Search This Blog

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Global Dumbing - Those who are ignorant of history

Before we go one, let us look at some history of the earth's temperature cycles. I will be quoting John Carlisle, Director of the Environmental Policy Task Force.

Policymakers have been arguing for nearly a decade over what to do about global warming. Noticeably missing from this debate has been any mention of the fact that natural fluctuations in the Earth's temperature, not Man, is the likely explanation for any recent warming.

In fact, the cattle population is more responsible than man in terms of emissions of "greenhouse gases." But let us go on...

In 900 A.D. the planet's temperature roughly approximated today's temperature. Then, between 900 and 1100 the climate dramatically warmed. Known as the Medieval Warm Period, the temperature rose by more than 1° F to an average of 60° or 61° F, as much as 2° F warmer than today. Again, the temperature during this period is similar to Greenhouse predictions for 2100, a prospect global warming theory proponents insist should be viewed with alarm. But judging by how Europe prospered during this era, there is little to be alarmed about. The warming that occurred between 1000 and 1350 caused the ice in the North Atlantic to retreat and permitted Norsemen to colonize Iceland and Greenland. Back then, Greenland was actually green. Europe emerged from the Dark Ages in a period that was characterized by bountiful harvests and great economic prosperity. So mild was the climate that wine grapes were grown in England and Nova Scotia.

Hmmm, I wonder if the California Wine Growers are lobbying hard for Kyoto because they are afraid of more competition? Hahahahaha!

The major climate change that followed the Medieval Warm Period is especially critical as it bears directly on how to assess our current warming period. Between 1200 and 1450, the temperature plunged to 58° F. After briefly warming, the climate continued to dramatically get colder after 1500. By 1650, the temperature hit a low of 57° F. This is regarded as the coldest point in the 10,000-year Holocene geological epoch. That is why the era between 1650 and 1850 is known as the Little Ice Age. It was during this time that mountain glaciers advanced in Switzerland and Scandinavia, forcing the abandonment of farms and villages. Rivers in London, St. Petersburg and Moscow froze over so thoroughly that people held winter fairs on the ice. There were serious crop failures, famines and disease due to the cooler climate. In America, New England had no summer in 1816. It wasn't until 1860 that the temperature sufficiently warmed to cause the glaciers to retreat.

One good thing we got out of all of this was the numbers of great Christmas and even Thanksgiving stories and songs featuring lots of ice and snow, since the 1800's tended to have longer and snowier winters than we have today. "Over the River and Through the Wood."

The significance of the Little Ice Age cannot be overestimated. The 1.5° F temperature increase over the last 150 years, so often cited as evidence of man-made warming, most likely represents a return to normal temperatures following a 400-year period of unusually cold weather. Even the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the chief proponent of the Kyoto Protocol global warming treaty signed in December 1997, concludes that: "The Little Ice Age came to an end only in the nineteenth century. Thus, some of the global warming since 1850 could be a recovery from the Little Ice Age rather than a direct result of human activities."

Leading climate scientist Dr. Hugh Ellsaesser of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory says we may be in for an additional 1.8° F of warming over the next few centuries, regardless of Man's activities. The result would be warmer nighttime and winter temperatures, fewer frosts and longer growing seasons. Since CO2 stimulates plant growth and lessens the need for water, we could also expect more bountiful harvests over the next couple of centuries. This is certainly not bad news to the developing nations of the world struggling to feed their populations.

But frantic Global Warming advocates don't give two hoots for developing nations, since they are usually greenpeace-types that seek to keep developing countries from developing their resources on environmental grounds.

Thus, far from being a self-induced disaster, global warming is the result of natural changes in the Earth's climate that promises to yield humanity positive benefits. In the geological scheme of things, the warming is not even that dramatic compared to the more pronounced warming trends that occurred during the Agricultural Revolution and the early Middle Ages. Moreover, there is strong evidence that this long-needed warming is moderating. All things considered, global warming should be viewed for what it is: A gift from the often fickle force of Nature. Enjoy it while you can.

Yeah, what he said!


loboinok said...

And the silence... got LOUD!

Lava said...

This article(besides being published about 10 years ago), was published by the Heartland Institute. Who does(or has) sat on their board you may ask? Lets see-- Walter Buchholtz, an Exxon exec. James Johnston from Amoco. Thomas Walton from GM. (then other guys like phillip morris execs who aren't really relevant to this issue). Do these guys have any sort of bias? Is heartland like that scientist radar talked about who wasn't prejudiced at the onset of reasearch?

Exxon mobil is a regular contributer to Heartland. And to the NCPA which is the larger organization Carlisle's Environmental Policy Task Force. Why I talked about Heartland above was because to pick apart every organization associated with the EPTA and show their biases would take a long while, probably boring us all(and I don't have time for that). Thus I just tried to point out some of the biases that are pretty apparent in one of the prominent organizations that make up the EPTA.

The EPTA is nowhere near a bias and prejudice-free organization. The funding is essentially from the same sources as the heartland institute. To think this organization will produce any real science is almost as funny as thinking the discovery institute will.

Loboinok- If radar tells you the sky is yellow and nobody responds, are you going to believe that, too? silence = nothing?

joe said...

(this is creeper, btw)

One thing that always amuses me, Radar, is that you are constantly forced to seek support for your positions from folks who base their conclusions on a coherent worldview that completely clashes with your own, i.e. YEC.

There's mention here of a 10,000 year something or other... Radar, according to your beliefs, there is no such thing as 10,000 years! What's going on here? Could you square this circle for us?

You believe that the Earth did not exist 6,000 years ago, and yet you cite an article (which can be found here) that also contains the following (emphasis mine):

"Over the last 700,000 years, the climate has operated on a relatively predictable schedule of 100,000-year glaciation cycles. Each glaciation cycle is typically characterized by 90,000 years of cooling--an ice age--followed by an abrupt warming period, called an interglacial, that lasts 10,000 to 12,000 years. The last ice age reached its coolest point 18,000 to 20,000 years ago, when the average temperature was 9 to 12.6° F cooler than today. Earth is currently in a warm interglacial called the Holocene, which began 10,700 years ago."

How can you cite an article to support your positions when you completely, undeniably, 100% utterly disagree with the very foundation on which it bases its conclusions?

Is your own position that unsupportable that you cannot back them up in a slightly more coherent fashion?

Or have even you decided that the YEC position cannot be seriously maintained?

radar said...

It doesn't matter where I got the information. Your argumentum ad hominem attacks miss the point entirely. Was there a long period of warming? Yes. Was there a "little ice age?" Yes. In fact, were cycles like this identified before any men were making any kind of a "carbon footprint?" Yes.

Suppose you naysayers discuss the facts as presented rather than trying to avoid the argument by attacking the source. I'm still waiting for the first logical response...

Oh, and Joe, I don't agree with everything the director stated or believes. That doesn't mean I reject everything he believes out of hand. Once he leaves recorded history and gets into speculation, then he and I diverge.

joe said...

1. It's not that it matters where you got the information, it's that you're not presenting a coherent position, since you're apparently endorsing something that you utterly disagree with elsewhere on your blog. You can't claim that you hold a position on global warming that's based on conclusions drawn from certain climate patterns over hundreds of thousands of years, and claim elsewhere that you believe that clearly nothing existed, say, 6,500 years ago.

Those two positions are incompatible, regardless of where the information come from.

Do you agree with John Carlisle that there are climate patterns that go back hundreds of thousands of years?

2. It was not an ad hominem attack, since I critiqued your position (and its inherent incoherence), not you as a person.

3. "In fact, were cycles like this identified before any men were making any kind of a "carbon footprint?" Yes."

Could you present any evidence of this that actually is consistent with your own worldview, YEC?

4. "Suppose you naysayers discuss the facts as presented rather than trying to avoid the argument by attacking the source."

I am not a naysayer. I'm doing what you have elsewhere professed to be doing: I look at all the evidence and then make up my mind. And so far I haven't made up my mind. I do, however, have a basic mistrust of any politically-charged arguments, such as the "draw-a-line-in-the-sand-and-make-fun-of-people on-the-other-side" mentality. I can't think of an instance when this led to clear thinking and analysis.

5. "Oh, and Joe, I don't agree with everything the director stated or believes. That doesn't mean I reject everything he believes out of hand. Once he leaves recorded history and gets into speculation, then he and I diverge."

It's exactly the other way around - you reject his presentation of recorded history, and you agree with his conclusions, whether speculative or not. Which is hardly the same as examining the evidence and then making up your mind.

-- creeper

Lava said...


I'm not a scientist. I don't purport to be one.

I'm not a 100% believer in GW- but I lean that way.

Am I going to put any weight into something Exxon Mobil or anybody else closely tied to fossil fuels funds regarding GW? No. Did you believe when the cigarette companies told you nicotine wasn't addicting? Its the same basic idea- when someone has a bias, you really have to look twice at how they skew the facts---

My logical response(as explained in a previous reply to some blog about GW or evolution) summed up again here- let's use Occam's Razor- what is the simpler answer- There is some sort of world-wide liberal monster brainwashing and compelling scientists to support global warming? Or- scientists world-wide are coming to a general consensus about GW, that man has something to do with it? Until someone comes up with a plausible reason why scientists(word-wide) would have some sort of ulterior motive, I'm going to believe they have integrity and retain credibility as a whole(unlike Exxon funded publications).

Lava said...

and creeper- great points.

loboinok said...

Loboinok- If radar tells you the sky is yellow and nobody responds, are you going to believe that, too? silence = nothing?

1.Silly question!

2.Nothing from nothing=nothing, silence equals something.

3.The statement served it's intended purpose.

cranky old fart said...

"Nothing from nothing=nothing, silence equals something."

You're a little off here, I believe it's:
"nothing from nothing leaves nothing, you gotta have something, if you want to be with me..."