Is it feeling a little warm in here? No silly. It's just global warming hysteria.

Lately, I've been thinking a lot about global warming. It's all over the news, it's in the Oscars, and apparently, it's being taught in our schools.

My oldest daughter was telling me what they were talking about in class, and mentioned that one of the topics her instructor was teaching was how humans were contributing to global warming....

WHOA! I stopped her right there, and clarified that the viewpoint being expressed by her teacher was only one theory. I presented her with an alternative theory (which I find much more plausible) that the changes in the earth's climate are driven by solar activity, and tend to be cyclical in nature, where there are natural periods of heating and cooling.

Ever since, I keep coming across articles and information that bear out my point of view. Since Time Magazine has come out with a cover story on the threat of global warming this week, I thought I'd get an opposing view... from the same source.
However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest. Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data.
Read it all here. This article comes from Time magazine of June 24, 1974. So why are we warming instead of cooling? Who knows. But since Time Magazine started publication, they've had stories either way since the earlier part of the century forward.

So the use of global climactic catastrophe has been used either way for decades - either warming or cooling? Yup. It just depends where in the cyclical trend of warming or cooling we're sitting.

But for some reason in 2007, it's become this mighty push to force expenses on businesses, energy production, etcetera. Just on the basis of public fears which have turned from global cooling to warming over 30 years.

Now, nobody thinks it's a good thing to dump toxins into our environment. But that very thing tends to be downplayed. In fact, I'd argue we should focus on that more than Al Gore's hysteric exaggerations on the planet burning up.

If we're going to talk about the environment, we should talk about real issues such as air and water quality, and less about the theory du jour.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Geez PP, even the most die hard GOPers are admitting that globabl warming is a real, immiment threat. If you look at some of the big business utilieis (Southern Company, Duke Energy, et al) even they have thrown in the towel.

It's past being a partisan issue.

I also think you could undermine the credibility of teachers. It's not like she was trying to teach your kids to vote Democrat.
Anonymous said…
What credibility do most of them have? This so-called "global warming" hasn't increased temps enough to even make up for the cool trend mentioned in 1974. You're right pp it's cyclical,always has been, always will be. Now it's simply a way for the extreme left to bash the right, and industry, and creationism, and everything they loathe.
nonnie said…
And don't forget Al Gore. This is his claim to fame, and he does like the limelight. Maybe even hoping this will pave the way for a White House run again. I agree that if a teacher is going to teach his version of global warming that they also need to teach the other credible theories on the subject. I wouldn't wait for that to happen though.
Anonymous said…
Well, since Al can't take credit for the internet there is the warming trend. He wants his name on something. So he did a film.
I haven't watched it and i do NOT intend to.
Listen to ole Al complain and then look at the house he built. Like he really cares about the earth.
Is he using solar power, does he recycle etc.
Has he explained why he needs a house so big.
Thank the good ole tax payers Al!!!
the doctor said…
Paleontological climactic study shows that for most of the 3 billion years that life has been on earth it has been much warmer than it is today. The planet has been emerging from an ice age (one of several consecutive) for the last 10,000 years. Warming to, perhaps a norm?

Human caused global warming is a cruel farce. One designed to damage the American economy. Teaching this drivel in public schools as a part of curricula should have every parent outraged and demanding that the brainwashing of their children cease!

And just think this is coming from a man who was once the Vice President of the United States of America...pretty frightening.
Douglas said…
The "drivel" is not coming from Gore, it is coming from oil company propaganda. The petroleum companies dumped and are dumping millions into "science" that really isn't science, but is advocacy designed to spread doubt. It is like the cigarette companies paying for research in all kinds of universities including South Dakota universities trying to find some data that could fudge the sea of data showing cancer, etc, etc.

Then their is what Microsoft does with technology other than their own spreading FUD..fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

The oil companies and coal companies have been doing exactly the same kind of thing.

There may be weather cycles, etc., but I think the models show variance from those historical cycles and the scientists are not confusing cyclical changes with changes generated by human activity that burns up incredible amounts of fuel most of which frees carbon.

Ironically, Ann Coulter calls what Al Gore does is "religion". That ought to give the creationists and "intelligent design" supporters something to chew on besides ice.
the doctor said…
douglass needs medication...soon
Anonymous said…
Everyone should read Thomas Sowell's column "Global Warming: A supreme swindle?". I saw it in the March 17, Watertown PO.
William said…
As a study in Science magazine in 2002 concluded, "CO2 is a combustion product vital to how civilization is powered; it cannot be regulated away."

The idea that mankind can control a planet's climate is actually pretty arrogant. An event like Krakatoa would change everything almost immediately.

Adaptation to change, of any kind, is really what we should focus on.
lexrex said…
and look at the most recent pics of the sun from the space station. scientists say that even they are surprised how turbulent the sun is. is it really a stretch to claim that solar activity has effect on our climate?

mankind very well have a minimal impact on the climate, but we've only been keeping temp records for a hundred years or so. 150 years ago, people were talking to each other through cans attached by a string. i don't think we can trust people today who claim huge atmospheric temp swings since then.

more seriously, as the number of weather stations around the world has decreased, the average recorded temps have increased. and most of those weather stations have been removed over the past 50 years from rural areas like everywhere but north america and western europe, leaving them near the warmer urban areas. from about 6000 reporting stations to 2000.
Anonymous said…
lexrex, we have far more data than just 150 years. We look to polar ice sheets to provide a record of CO2 levels. The history record of the world demonstrates a very close link between the amount of C02 in the atmosphere and the global mean temperature. In turn, the global mean temperature is closely linked to sea level.

Sure, there are always fluctuations within trends...like a snapshot of 4 years of stock market activity can't tell you the long-term trend.

The CO2 levels we have now are off the charts compared to any time in previous world history. Currently there are roughly 383 parts per billion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Ice ages in the past have generally had about 200 parts per billion, and warmer periods in the past have had about 300 parts per billion.

Our CO2 levels have been steadily rising for the past century.

As for those on here who suggest it is "arrogant" to suggest that mankind can control climate.... it's really arrogant to dismiss the idea that we are already impacting the atmosphere. It took hundreds of millions of years to turn billions and billions of plants into petroleum. And within 100 years, we have already burned up half of that petroleum? It's all made out of carbon, and once it's burned the carbon has to go somewhere.

And where it goes is the atmosphere....millions of years of CO2 that was naturally removed from the atmosphere by billions of plants, suddenly piped right back up into the air.

The planet is remarkably resilient, but it is a little arrogant to assume that it can survive that kind of stress without any consequence.
Anonymous said…
Wow, I had no idea we had so many climatologists and scientists who read a political blog. Impressive PP, you have a truly wide audience. Lexrex, I didn’t know you had a degree Climatology, you should try to get a job at KELO and replace that other know-nothing pretty boy Shawn Cable.
Anonymous said…
Douglas, I just let a really REALLY big fart! It made more sense that your post and probably blew an even bigger hole in the ozone layer.

Be afraid. Be VERY afraid!
Anonymous said…
I won't believe anything coming out of Al Gore's mouth until he starts walking the walk or practicing what he preaches. Just heard him on some show; he was asked about his huge house and his use of excess energy and would he be willing to move to a smaller house and conserve more. His answer, "I'm living carbon neutral!" Give me a break! Buying carbon credits is NOT the same as conserving energy, especially when buying from a company you own stock in!
Douglas said…
Is John Thune's house energy efficient? Republicans sure seem to be concerned that Democrats must wear sackcloth and live in hovels.

I must confess I don't quite get why either Democrats or Republicans want to live in huge houses. There are ways to make small houses very efficient in space use. But, having lived in very small spaces, my wife and I also realize it is much easier to keep larger homes clean that it is to keep smaller spaces neat and clean.

More to the point, the local REA had a column today on the passive power demands of things like always on TVs and electronic devices with remote controls, etc. Power bricks etc eat literally billions of kilowatt hours a year even though most of use think we have everything turned off.

Incidentally, Al Gore never claimed he invented the interent. The real invention was that of Republican propagandists who not finding anything to really attack Gore with invented a charge. Even the class of school kids where one of the phony quotes supposedly came from tried to get the press to correct errors. The line of BS was still being spread weeks before the election by Gannett columnists.

Now we are getting the same line of crap again. There is no GOP lie that ever rots in peace apparently.
William said…
RE: Anonymous 9:00a

Since I'm the one that suggests it's"arrogant" to suggest that mankind can control climate, what in my post suggests I don't think mankind has an "impact"?

Human life obviously has an impact. It's whether we learn to adapt to changes or whether we attempt to "control" such things as planetary climate conditions that I see as the issue.
Anonymous said…
Arrogant 9:10 pm.


No one is suggesting we can change the underlying natural climate cycles of the earth. The issue is that for the first time in human history, our impact dwarfs the natural climate cycles of the earth. When our impact is that great, and with such significant projected impacts, then it's time to evaluate how we might do things differently.

Humans will always attempt to adapt. The present concern is that our fossil fuel consumption may force us into a position where we have to 'adapt' faster and to a greater extent than we ever have as a species....recall that the warmest period in earth's history, as far as we know, was prior to humans even living here.
Douglas said…
[also posted in the other discussion on global warming]

A scientist on Scientific Friday made a number of points some of which are at least partially related to spin here.

Carbon isotopes indicate that the bulk of the increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere result from combustion of fossil fuels.

Satellite systems above the atmosphere measuring the energy outfput from the sun show no change in the average over a 20 year period. Sun energy is not driving the current climate temperature increases.
ultra pee pee said…
i didn't say humans were causing ALL of it. i just said we're contributing to it...

Popular posts from this blog

Why should we be surprised?

That didn't take long