The Theory of Global Warming
Disclaimer: This isn't tech related but after all, it's my blog 
Something I have a big problem with is the "Theory" of Global Warming... There's no evidence to support Global Warming... just as there is no evidence to support the effects of nuclear winter, the existence of aliens or that second hand smoke is dangerous (To understand my choices, read a lecture given by Michael Crichton at the California Institute of Technology entitled "Aliens Cause Global Warming".) A section of his lecture covers "consensus science" and while many people try to say that consensus science is used to prove Global Warming and for that reason it must not be true, I don't agree. However, I do think that consensus science is partially responsible. As Crichton says, "Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we're asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future?"
SEED, an education development program, has published an article on global climate change, which includes an image based on the Vostok Ice Core data published by the NOAA. The image is rather interesting. It shows that we're in a repeating cycle and we're actually right on track with past data. Yes this is proxy data but it's really all we have to go on. Even this data is for a considerably small period of timing consider the age of the Earth is accepted to be somewhere around 4.5 billion years. The period represented by the image covers 425,000 years. That's ~0.0094444% of the history of our climate... A very small portion, however, large compared to those who support Global Warming... Let's take NASA, for example, who uses a ~50 year baseline... or ~0.0000011111% of the history of our climate... How are they supposed to make a valid prediction about the stability of our climate and any changes that it's undergoing. Now we also have to remember that these are the same people who said in 1997, " The most recent glaciation, 20,000 years ago, is called the Laurentide, and Earth is still recovering from it."
So what does this tell us... That 10 years ago we were still recovering from an ice age... that would mean that our temperatures were continuing to increase... That's pretty accurate when you consider the small scale of data that NASA presents, and it holds true when you look at the larger picture using the NOAA data. It also tells us that we're not experiencing the "Terror of Global Warming" but rather a natural and unavoidable climate change cycle. In 2002 there were published studies that Antarctica was getting colder and the ice was getting thicker... again this doesn't sound like Global Warming.
Now I'm not a scientist... nor do I claim to be one... but common sense can be great when you're trying to dissect information. Here's what my common sense is telling me... but first.. the knowns:
- Climate patterns cycle (as Ice Core data has shown us)...
- Meteorologists have a hard time accurately predicting the 7-day forecast
- Scientists supporting Global Warming are working, in part, off NASA's numbers which are not representative of the big picture.
- The Antarctica is actually getting colder.
So what is my common sense telling me? It's simple... we're in a continual climate change cycle... this is natural... We're coming up on the warmest point in the cycle's natural progression... Now it is time to start cooling... And what were we told in school, when the ice age came the ice came down from the poles (I guess it would be up from the south pole)... We're seeing evidence of this already with the poles getting colder and thickening. The poles have long since been an indicator of change... We fear them melting from Global Warming and that would have catastrophic results... Now they are indicating change yet again and this time the change in in line with what history shows us... My prediction: The poles will get colder... They'll thicken and start to extend.. we'll have our hot years and then gradually cool as well, allowing the poles to precede forward even further. This is the natural cycle of things...
One last thing to take into account... The Cold War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, The War on Terror... The US Government has always been able to instill fear in it's people using war and nuclear threats... That ability is starting to run out and suddenly Global Warming is back in the picture... The Doomsday Clock, which used to measure only the threat of Nuclear war, now suddenly measures the threat from Global Warming. It seems to be that consensus science is working again, and everyone is buying into the "Theory" of Global Warming, when all of the evidence points to a natural change in climate.
Hello,
We are on the same wave length. See my book “The Sky is Falling! Global Warming Survival Guide.” It’s partially told from two beached whales perspective.
Cal
Although you do try to consider material from both believers and non-believers in global warming, you may not have noticed the fine print. If you read the copyright info on the SEED “education development program” you have noted, you will see that it was created by a company called Schlumberger. Schlumberger is not an educational body. Rather, it describes itself as “the world’s leading supplier of technology, project management and information solutions to the oil and gas industry.” This site you have provided a link to is put forth by members of one of the main industries that will benefit from skepticism on climate change: oil.
The reason that climate change has come to the forefront within the scientific community is due to the severity, rapidity and geographically wide-spread nature of the changes. The cyclical patterns you and others frequently reference (ie glaciation) take place over centuries or millennia, not decades. In terms of whether or not global warming is a “theory”, well, you as a computer specialist should know that inductive reasoning is applied to many mathematical questions, and although we cannot manipulate infinite number strands to prove a conclusion follows a pattern without exception, we can use the information at hand to theorize a logical outcome. The logical outcome in this case means that we need to address the rapidity of human-induced climate change.
You’re right… Schlumberger would benefit by creating skepticism… however there are many that benefit by supporting Global Warming… their stats are quite often accepted… You could always take the NOAA data and generate the graph yourself, you would see the same results..
There’s no proof that the current changes to our climate are unexpected… They may be severe and rapid to some (Although, I recall reading in the past that Global Warming was originally defined as a 10 degree change over a decade…something we’ve yet to experience) but the severity and rapidness may be “as designed” in the long term… As you said… these cyclical patterns take time… so we can’t know the true extent of the cycles, but if we do extrapolate based on the Vostok data we see that we’re following a natural progression. As I also stated in my original post.. 10 years ago NASA said we were still recovering from the last ice age… That would mean we would still be experiencing temperature increases… Everything can be explained.. it’s a matter of wanting to see the explanation… to call this “human-induced climate change” is a very prematurely formed opinion and while it may be the opinion of the majority of the scientific community… it takes us back to consensus science… 99% of meteorologists may tell me it’s going to rain tomorrow but they can still be wrong… consensus doesn’t make them right.
I see Global Warming like I see recycling… There are countless pieces of evidence that disprove the concept of recycling and provide information proving that it’s more expensive and uses more energy to recycle a product than it does to reproduce it. A great example of this is lumber… The majority of our lumber comes from nurseries… The trees are grown just to be cut down and harvested… and when a tree is cut down, multiple trees are replanted… yet we still insist that it’s better to recycle paper… This just isn’t true.
Global Warming is like recycling…. Recycling creates jobs and makes people feel like they’re making a difference… Stopping Global Warming is also creating jobs and making people feel like they are making a difference… These same people are going to see that this isn’t Global Warming and that it’s just a natural progression and then they will kick themselves for wasting their time. Global Warming is also being used in attempts to great global unity… to usher in a time of peace… while a noble cause… it doesn’t justify misleading the general public.
Great post
Angela – you are making tired arguments that are counter productive
Trackback here
http://dcssec.blogspot.com/2007/02/global-warming-denier-get-rope.html
ok so, idk a lot about global warming but i would like to tell you that, people who dont smoke, but live with someone or is around someone that does frequently, may not be damaging their lungs willingly, but second hand smoke is harmful b/c those people cough still and, those peoples’ lungs are turning black. look at pictures.so yes i realize that this article is about global warming but, that statement about secondhand smoke and not knowing if it is harmful, think again dumb-dumb b/c if you didnt know that it is you really shouldnt be posting things online. check your facts before you share them please.
Kina,
Did you really just use “instant messenger shorthand” and call me a “dumb-dumb”? Do you expect me to take you seriously. Did you look at the link I provided along with that… those statements are from a rather well known presentation given by Michael Crichton. Perhaps you should check your facts before commenting online.
HT
its all because of the sun!!!!!!!
Thank you, you think exactly as i do on this subject. Your article also helped me on my paper arguing that Global Warming is not true, I was at a standstill till I read this.
okay so you don’t actually think that there’s any evidence to back up that global warming is actually happening ?
have you not seen the movie an inconvenient truth ?
that has enough evidence.
listen and watch that movie closely,
because if you have seen it,
you obviously just slept through it,
because global warming is happening and if we don’t do something about it,
then bye bye planet and bye bye human civilization.
The Globle Warming Bill defeted yesterday would have cost us 12 trillion dollors( our national debt is 12 trillion). Our government would like to tax everyone and give it to their freind. Do you think you are going to recieve any of this money from us taxpayers? I do not think so, you are going to pay dearly
China is going to spend 3.1 trillion dollors in the next ten years in energy infastructure. Nuclear, Coal, Dams =Hydro, substations and grid work the works . Do you think for a minute China is going to go along with Globlal Warming comard? How about India, they want a beter life too!
No is not an energy policy. No to a LPG tanker port of california over the horizon so we can no see it, well Tokeo harbor has ten. No to water storage or dam =hydro. No to Coal. No to new refinerys. Someone wants to put a solor plant down in the desart and the eveiromental people do not like it because it is on federal land. A 2000 megawatt neuclar planet runs day and night at around 90 percent. Windmill would take 250,000 acras of land to to that. Oh then the birds, scenery, the enviromental people are not going to let that happen. It is just the matter of scale that we need to do. To do this little chat and live our life style. If we got rid of gasoline for our cars. that gas has a BTU of energy, that will have to replaced to do the same amount of work. What will it be? If we don’t build it, they will not come is a fairly tail / night Mare.