The pervasive concept of Global Warming is a fallacy. There is no such thing as a 'normal climate'. The only reason we are collectively panicked about it is because we are continuously fed doom and gloom stories (propaganda) from one side of the argument. There is just as much evidence (empirical AND anecdotal) refuting the concept. But what sells papers and ad time on newcasts? All one needs to do is look at previous 'Armageddon' scenarios (remember Global Cooling?) to see that.
Most people who 'believe' do so simply because they feel strongly about the environment, but can’t be bothered or lack scientific and statistical understanding to qualify their opinion with analysis. And the so-called scientists who still promote the idea have staked their reputations on disproved theories and have blinded themselves to the truth.
Consensus and relentless propaganda does not equal truth.
The Earth is not flat and the universe does not orbit the Earth but there was a time when stating that put one on the outside…
7 comments:
I find your thoughts on global warming thought provoking. But you have left me (the reader) no more educated on the subject after I finished reading your blog. I'd love to hear your theories, or facts you've discovered on what causes our bizarre climate changes..................looking forward to your response. IMH
Thank you for your response. I am encouraged that someone actually reads my blog.
I could write an essay on why, scientifically and statistically and anecdotally, the notion of Global Warming is dubious. To be clear, the concept of ‘Global Warming’ holds that we are headed for a global catastrophe that is man-made because of increased CO2 caused by our use of fossil fuels. It further assumes that man has the power to fix it. When I say ‘Global Warming’, I refer only to the concept I outlined.
I have a link to a website at the end of this entry to fill in those details. If you read nothing else on the site, check out the myths/facts section.
It seems extremely arrogant for us to believe that we have such power over the Earth. Of course, if we are arrogant enough to believe that we broke it, its only one more small step to be arrogant enough to believe we can fix it. Mankind’s arrogance has lead us down the wrong path before.
Proponents of Global Warming seem happy to ignore, or are ignorant of, some very basic scientific concepts. The concept of homeostasis is the most compelling. A homeostatic reaction is any unconscious reaction of an organism to maintain a ‘normal state’. For example, a warm-blooded animal may sweat or shiver in an attempt to maintain proper body temperature. This reaction is unconscious; you do not DECIDE to sweat.
Global Warming believers think that CO2 is a pollutant and readily ignore that CO2 is vital for all life on Earth. And if they believe it’s a pollutant, and that there is such a thing as ‘normal’ levels, its easier to ignore a perfectly plausible homeostatic reaction of the Earth (and we can think of the Earth as an organism) to ‘higher’ levels of CO2. You see, CO2 is ‘plant food’. And if the concentration of CO2 is higher in the atmosphere, why would plants not grow more vigorously. Indeed, there is proof that this has occurred. But I am sure Al Gore would find that, and much more, to be an inconvenient truth.
Another concept at play is statistical significance. Katrina was not in and of itself an indicator of Global Warming. Its destructive power was enhanced by the exact location it hit, combined with poor planning, and of course its strength. But there is no reason to believe that category 5 hurricanes did not hit land since the dawn of man.
Statistics are a double-edged sword. The way one chooses to analyze the numbers is just as important as the numbers. And numbers can be made to support any theory provided you are prepared to ignore enough best-practices, make enough assumptions, are loose enough with definitions and throw in a bit of slight-of-hand. Add to this an inadequate analysis of HOW the numbers were actually obtained and the results are even more dubious. My case in point is the (in)famous ‘hockey stick graph’ that shows the global temperature spiking in recent history. This graph is the poster child of the UN and other organizations promoting the fallacy of Global Warming.
Another issue is cause and effect. Proponents of Global Warming have put the cart before the horse. The theory holds that the Earth is getting warmer and that more (manmade) C02 is the cause. But there is historical evidence to show that C02 levels increase AS A RESULT OF an increase in global temperatures. Its easy to see how we could get on the wrong track if we look at this relationship and get it backwards.
What about other causes? There are plenty of other possible causes. But because we don’t understand them as much as we think we understand Climatology, our arrogance takes over.
I am an environmentalist, a pragmatic environmentalist, but and environmentalist nonetheless. I worry that we may in our arrogance and conceit embark on a futile mission against nature; nature we don’t fully understand, and ignore other very important issues. Sure, even a futile fight against ‘Climate Change’ would have positive spin-offs. It might have us explore, more vigorously, cleaner technologies and provide less smog, and decreased dependence on fossil fuels as a result. But at what cost? We in the West would cripple our economies while more than half of the world’s population (India and China) could develop their economies unchecked by ‘green’ initiatives.
And with all our energies focused on halting ‘climate change’, just how much patience will people have to listen to, much less focus on the rainforests, wetlands, clean water, fresh water, and myriad other environmental concerns.
I care as many people do. But I am also compelled (and somewhat qualified) to look at the science behind it. And I find the science behind the concept of Global Warming wanting. And I find the collective ignorance distressing. The issue is that most people who have an opinion on this issue simply lack the knowledge to qualify it. They have simply bought into the doctrine delivered in the form of unrelenting propaganda. They simply don’t care to KNOW it, but instead are comfortable BELEIVING it.
I am not convinced that we have the power to change our climate and I don’t believe we have the power to ‘fix’ it. Our best strategy is to keep an open mind and try to better understand what exactly is happening, if anything, and if that’s the case put our energies into adapting to it.
I invite you to check out this website. Its put together by people who are far smarter than I. These are scientists who have not staked their reputations on Global Warming. These scientists have stayed true to their craft. Science is the pursuit of truth and pure understanding of nature’s design. It requires an open mind and compels us to constantly re-examine the facts.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/
Thanks for your quick response. I found your thoughts very interesting. However, have you looked at the warming/cooling phenomena from a cosmic standpoint? I find it's the one theory that isn't discussed at much depth and I have to wonder why. Considering our Earth's solar system as an open system travelling in the universe, I can't help but wonder if its proximity with other systems would cause an overall warming/cooling effect on our planet. Would it not affect the gravitational pulls of our planets in this and other systems? Would it not affect all aspects of the cosmos, the earth itself, and the phenomenon of life here? Is it possible that the tilt of our Earth itself is being affected by these gravitational pulls? The slight differences in temperatures caused by this would in effect change all life including plant life, and this would have a direct influence on co2 levels. If this theory is possible (and happening), then perhaps we are headed toward a homogenous climate 'like the garden of eden'. Could it be possible that we are almost back in position from where this system started out in the universal scheme of things? I am pleased to be able to share my thoughts with you on this topic. My ideas may be a bit outside the box, but none the less, I feel they are valid. IMH.
Absolutely, your ideas are valid. (though I don’t presume to be the authority of what is valid and what is not).
You ask if I’d thought about the matter from a cosmic standpoint. Well no, not much beyond the mild speculation regarding solar cycles. We know that there is a solar cycle of around 11 years when solar flare activity peaks. Perhaps there is another cycle (or two or three) of lower frequency(ies). And perhaps these cycles are in a state of resonance. We know that the Earth too has cycles (the movement of magnet poles for one. There is even evidence that the magnetic poles flip periodically) and perhaps some of all of these solar and terrene cycles are resonating.
The most compelling anecdotal evidence includes the facts that centuries ago grapes were cultivated in England while most of Europe had two growing seasons. And, Greenland used to be green. All this, long before the advent of the internal combustion engine and long before coal was widely used a source energy.
Clearly it was a WHOLE LOT WARMER 800 years ago than it is now. And clearly mankind had nothing to do with it then. Why then was it so warm? Why is it so inconceivable that mankind has little or nothing to do with the (debatable) climate changes now?
I think you've missed the point. Call it what you want, Global Warming, and Anomalous Condition, whatever. The point is that something is changing and no reputable scientist on this planet doubts that. The real question is "can we afford to pretend that this is all normal, and perhaps console ourselves that if we just ingnore it, it will go away"? And that someday we can look back and laugh at it all? Get real. Of course we can have an impact on the earth. Do you know anything about critical phenomenon? How about phase transitions? The difference between frozen solid water and liquid water is only a fraction of a degree. The point is that although we may never know enough to figure out what is causing this, we can't afford not to try to take action. It's plain stupid to do so. THAT is the point. Humans can't afford to wait for 'more data' to act on this. It doesn't matter if we're the cause or not. It's one of those bets that we (and you) can't make. Get it?
First, do you need me to explain to you critical phenomenon and phase transitions? I can, but I’ll leave it to you. When I introduce a concept to this debate, (like homeostasis or statistical significance) I explain it and explain its relevance. I even outlined, for clarity, the concept of Global Warming. If you are not prepared to make a conceptual argument, don’t bother mentioning a concept. It only makes me think that you are using them as cool-sounding buzz words and that you truly do not understand science and scientific concepts.
You ask "can we afford to pretend that this is all normal, and perhaps console ourselves that if we just ignore it, it will go away"? But I wrote in my follow-up that perhaps its best to “put our energies into adapting to it”.
We do have an impact on our environment, but not on a GLOBAL scale. Mankind is powerful in its effort or folly. The only thing greater about us is our arrogance. Our arrogance allows us to believe that we can affect the Earth’s climate, and even change it to suit our needs.
You suggest we take action. What action? What if those actions cripple our economies and desensitize the public to all other environmental concerns that we do have power over? We could spend untold money and effort fighting a battle we have no hope of ‘winning’ and end up with no rainforests or wetlands, scarce clean water, extinct species of plants and animals, etc, etc, because we were too busy to keep our eye on the ball.
Like a ‘successful’ medical procedure that kills the patient, what’s proposed as a solution to Global Warming is as much a danger as leaving well enough alone, especially if it diverts us from efforts to ADAPT to the change.
That’s the point. The point is not to just ‘do something’ so we can feel better about ourselves. That’s plain stupid.
I agree with you that we don’t need more data, necessarily. But also, I do believe we should continue studying and trying to better understand our climate and the myriad forces at work.
What we need is a dose of pragmatism and humility. We need to take a logical look at BOTH sides of the argument. As I’ve said, consensus does not equal truth.
I have examined both sides with a scientific mind. And I believe that there are compelling arguments refuting the notion that mankind is the cause of an imminent climate catastrophe and further, that we can fix it. When you say it doesn’t matter if we are the cause or not, I see both a glimmer of doubt in the concept of Global Warming and a lack of faith in nature and its marvelous design.
But in the spirit of ‘political correctness’ one side of the argument is being drowned out by the other.
If you think mankind is foolish enough to destroy our planet’s climate then certainly we are foolish enough to delude ourselves into thinking we can fix it.
I believe that our collective hysteria, fueled by our own immeasurable arrogance, is an imminent danger to the Earth and all life on it.
I for one agree with gargoyle,
I have just met with a supposed Gore follower, I say Gore because he is the head the media puts on global warming from my stand of view.
Scientists have refused this theory of global warming i.e. green house effect, but nobody will ever know what happens behind close doors if you get my drift.
scientists have been known to get paid to go towards a certain theory, I really never believed the whole co2 propoganda the media was dishing out, and when you get into a conversation with a so called 'believer', they, and i use the term loosely, are arrogant, to the point of no return.
I am glad I am not alone though, really great to read your points gargoyle, hope you keep the voice loud and maybe society will stop behaving in such a manner which i doubt.
Post a Comment