- I have no patience for a bunch of scientists and politicians adopting a new and unproven theory as scientific and immutable fact. Especially when it will affect my lifestyle and my bank account, because you know they're doing everything they possibly can to pass copious amounts of legislation to tax us all back to the 1700's (cap and trade, anyone?).
- If the U.S. does adopt extreme legislation like cap and trade, hiking prices on U.S. companies and businesses, more jobs will be lost as plants shut down and move overseas where they will not only no longer be subject to ridiculous taxes, but they will also be able to pollute as much as they want. Which leads me to...
- Unless every country in the world adopts similar restrictions, taxing and restricting U.S. businesses to death isn't going to affect the world's overall ecology all that much. So if companies or factories can't operate here because of costs, they'll move somewhere else. Even if every SUV and smoke-belching factory relocated to India or China, the U.S.' air would not be the way it was 500 years ago. It's not like there's some bubble over the United States that holds in all of "our" pollution. Air moves. Pollution spreads. If the laws and demands here on factories remain reasonable, they will stay here. Not only does this boost our economy, but it also allows for some environmental regulation (whereas if the companies moved to certain countries overseas, there would be no regulation and we'd have to deal with that pollution indirectly anyway).
- I think we need to be responsible stewards over the Earth. I do. That includes limiting pollution, being responsible about deforestation, and using cost- and waste-effective energy sources (like nuclear power or wind/solar power where efficacious, because it doesn't work everywhere). That does not include pushing through extreme legislation by using threatening words like "apocalypse," "dooms day" and "panic."
Brian Fagan's books on climate change through history were recommended to me by a friend. I even passed along his mini-review. But I have now read The Great Warming, The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History, 1300-1850, and The Long Summer: How Climate Changed Civilization.
Fagan does a really excellent job of his project, which is history rather than science. He has gone into the historical record and correlated it with the scientific record of past climate changes.
What emerges is a series of warm and cold periods. First, there's the macro-climate pattern, which for the past million years or so has primarily consisted of a long ice age interrupted by warm periods that last ten or twenty thousand years at a whack.
Within those ice ages, though, there are brief warm spells, and within the warm periods (like the one we're in now, in which all of known human history has taken place) there are cold periods.
We are now in a warm phase that began about 1850. Previous to that was the Little Ice Age, a stormy, miserable period with bitterly cold winters, chilly summers, and shortened growing seasons. It lasted from about 1300 till 1850.
Prior to the Little Ice Age, though, there was a Medieval Warm Period that was much like the climate today -- only warmer. They were growing wine grapes in the south of England (not yet possible today); Greenland looked, amazingly enough, green; and Newfoundland could be called "Vineland" by Norse explorers.
Not surprisingly, when we're in a warm period, weather is better, summers last longer, crops are less likely to fail, and the world can, on the whole, sustain a markedly larger population than during the cold periods. All of this Fagan faithfully reports.
And yet ... somehow Fagan remains a believer in the alarmist idea that somehow human activities are causing our current global warming through our excessive carbon emissions, and the results of this will be a dire problem that must be stopped.
So even though every bit of actual evidence Fagan has found in the historical record and in the findings of scientists points to our present time as being well within the normal pattern of climate cycles, he still remains a true believer in the dogma that humans are doing bad things to the climate and must be stopped.
From time to time in his books, he will point out that religious leaders blamed bad climate events on the wrath of God. The people have sinned; we must repent. He doesn't actually ridicule these efforts to understand climate change by blaming it on God's reaction to human sins, but the message is clear. Weren't these people naive to think that sinning against God's will could have caused these storms, this shortened growing season, this famine?
They have the mindset that whatever happens must be God's will, and so when bad things happen, God must be angry.
And yet Fagan does exactly the same thing himself, over and over -- blaming human activities for climate events that clearly are well within the normal range.
When he is talking about facts, he carefully demonstrates causality, giving evidence. But when he blames current human activities for our present warmer climate, it's as if he switches off his brain and repeats the mantras of the eco-puritans. Suddenly our good weather is a bad thing. Suddenly a thing that happened long ago when there were no human carbon emissions worth mentioning can only be understood as the result of human activity when it happens now!
What's going on here?
Well, it's the opposite, really, of Ekman's attitude toward science. Where Ekman built up consensus slowly, by gathering evidence and by inviting other people to test his results, the global warming alarm hit the ground running as a full-fledged explanation. Somehow it made the leap from being a hypothesis -- what if human carbon emissions are causing a rise in global temperatures? -- to being a dogma, without any intervening skepticism allowed.
Fagan is not doing bad science. He's a historian, and he faithfully follows the historical record. You can actually find out true things by reading his books.
But just as the true believers in the wrath of God were able to assign human sins as the cause of whatever bad weather they had, so also Fagan is able to look past his facts and blame modern changes on forest-clearing and carbon emissions, not because he actually has any specific data proving it (if he did, he'd have produced it), but because that's what good, faithful eco-puritans have to say.
So Fagan is doing pretty good science.
But he has been utterly taken in by the people who do very bad science.
Global warming was seized upon as an explanation as soon as it was proposed. We were getting news articles about it as fact back when even its proponents could only claim it as a guess, backed up only by computer simulations which were not science at all, but merely visual aids.
In the years since then we have found out what we already knew -- that the Little Ice Age is over and we're in a warmer cycle now, which has not yet reached the high temperatures and long summers of the Medieval Warm Period.
But we have found nothing, nada, zilch that proves or even indicates that human carbon emissions have anything to do with the warmer trends since 1850.
First, the industrial revolution was highly localized and serious scientists agree that what was happening exclusively in Europe could not have had any noticeable effect on global temperatures. Besides, the industrial revolution began decades before the Little Ice Age ended in 1850.
Second, if human carbon emissions were causing global warming, we would expect that there would be some relationship between increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide and rises in temperature. But the data show the opposite: There is not a correlation or even an inverse correlation. Global temperatures rise and fall in patterns similar to those that the weather has always had, and rises in human carbon emissions have no effect at all.
Sometimes as carbon emissions have shot up, temperature has fallen. Then it rises again, when no particular change has happened, and falls again even though carbon emissions have not decreased.
In the world of rational science, this would be taken as a very strong indicator that if human carbon emissions have any effect at all, it is probably negligible and not worth worrying about.
But we're talking about religion here, just as we saw during the Little Ice Age. It isuseful to the eco-puritans to keep blaming every bad thing (or even good things that they claim are bad) on human activities, because they want a good excuse to stop those activities.
The eco-puritans have been making war on civilization for decades now. We can't build a dam without lawsuits claiming that we are endangering species. They start from the assumption that if humans need it, it must be a bad thing and should be blocked or delayed as long as possible.
This bias continues. And the eco-puritans use all the tools of fanatical religion to try to get their way.
If a good scientist dares to speak up and declare that anthropogenic global warming has not only not been proven, but seems to be contra-indicated by the data we have, that scientist is punished.
There is no punishing in good science! You don't suddenly deny speaking engagements to a notable scientist because he dared to say the wrong thing. You don't attack anyone who questions your findings -- you welcome their scrutiny.
You don't hide your evidence or refuse to share it -- but that's what the "hockey stick" claimants did, until it became clear they had faked their data and suddenly the eco-puritans stopped talking about the hockey stick. It was a lie and it had always been a lie -- but it got swept under the rug because, after all, it was a pious lie in support of a "good" cause.
Even now, the eco-puritans confess the bankruptcy of their religion in everything they say. I just heard a spot that made me laugh -- but sadly. "Just because you don't feel any effects of global warming right now doesn't mean it's not important," said the message.
Yeah, well, maybe the fact that we don't feel any effects of global warming right now means that whatever is happening is part of the natural cycles of the Earth and Sun, and it is not caused by our eco-sins.
Good science: The methodology of a self-skeptic like Paul Ekman.
Pretty good science: The faithful reporting of the correlations between history and science in the books of Brian Fagan.
Bad science: The attempts by the eco-puritans to squelch or punish any dissidents and to pretend that an issue is settled when it hasn't even been examined. They leapt to believe because they wanted to believe it.
This is is the kind of behavior that will lead the public to conclude that scientists are just a bunch of liars who will say anything to get their way. Because, unfortunately, that is exactly what is happening with the false claims of human-caused global warming.
It is going to be used as an excuse to put foolish and onerous burdens on Western industry (but not on Chinese or Indian or Russian or African industry, as if they didn't share the same planet!)
It is a political ploy to hurt the West, and it is being backed by people so stupid that they don't understand that if they actually bring down Western economies, it will hurt the poorest parts of the world first and worst.
Meanwhile, though, the survivors can read Ekman's books and accurately interpret what emotions we're feeling about the eco-puritans who lied to us when they used global warming as an excuse to break the back of the global economy and bring to an end the ascendancy of the West.