In my last post about causes for global warming I was asked what was my point in posting something controversial. My answer:
Of course posting something controversial is entertainment. Why do it if it’s not fun (just like woodworking)? But I’m not entertained by aggravating people. I just wanted to see some opinions from people I have something in common with. I don’t feel like I have much in common with the news media, the U.N., or the public in general, the vast majority of whom take it for granted that global warming is necessarily man-made.
I thought it would be entertaining to try to insert a little science into the debate. Most of what I hear about global warming is not science. I’ve read and heard statements like, “This is the warmest winter ever…” Doesn’t this strike you as ridiculous? We are in the middle of a multi-million year ice age, and yet ice at the poles is the exception in earth’s history. Dinosaurs, large trees, and wetland ecosystems have thrived at the poles. There are coal deposits of polar origin. This speaks of incredible climate change in the past (all well documented), and it flies in the face of the popular theory that we are ruining the climate.
It’s not scientific to say: “we emit carbon dioxide, it’s a greenhouse gas, and therefore we are responsible for global warming.” That’s a hypothesis, an assumption, not a theory, and not a fact. Just because it could be true doesn’t mean that it is true. You need proof. Science is the process of turning a hypothesis into a theory that explains your observations and ultimately withstands counter theories to become fact. Proof is not a cluster of U.N. or government funded scientist who proclaim “it is highly likely global warming has been caused by human activity...” Consider these scientists’ motivation, who they are paid by, what kind of proposals get funding (accompanied of course by the popular hypothesis), and then ask them to explain the extraordinary climate changes that predated people burning fossil fuels and why those same natural mechanisms could not be in place today. They can’t do it. Their theory is thereby shot down.
Science and fact are not determined by votes from well paid scientists. A single proven observation, which doesn’t even have to come from a scientist, can topple a theory held dear by the highest paid scientists.* Wouldn’t you agree there is overwhelming evidence of drastic climate change predating people? Congratulations. You have just stripped bare the theory that humans have caused the current climate change. Where's their rebuttal? Where's your rebuttal?
*Example of “iron clad” theory of a well paid scientist being obliterated:
In the mid-1800’s Lord Kelvin was the dominant scientist who nailed down the age of the earth at about 100 million years old based on his indisputable thermodynamic calculations. He took the heat energy the earth must have started with (converted from gravitational potential energy released by collapsing enough dust to build our planet, sink most of the heavy stuff to the core, and float the light scummy crust, particularly continents, to the surface), divided by the rate of heat flow from the earth (derived from the temperature gradient established by mining and well data), and came up with the 100 million year figure that nobody could shoot down…until a few decades later when radioactivity was discovered and the enormous amount of heat produced by naturally occurring radioactive decay proved the age of the earth to be billions rather than millions of years old.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Ed Garrett
