A Rising Tide
We live by the beach here in the Rockaways so it stands to reason that we should be quite concerned about the prospect of sea levels rising. History tells us that there used to be an island visible from our own shores (Hog Island) but after one devastating hurricane in 1893 it was gone overnight, so we certainly know what’s at stake.
Like most things in the public realm these days, however, weather and climate have now become talking points in the political wars. Science and reason are being used as game pieces in a national game of Battleship where the objective is not so much to find consensus but to sink those that might want to see more proof or who dare to have an opposing theory.
The advocates of Global Warming say that there has been an increase in global temperature over the past 150 years which is directly attributable to man-made carbon emissions, in particular Carbon Dioxide (CO2).
There is no room for debate on this they say. There is no time but to start implementing economic schemes aimed at limiting carbon emissions unilaterally while crippling our nation’s economic development in the process. It makes even more sense to the current administration since these new industrial policies hit the sectors most aligned with Republicans and Conservatives the hardest. To merely stop and question their global warming assumptions is to risk being hit over the head with a polar bear and labeled as a person who doesn’t believe in science. The common phrase the Global Warming advocates use is that one is a “denier” if, for example, one were to ask whether the Earth has gone through heating and cooling cycles before man was even on the planet (answer: yes, and very drastic cycles at that). You might be called a heretic if, for example, you had the audacity to ask if perhaps the Sun itself might have more to do with heating of the planet than Carbon Dioxide which makes up a small fraction of the greenhouse gasses (answer: the Sun puts out 3.846 billion-billion mega- Watts of energy every second so variations in solar activity most certainly have something to do with our climate). Even more disturbing is the fact that global warming advocates are quick to assume they know what exactly will happen to our climate in the next 5 to 10 years when our best weather scientists can’t even predict the weather accurately out more than 14 days. The truth is that our planet’s weather follows a pattern which is stochastic in nature, meaning that the final results are highly dependent on initial conditions and subject to wide variation due to factors of probability (the Butterfly Effect). Outcomes are predictable but only if the initial conditions are completely known and there are no new variables introduced. The result is that computer models used by global warming advocates are often wrong because of the wrong data being put into the computer models from the start, as computer programmers like to say: “garbage in, garbage out.” Are they even including the position of the entire solar system in relation to the center of our galaxy in their calculations? As is well understood, surrounding cosmic radiation has a huge influence on ionization and cloud formation, even more than green house gasses. Al Gore has no time for these subtleties, though, he has movie tickets to sell and a cable channel to push. By now, we have heard of several scandals that have involved the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We’ve heard that scientists have been “cooking” the books and “fudging” the numbers in order to discount data that might not jibe with their predictions. We’ve heard that the melting of Himalayan glaciers has been drastically overblown and that Total Global Hurricane strength is in fact decreasing in comparison to previous years, but who would know this when all they show on television is the active Atlantic hurricane season while ignoring the relatively quiet Pacific and Indian Ocean cyclonic activity. If scientists ask to see proof of global sea level rising like a decrease in the Earth’s rotational speed which would be predicted as more water accumulates along the equator, they are told to hush up. If scientists want to know what satellite altimetry data shows about fluctuations in the total planetary coastline (rising levels would decrease total coastline) they are told to get lost. If NASA finds that Mars seems to be increasing in temperature without the help of human carbon emission (that pesky Sun again), their findings are ignored. As one prominent scientist, 1973 Nobel Prize winner in Physics Dr. Ivar Giaever, stated in his resignation letter to the American Physics Society (APS) over their global warming politics: “In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible???”
He now joins thousands of other notable and respected scientists in all fields of science who have come forward to say that they will not stand for the continued contamination of science by politics and special interests.
Sure, the records indicate that there is a trend of heating over the past 150 years. An increase of 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit on average over a century and a half on a planet which has undergone drastic temperature fluctuations for billions of years, has a core of molten liquid metal and a 27 million degree Star shining on it constantly. Let’s pause and get the science right at least, before getting too hot under the collar about it.