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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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
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.
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!!!
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.
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 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.
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.
Be afraid. Be VERY afraid!
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.
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.
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.
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.