note that just because there was not massive industrialization in that period, it does not mean that Man's efforts are not affecting the current climate patterns. While all Man's isolated efforts might not be enough to shift the climate, it might be enough to tip an existing balance. Perhaps overload things enough that when the next "event" happens (say a major volcano) there will be world wide disaster because we have eliminated a previously existing safety factor through our activities.
The problem is that right now we do not know, and it seems cannot know.
No "computer model" of the climate works. If they did, then weathermen would be able to forecast the weather with near 100% accuracy a week in advance. The number of hurricanes could be predicted with accuracy. The Climate system is currently way too complex for the abilities we have to figure out what it does and why in precise terms, rather than the generalities we have now (and that is all they are, generalities, or predictions would be far more precise). Worse, every computer model that has been held as a proof that man is causing global warming have proven to be wishful thinking of their programmers. (The programmers seem to want to prove man is at fault for global warming, and causing them to weight things to that end.) This results in predictions that the world will end in forty years unless we do the things the Man is causing Global Warming true believers want us to do. If you start the model in 1900, it still says that the earth will be uninhabitable for man in 40 years, i.e., we all died in 1940.
So, Man might be "THE Cause", might be "A Cause", might be "A Contributing Cause", or everything Man is doing actually has zero effect on what is happening with the global climate patterns.
There is ample room for doubt, and those who have sold their souls to the "Man is the Sole Cause of Global Warming" have seriously hurt their cause by their frequent overstatements and willingness to twist anything and everything to prove their point, even to the point of denying that Global Warming events have occurred in the past (the "Greenland was never Green" argument for example).
Man may be a contributing cause to global warming, but just now the real jury, as opposed to the Kangaroo jury used by the Man caused Global Warming enthusiasts, is still out. That does not mean that the real jury (the Climate itself) will not ultimately find in their favor and make all of us wish we had listened, but they have utterly failed to make their case to reasonable people and have earned great discredit by the very shoddy manner in which much of their case has been presented.
posted by Federation Commander at 6:01 PM
<< Home