Yes, I am a global warming skeptic, and I always have been. It did not require hacked e-mails from CRU to make me believe it was all horse-hockey. If anthropological global warming is a fact, then how can scientists explain the recent decline of the Martian ice caps? (They ignore it.) How can they explain the various temperature spikes in the 20th century, which were followed by cool periods (these are written out of the data).
Even more importantly, how can they explain the Medieval Warm Period (800-1300)? Well, they literally re-wrote the scientific literature to say that it was a localized event that only occurred in Northern Europe, and that the temperatures never got nearly as warm as they are today.
This is, not to put too fine a point on it, a complete, bald-faced lie. As pointed out elsewhere, the same kinds of data that are used to support the claims of recent warming also show that the Medieval Warm Period was a worldwide phenomenon, and that the temperatures then were higher than now. (There is a reason that Greenland is called “Greenland”–the ice cap was much smaller in the Viking era than it is now, and Greenland had thousands of small farms on it.) Further, the atmospheric CO2 level was lower then than now, which means that CO2 was not the culprit. While there are a lot of reasons to doubt global warming, the existence of the Medieval Warm Period is the most damning.
The truth is, global temperatures have not risen 1998, and the Sun recently experienced a new minimum (a minimum is where there is an absence or near absence of sunspots). Prior to the recent global warming craze, the general scientific consensus was that the temperature of the Earth was in direct correlation to the intensity of the Sun’s heat (a logical deduction, I might add). When the Sun is active and putting out more heat, it creates more sunspots–and indeed, there were slightly more sunspots than usual in the 1990s. When the Sun is less active and cooler, the number of sunspots declines. The last three minimums, deep and lasting enough to bear names, all occurred during what is now called the Little Ice Age (the Spörer Minimum, 1450-1550; the Maunder Minimum, 1645-1715; and, the Dalton Minimum, 1790-1830). When it became clear that the Earth was experiencing a new minimum last year, many scientists compared the scope of what was occurring to the Maunder Minimum, which was the deepest and longest-lasting of all recorded minimums. However, once they realized the implications this fact would have on the climate change debate, scientists quickly backed away from this comparison. Now, the position of NASA and other organizations vested in climate change is that the new minimum is no big deal. Their attitude seems to be, “Who are you going to believe, us or your lying eyes?” Indeed, many of the resources I read on this subject a year ago have disappeared from the Internet, and the Wikipedia pages related to the Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, and solar minimums seem to have been radically altered during this same period. It seems that inconvenient truths just get dropped down the rabbit hole in the Alice in Wonderland world of ours. Though I have just covered a few points, there are many, many reasons to be a skeptic, and to think that the whole global warming thing is just a politicized fraud being foisted upon a gullible public.
So, what is the bottom line? Well, the bottom line is that the climate is changing, but that it is always changing, often in ways that scientists do not really understand. Based upon the world’s experience with the Medieval Warm Period versus the Little Ice Age, we can only pray to God that the Earth is warming, as the Medieval Warm Period was a time of bountiful harvests, prosperity, and good health for many people throughout the planet, and not just in Europe (indeed, it corresponds to a time of plenty even in countries as far away as China). If, on the other hand, the Earth is cooling (as I suspect), then we can expect widespread famine, poverty, and pestilence, as this is exactly what the Little Ice Age brought to the world.
But let’s, for a moment, take the counter argument, and assume that everything which the global warming alarmists say is true. Then what? What they are proposing is that we change the climate by bringing our carbon fuel consumption into line with pre-industrial standards. There are a lot of problems with this proposal:
- Will it work, or work in time to prevent the disaster they say is coming? Probably not. Their claim is not just that CO2 output is polluting the atmosphere at a record pace, but that climate change is a reflection of over 150 years of cumulative industrial output. If it took 150 years for the Earth to reach the tipping point of anthropological climate change, then it seems logical that, even with a valiant effort, it would well take 150 years to repair the damage.
- Very few in the world would ever want to live a life at pre-industrial standards, yet without carbon energy, this will be exactly the result. While we tend to romanticize pre-industrial society, the pre-industrial world was one of squalor and hunger, with high infant mortality rates and a low life expectancy.
- The current proposals on the table would divide the world into energy haves and have-nots, as the only alternative energy sources being contemplated are too expensive for the vast majority of the people in the world to afford, and will be too expensive for them to afford for the foreseeable future. No developing nation would ever willingly agree to such a plan, and it would wreck the economies of developed nations if such a plan were implemented.
In short, it is difficult to believe that the world will come to any kind of agreement related to
global warming. If such an agreement is reached, it is difficult to believe that it will ever be implemented except in wealthy, developed nations, and only then for a short time until the people revolt. And, if an agreement is reached and fully implemented, it is difficult to believe that it will make any difference in either our lifetime, or the lifetimes of our children or grandchildren.
So what can we do? We can do what people have always done: We can use our ingenuity and creativity to cope with the world and the curve balls it throws us. Instead of trying to change the climate, much like King Kanute giving orders to the ocean waves, we can use our technology to handle whatever crisis that might come. This would certainly be cheaper and more effective than all of the senseless hand-wringing presently going on.