To read the tribute to SFC Marcus Muralles, please click here
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Global Warming
I'm not going to go into a long, drawn out treatise on Global Warming and why I believe that man has nothing to do with it. I'm just going to say it and be done with it.
First, let's look at a few definitions.
Here are the main sources I will use for this. I'm not going to quote ad nauseum from them. Read them for yourself.
Global warning alarmists have reached a consensus that humans are the major contributor to "climate change" (evidently their PR firm has informed them that record cold and snow doesn't help much with their hypothesis). They base their hypothesis on a little over 100 years of temperature data and anecdotal "evidence." These are the same people who told us 30 years ago that humans were pushing the planet into the next Ice Age. These environmentalists say that there is a consensus that humans are negatively impacting the climate on Earth, and we must stop it now.
Looking at archeological and historical evidence, we find a treasure trove of information about the climate over the centuries, not just the past one century. There is evidence of a quick and ferocious Ice Age long ago ( case in point is the wooley mammoth who was quick frozen in ice with dinner still undigested in his stomach). Then there was the very warm period in the Middles Ages, followed immediately by a mini-Ice Age. Where were the SUVs and evil industrial complex that caused those, right?
Once we see, based on facts, that humanity had little to do with the climate changes of the past, then we can look for the real causes of those massive climate shifts. One prevalent theory is solar cycles. Coronal mass ejections and sun spot cycles routinely effect our weather patterns.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not going to say "trash the Earth all you want." I believe that the Earth has been given to us as a gift to treasure and protect. We were given dominion over the Earth, and that stewardship involves great responsibility.
What it boils down to, in the end, is consensus v. science. They do not coexist. Science is not dependent on prevailing opinion- it is the study of fact. Prevailing opinion (based on conjecture and computer models that are, at times, intentionally programed to give the "right" projections) is that humans are responsible for global climate change. Prevailing scientific research shows that the Earth experiences cyclical climate change.
I think I'll stick with science on this one.
(I'm going to read this book as soon as I can. Every P.I.G. I've read so far has been enlightening as well as entertaining.)
First, let's look at a few definitions.
science: (n) a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws
fact: (n) something that actually exists; reality; truth
opinion: (n)a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty
consensus: (n) majority of opinion
theory: (n) a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena
data: (n) individual facts, statistics, or items of information
hypothesis: (n) a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation
scientific law: (n)a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist or are met; also, a formal statement about such a phenomenonThat should give us a good basis for discussion.
Here are the main sources I will use for this. I'm not going to quote ad nauseum from them. Read them for yourself.
Global warning alarmists have reached a consensus that humans are the major contributor to "climate change" (evidently their PR firm has informed them that record cold and snow doesn't help much with their hypothesis). They base their hypothesis on a little over 100 years of temperature data and anecdotal "evidence." These are the same people who told us 30 years ago that humans were pushing the planet into the next Ice Age. These environmentalists say that there is a consensus that humans are negatively impacting the climate on Earth, and we must stop it now.
Looking at archeological and historical evidence, we find a treasure trove of information about the climate over the centuries, not just the past one century. There is evidence of a quick and ferocious Ice Age long ago ( case in point is the wooley mammoth who was quick frozen in ice with dinner still undigested in his stomach). Then there was the very warm period in the Middles Ages, followed immediately by a mini-Ice Age. Where were the SUVs and evil industrial complex that caused those, right?
Once we see, based on facts, that humanity had little to do with the climate changes of the past, then we can look for the real causes of those massive climate shifts. One prevalent theory is solar cycles. Coronal mass ejections and sun spot cycles routinely effect our weather patterns.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not going to say "trash the Earth all you want." I believe that the Earth has been given to us as a gift to treasure and protect. We were given dominion over the Earth, and that stewardship involves great responsibility.
What it boils down to, in the end, is consensus v. science. They do not coexist. Science is not dependent on prevailing opinion- it is the study of fact. Prevailing opinion (based on conjecture and computer models that are, at times, intentionally programed to give the "right" projections) is that humans are responsible for global climate change. Prevailing scientific research shows that the Earth experiences cyclical climate change.
I think I'll stick with science on this one.
(I'm going to read this book as soon as I can. Every P.I.G. I've read so far has been enlightening as well as entertaining.)
