While Nero fiddled…Rome FROZE?
In this case, Nero is all the global warming “advocates” who think action is telling everyone the sky is falling. As I said in a previous post, it isn’t really about who or what causes climate change, it’s about identifying the change and what we should do when confronting the change. So this is a continuation.
Global Warming Advocates – I don’t know who coined that misnomer. Who really advocates for global warming? But the people who want to convince us that global warming is happening are usually those same people that want us to believe that WE caused global warming. (and therefore can CURE it). They take every piece of science and rumor and try to twist in cause and effect relationships about how the causes are man made. I saw a BBC article that said, “…most mainstream scientists believe a human-driven increase in “greenhouse gases” is increasing the effect artificially…” (my emphasis). So anyone who believes otherwise isn’t “mainstream”? A little propaganda for you from the global warming advocates.
In an article on ‘Megadroughts’ yesterday, the BBC regurgitated a “Science” report about West African drought where they stated, “Writing in the journal Science, the researchers suggest man-made climate change may make the situation worse.” But since that is a pretty hard position for those mainstream scientists to support, the next paragraph went on, “But, they say, the droughts are going to happen again anyway, and societies should begin planning for them.”
So we caused the problem but it would have happened anyway. This sort of double talk goes on everywhere amongst the prophets of doom.
Another article, which I can’t quote, the BBC tells us that flooding in East Africa is also a result of man made global warming.
In the following article, the BBC doesn’t even bother to introduce any science, they just jump right to the point.
“Even modest temperature rises will affect millions of people, particularly in the developing world, they warn. But, they say, most tools needed to cut carbon dioxide emissions already exist.”
So we just insert the statement and everyone will go along with it.
In a great story about how 2008 was the coolest year since 2000, you can almost see the pain they are going through to somehow relate this anomalous condition to man made global warming.
“Computer models suggest that natural cycles may cool the Earth’s surface in the next few years, masking the warming impact of rising greenhouse gas levels. “
Again, that is my emphasis. So now the weather is hiding global warming from us…?
In the same article, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies is quoted as saying 2008 was the COOLEST year of the CENTURY. And then quickly covers that with “it still ranks as the ninth warmest since 1880”.
The article closes with the conclusion that mother nature is trying to fight off global warming further complicating matters.
“The question for the next decade or so will be whether natural cycles such as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation continue to moderate the warming effect of rising greenhouse gas concentrations.”
We have seen this tactic before on the subject of global warming and the ozone layer, etc. Where there is this constant search for weather statistics that support their claims. What does it really matter that one year is colder or hotter than the next? One of them has to be the coldest in 100 years. The problem is that the climate isn’t acting in a nice reliable pattern for the doomsayers.
The reason their statistics can’t hold is that we just don’t have data stretching back hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of years. Or do we?
In an article from 1983 by Richard Tkachuck, of the Geoscience Research Institute, the author describes not only how long term weather data is derived as inferential data from other sources. He also goes on to defend the idea that:
“As we examine this topic, it will be seen that evidence for a significant fundamental climatic change is substantial, but — and perhaps more interestingly — the specific reasons for this change are not understood.”
He goes on to describe the “Little Ice Age” 1100 AD – 1300Ad and its after effects. One interesting side note is about sunspot activity:
“An interesting coincidence held meaningful by many is the absence of sunspot activity through most of the latter and most severe period of the Little Ice Age (Eddy 1976).”
Many of us are aware that we are in a period of almost a complete stop of sun spot activity, if not complete.
There are many indications by examining history that point to the theory that we are about to enter an “ice age” rather than global warming. There was an increase of temperature prior to the last little ice age. The is termed the “Medieval Warm Period”. Temperatures during that time were some of the highest in the past 5000 years. Similar temperature highs were noted in the early 20th century and now we are exceeding those. This again may point to concerns for a new ice age.
So, again what all this tells us is that there is indeed global warming. But what it doesn’t tell us is what that means to us. There have been a number of book written on how the populations of the world have dealt, historically, with the climate changes between 1000 AD and 1800 AD. We are wasting our time trying to turn the clocks back and ‘REVERSE Global Warming’ as the advocates would have us waste our time doing. We still need to spend all that energy and time figuring out how to DEAL with Global Warming. Historic reactions to global warming have been both tales of human survival and cooperation, and also tales of violence, intolerance and extremism. We must work now to plan for the changes that are likely to come, rather than continue to study WHY the sky is falling.