Forgive me if this is a bit willy-nilly. Its 1AM and I'm cobbling this together from snippets of a thread. I'm debating Global Warming with someone on the National Post's website. I only copied and edited my own contributions, so I don't have to give credit to the other individual or explain any plagarism.
The 'Hockey Stick Graph' is the poster child for the 'Warmists' and it makes the most compelling visual (to the masses) in Al Gore's propaganda piece "An Inconvenient Truth". If you've seen the movie, you know what I am talking about.
In any case, I could talk about how the 'Hockey Stick Graph' has been debunked, and you can talk about how that debunking has since been debunked.
And I can talk about scientists that have sold their souls and can't go back on what they have been yelling at us with megaphones for fear of losing credibility, and you can talk about the ones who MUST be in the pay of Big Oil.
And we can bicker over 'consensus'. Is it really there? Was it ever there? Is it crumbling?
But what does all that MEAN?
Yes, there is 'science' supporting both sides with everything from computer models to core samples. So what? Where does that get us if each side suspects the other of having a political and/or monetary agenda? We can boast that 'my science and beat up your science'. The science is what it is. It all comes down to who happens to be right in the first place. In any case, only science that supports AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) gets published these days, and even then, it has to have more doom and gloom than the last story or else it won't fly. This week its 1 metre rise in sea levels; next week it'll be a 2 metre rise. Who cares that their isn't that much water in the world. Why let facts get in the way of scaring the crap out of those who won't or can't think for themselves?
So let’s make all the 'science' suspect and go back to anecdotal evidence. History records what people saw and things that happened. The people who recorded it all died off before they had a chance to care about how much money people make selling fossil fuels or preaching the 'Word according to Al'. Let's try to explain in an objective manner what they saw.
During the Medieval Warming Period temperatures were far warmer than we see today. Of course, Medieval Man had no means to empirically measure the temperatures so we need to use anecdotal evidence to support the notion that they experiences temperature far higher than we see today. We see evidence that grapes were cultivated in England and that parts of Europe had two growing seasons. They also had hurricanes. I can’t recall one hitting Europe in my lifetime. Can you?
A scientist makes a theory then looks at fact and checks for fit. A true scientist is satisfied with the answer: the truth, whatever it may be. Ideally, they should be equally happy to have the theory disproved as it is still one step closer to understanding Nature. A scientist holding his theory above truth is no longer a scientist. A theory is just that until disproved. It is never proven, really. All it ever is, is 'the best we have right now'. Newtonian physics works just fine when you look at cars colliding in an intersection. But when you look at really big things, really small things and things going really fast, Sir Isaac Newton didn't quite have all the answers. How could he? Nonetheless, he was able to explain a lot about the world he could see.
Newtonian physics applies to two cars colliding as well as it does two trucks or two satellites in orbit. So it stands to reason that any theory that presumes to explain warming should not fall flat when used to explain a previous warming, right?
'Warmists' can't explain the Medieval Warming Period because, quite simply, it doesn't fit their theory. So they are forced to change the Medieval Warming Period into a little blip on the Hockey Stick Graph. Its fraud. Its playing fast and loose with the facts. Its unscientific. For them its just an inconvenient truth to be dismissed with the wave of a hand.
No comments:
Post a Comment