|
Only the ignorant believe
that science is validated through consensus. In the case of global
warming, the consensus has achieved a useful mass with all the
earmarks of a religious cult. Because of its mass, responsible
corporations use warming as a marketing gimmick, and reasonable
conservatives, like Newt Gingrich, have decided to join the
marketing bandwagon. It is a fascinating stage play reminiscent of
Galileo, who declared that the earth rotates around the sun, an
inconvenient discovery for the power brokers of his day.
Unfortunately the religious consensus at the time, the Catholic
Church, felt that such heresy was demeaning to man as the center of
the universe. Galileo was forced, by the consensus, to recant his
scientific discovery as an alternative to the guillotine.
The consensus believes that man is contributing to
global warming, and that unless this trend is halted, we will
all roast in hell, or drown in rising sea levels. These inevitable
events will occur at some time during the next 500 to 10,000 years,
sealing our inevitable fate! This dim-witted consensus has
convinced our elected representatives that unless we tax ourselves
into submission immediately, our children will all perish from the
face of the earth.
In the name of sanity, I offer a totally different
perspective on the science of the global warming lunatics, popularly
known as the climate change or green brigade. My conviction
is based upon scientific improbability, recorded inferential data
from the past two million years, and a value-driven comparison of
the consequences of both global warming and global cooling. I
represent a consensus of one, and know that the following arguments
are both scientifically sound, and compelling. For those of you
with working brain cells, the arguments are not difficult.
Scientific Fact Number
One: During the past two million years, which covers .000025
percent of the earth’s geologic history, there have been 60 known
periods of glacial advances (more ice) and retreats (the sky is
falling, or global warming). This produces one complete cycle
on average every 33,000 years. This translates into one warming
trend for 16,500 years, and one cooling trend for the
next 16,500 years, give or take 10,000 years. Lest the loonies
sweep this scientific data under the carpet, the following graph
shows this short term variation in visual form. (Thanks to the
Illinois State Museum for the ice ages data)
The graph is based upon real measurements taken
from ice cores up to two million years of age. The graph’s peaks
represent ice ages (more ice), while the valleys are periods of
warming (less ice). The graph covers the most recent third of the
last two-million years, or 750 thousand years. On a Chinese time
line, the graph must be read from right to left. We are currently
on the extreme left on the graph, which shows -2 degrees
Fahrenheit. As this is an ice graph, the -2 actually represents
warming by two degrees, or less ice. We are currently at the peak
of the less ice period. Assuming the cycles will continue to
repeat for the next two million years, it follows that at some time
during the next 10,000 years, the cycle will turn cold again
regardless of what we do. If man actually has the power to control
either warming or cooling, it has yet to be proven through actual
data.

Man’s appearance in significant numbers on earth is
documented for only the warming portion of the 60th
cycle. The first 59 of these cycles occurred before man placed many
footprints on the earth’s surface. This, of course, does not prove
that man is not contributing to global warming today. It does prove
that 59 comparable warming and cooling cycles occurred before he
appeared, with his small brain, on the face of the earth.
Given this indisputable data, what accounts for the
earlier 59 cycles of global warming and cooling when man was not
around? As a reasonable person, I prefer that the first 59 cycles
be explained by reasoning scientists before any lunatic consensus
throws man into the pressure cooker. Until reputable scientists can
explain the previous cycles, I am unwilling to accept that man is in
any way responsible for global warming during the current cycle.
This inane assertion, in the absence of scientific proof, smells
like Chicken Little all over again.
This brings us to cycle number 60, a period of 33,333
years, the last, and most current of these 60 cycles. This is the
only period during which man may be blamed for any warming at all.
Using the jargon of the scientific community, the following is the
appropriate research hypothesis: Given sixty known periods of
climate change within the past 2,000,000 years, calculate exactly
what distinguishes the last, 60th cycle, from all the
previous 59 cycles. In the name of fairness, I will give scientists
50 years to produce the answers. Then I will give the dim-wits in
the consensus another two-hundred years to accept the findings. As
scientists don’t yet know what caused any of these 60 cycles, to
blame man amounts to spitting in the earth’s greenhouse.
There is actually very good news from the above ice
chart. We are currently in the deepest valley of the normal
temperature variability for these cycles. The earth is
statistically not likely to get much warmer than it is right now.
The warming cycle has peaked, and may well remain at this peak for
many thousand years. During this period, it is likely that the
aging population of the entire east coast will migrate south to
Florida, where old folks bask in the sun and turn the interstates
into parking lots. The warm end of the ice cycle is conducive to
outdoor living, growing an incredible array of edibles, animals, and
beauty, and enjoying the marvelous environment that comes with
warmer temperatures.
The sky is falling alarmism, in the absence of
scientific proof, comes from a hodge-podge of wishful thinking by
those who would like to control the earth and all its creatures.
The presumed plight of the polar bear is a key example. One might
think that the bears' habitat is limited exclusively to ice
shelves, and that free-floating ice in the arctic is essential to
the bears' survival. The bear is far more flexible, versatile, and
adaptable then all of the environmentalists combined. The bear
actually walks on land, swims in the oceans and lakes, feeds on fish
in both fresh and salt water, and will devour any environmentalist
who strays into his frigid habitat. The polar bear population has
multiplied many times over through man’s thoughtful efforts over the
past fifty years, a singular success story based upon prudent
management. The bear worshipers will never admit this singular
success story. In spite of evidence to the contrary, the consensus
has placed the poor polar bear back onto the list of threatened
worldly creatures!!
The Warming Data:
If the
earth were only a human body, we could place a thermometer under the
tongue, or where the sun don't shine, and read the height of the
mercury on the gauge. A temperature of 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit,
give or take a degree, would be within normal limits.
Unfortunately, on the earth, a thermometer under the tongue produces
a gusher of molten lava, and finding a place where the sun doesn't
shine is uninhabitable. A single number that represents the
temperature of the earth is a statistically contrived notion one
step removed from earth's reality.
Given known variation in the earth's temperature over
the last 2,000,000 years, it makes sense statistically to assign
such variation to normal limits (or W.N.L., within normal limits).
As measured and inferred variation has occurred both up and down the
temperature scale by 4 degrees Fahrenheit (+2 and -2), it follows
that such variation is the usual, expected, and healthy limits of
worldly temperature. Until such time as the world's temperature
falls significantly outside of this expected normal range, any
attempts to control, cap, or manage its climate is a sign of lunacy,
grandiosity, or both.
Because global warming hangs upon less than convincing data, its
adherents assert that everything in the world is touched by the
earth’s temperature. Melting ice caps, rampant disease, the parched
earth, dying birds, shrinking honey bee populations, and the
endangered snail darter in California are among the dire
consequences if we continue burning fossil fuels. Even cold weather
in New England, and across the globe, have been blamed on global
warming, an earmark of the perverse logic applied by the Cool Aid
drinkers. The consensus is a relentless coalition of misguided and
deceitful eco-terrorists, Marxists, socialists, anarchists, and
Democrats, who believe that the earth-environment is pure and
mankind is pure evil. This coalition of discontents refuses to
acknowledge when they are well off. Their collective goals have
little to do with man's long-term welfare, and occasionally are so
misguided that they wreak havoc on the groups they intend to help
through unanticipated consequences. (i.e. subsidies for bio-fuels)
Cold Earth Versus Warm
Earth: On the face of it, there is little reason to be
concerned about marginal variation in global temperatures over the
next 500 years. By contrast, the ice age data and objective scenes
which may be envisioned from the earth’s natural temperature cycles
present a frightening alternative to global warming. If you believe
that global warming is a dreaded eventuality, an ice age is a
serious downer that should be avoided at all costs. Those of you
concerned with man’s carbon footprint will rot in hell when the ice
age arrives, and we are not prepared.
The following photograph is of the ice mummy, who was
recovered, in a manner of speaking, from a glacial environment
between Switzerland and Italy a few years back. As the glacier
thawed, thanks to global warming, the mummy came into partial view,
revealing that his complete remains were almost as they were when he
died 3,300 years earlier. This, in itself, is not particularly
alarming. It does open up the substantial difference between living
in Florida during retirement, and living with the glaciers in the
Alps in the year 1,300bc.

The frightening part is
what extrapolation contributes to this picture from the ice ages, as
suggested, but not clearly visualized in the ice age chart above.
During one of the more recent ice cycles, the border between the
states of Kansas and Nebraska was covered by an ice shelf, a
permanent glacier. This glacier was not one which appeared every
winter and conveniently disappeared every spring, allowing the local
farmers to plant wheat or pump oil. This glacier was planted in the
precise middle of America’s bread basket, a primary source of food
and energy for the entire planet. As for the seriousness of the
glacier itself, it is currently estimated to have risen 600 feet
above the land along the border between these two states.
One may infer, conclude, and extrapolate from this
scientific data that nothing was growing within the heart of the
fertile Mississippi Valley for many thousand years. Nothing
grows on a glacier, except the polar bear, and when the earth is
covered by a glacier, all life as we know it ceases. What is
left of humanity, at that time in the earth’s geologic history, is
perfectly preserved much like the ice man, as pictured above.
Man’s survival on earth for all eternity is clearly a
myth. Protecting the earth’s environment in its natural state
is also a myth, as earth has no natural state, but is constantly
changing. What is not a myth is the clear contrast of surviving and
prospering on a warm earth or a cold earth. The warm, mother-earth
is, on balance, a gift in the sunshine. When the earth freezes over
the environmentalists will be struggling to find some renewable
resource to keep them warm. To their dismay, the only renewable
resource on a glacier is the polar bear. Bye! Bye!
environmentalists, and thank God for small favors!
As for global warming:
bring it on! |