Sarah's Thoughts
The Lack of an Ice Age Does Not Mean Global Warming is Bunk
I haven’t any time to write recently, as I am now working from home part-time and I have a 21-month-old daughter who apparently has decided that she is too old for naps. (I still put her in the crib in the afteroon, but the repetitive banging of her doll against the wall is a bit distracting.) I have had a lot on my mind about which I want to write, so I thought I would throw out at least one quick entry this morning.
I have heard the following statement said dozens of times recently:
“The liberal media wants us to buy into this global warming nonsense when thirty years ago they were warning us about the next Ice Age! They obviously have no idea what they are talking about. They weren’t right then, so why should we believe them now?”
If I am not mistaken, science has come a long way in many areas over the past three decades. Just dealing with the human body, think of the developments concerning heart disease, infertility, AIDS and many other problems. Who doesn’t feel more comfortable heading in for surgery than someone who faced the knife in 1977?
I use human maladies as an example, but it’s indicative of the progress that is constantly being made in all areas of science. We know a lot more about our planet and its composition than we did a generation ago. Does this mean that the dominant theories concerning climate change are absolutely correct? Of course not. But, as technologies and research evolve, I believe there is more merit to the discoveries.
The comparison to the incorrect Ice Age prediction holds no water (or ice) if you believe at all that man is capable of scientific progress.
November 7th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
You shouldn’t compare the study of human maladies and their cures with stuff that cannot be observed or repeated.
November 7th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
That said, I’m not saying that”Global Warming is Bunk” but I am saying that what is science is something that can be observed and repeated and recorded.
Global warming isn’t science like that; it’s a broad-scale long-distance forecast that would involve decades and centuries of accurate data to accurately predict results… when we only have a few decades of data available and the data we have is insufficient to rule out a large varieties of plausible ideas that the majority of global warming folk have… ruled out.
Now what I just wrote here reads like a lame scientist that cannot write… but I believe it is a reasonable approach.
November 7th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Mr. Anrdt,
Thank you for your comments. I believe that environmental effects can be observed and we learn more about how man and nature interact all the time.
My analogy using human maladies was just to show that research and progress are always being made in all areas of science. I understand the methods are quite different, but the inquisitive minds and the technological advances are consistent.
I am not stating that the global warming theory is a sure bet … far from it. My only point is that the ice age predictions being wrong does not necessitate that the current ideas are wrong as well.
November 9th, 2007 at 11:10 am
While the ice age theories do not “necessitate” their being wrong, they are highly indicative, in that they are from a group of people highly active in predicting global warming and use much of the same propagandistic, as opposed to scientific, methodologies as the current global warming mob.
As to decades and centuries long data, they do exist and are excellently discussed in a book, “Global Warming every 1500 years”(or something close to that title), which uses thousands of years of ice core and tree ring data to lay out a very strong, scientifically grounded argument that we do indeed have global warming, but it is part of a 1500 hundred year natural climate cycle, where human activities have negligible, if any, impact.
November 26th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
My son (11 years old) recently asked me to explain what was happening with the global warming issue in the press. Here was my response. Imagine visiting the beach and taking a moonlight stroll after a wonderful dinner of maccaroni and cheese. We decide to plant a stick in the sand to mark the high tide. The next night, we again eat mac & cheese, then walk on the beach. We are a little disturbed that the tide this night is higher than last night, but we mark the spot nonetheless. The next night, we finish the leftover mac & cheese, then are horrified to find that the high tide is even higher. It becomes clear to us that eating maccaroni & cheese is causing the earth to be flooded by the sea. It is only a matter of time until the tides swallow the earth! So, we pass a law banning mac & cheese. Surprisingly, that next night, with no mac & cheese on our dinner table, the high tide mark recedes from the previous night’s. We heartily congratulate ourselves for saving the world. Our observations have concluded unequivocably that mac & cheese causes flooding!
That is the equivalent of the global warming scenario. We observe for a few decades and then make pronouncements on cyclical trends that may be hundreds of thousands of years old.
January 9th, 2008 at 10:44 am
before i begin i would like to say that i’m open minded but very analytical in my research. Ok imagine this or try it at home you have a glass of water you drop some ice cubes in the water becomes colder the water level rises. just let the glass sit out until the ice melts then observe the water levels. they are the same.even if global warming is melting the polar ice caps and even if antarctic ice melts and the original land mass rises. the only problem with global warming (if its true) would be we would need more sunblock. the water levels wouldnt rise we wouldnt run out of land. show me evidence that we would please i am very interested in this topic.