Climatolgy is now at the center of the climate change debate. In recent years, climate change has become a mantra of liberal politicans. As House speaker Nancy Palozi explains, "We have a planet to save." In the West, liberal and Socialist politicans have been the strongest supporters of enormnously expensive climate change legislation. The issue does not, however, cut nealy accross traditionsal left-right political cleviages. Thus Green parties have achieved considerable support in Europe, especially Germany. Interesingly, the world greatest polluters has not been the Capitalist West, but the Cold War Era Communist gountries, the Soviet Unin and its East Bloc sattelites. Climate change activists have focused on greenhouse gasses and global warming. The Liberal dominated media has picked on the issue. Some scientists, politicans, and media figures have pursued this as a virtually religious crusade. We are told that the sciece has definitively decided the climate change debate. This simply is not the truth and the examples of important climate change scientists falsifying their data is a good indicator of this. There are reputable scirntists who raise important objections to those the climate change activists. Now it is true that the Earth is warming, although the date in recent years suggests that the warming projections published by alimate alarmisrsare not coming to fruition. The central points here are that 1) it is not clear that green house gases are the major cause of the temperature increases and 2) that the very costly climate change remedies proposed to reduce green house gases would have a sihnificant impact. The youngest child who gas seen the ammated film "Ice Age" is aware that the Earth has gone through far greater climatic change than the current global warming trend. This highlights the fact that the Earth is subject to a range of changes which can affect climate. Greenhouse gasses are just one of these changes.
Climate change is not a new phenomenon or tied to industrial emissions. Climate change has been with us since the very formation of the earth as a planent and even in more recent times actually tied in with the evolution of humanity. Only in very recent times has the full extent of this process been understood and here there is still considerble debate. Many anthropologists now believe that not human evolution, but also the migration out of Africa was largely driven by climate change. Humans were hardly the strongest or most fearsome animal as human evolution was in progress. Early homonids seem to have been more scaengers than hunters. The one key human trait was intelligence which equipped homonoids to adjut and deal effectuvely with climate change. No other species proved more adaptable. Eafly homonoids faced much more drastic climatic events than the one now in progress. And these powerful climatic changes had no human extency and human tool making was a first limited to neolithic stone implements without any indusdtrial emissions are other major impacts. And even in historical times, climte change has had powerful impacts--all before industril and agricultural emissions became a factor.
Climate change had a wide range of causes. These includes astronomical events, geological causes, and man made causes. Astronomic events include comets and meteor impacts. Major impacts can inject huge quanyities of debris into the atmphere. Other astronomival events include sun spots and pulsars. Scientists differ on the imppotance of these events. Geological events arev most notably volcanic eruptions. We know of powerful volanic eruptions (supervolcanoes) that injected enormous amounts of material into the atmosphere and set off sunamis. And because of the debris injected in the atmosphere, affected climate. Other geological factors include the earth's spin, inclination, and magnetic field. The first two causes have proven to be much more powerful factors than man-made events which have proven to be localized impacts. The great industrial development of mankind in recent years meabs that the impact on climate is incresing. Just how significant is a matter of conjecture.
Climatolgy is now at the center of the climate change debate. We note earlier we heard more about global warming, but when actual data failed to substantiate the politically ctive, there has been a shift to climate change. In recent years, climate change has become a mantra of liberal politicans. As House speaker Nancy Palozi explains, "We have a planet to save." President-elect Barack Obama grandly informed us that his victory was "the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal".
In the West, liberal and Socialist politicans have been the strongest supporters of enormnously expensive climate change legislation. The issue does not, however, cut nealy accross traditionsal left-right political cleviages. Thus Green parties have achieved considerable support in Europe, especially Germany. A concern here that poltical officials with a range of political and social agendas are making decesions. Many are individuals who are critical of private industry and moder consumption-based life styles. We see political figures like Vice-President Gore producing slick films lionized by Hollywood with an Oscar, but totally unwilling to defend his asertions in fora where he will be asked hard questions about the science he presented.
Some proponents of costly climate change efforts poromote the idea that rapacious capitalists are ravaging the cliamte and affecting the vclimate. Interesingly, the world greatest polluters has not been the Capitalist West, but the Cold War Era Communist countries, the Soviet Union and its East Bloc sattelite countries gave little attebtion to enviromental issues. After the fall od Communism, the new governments replacing the Communists found axhost of environmental horror stories. And in China today , the Government in lothe to take steps that might limit economic growth. Air quality in major Chinese cities is terrible and this is just the tip of the countrie enviromental issues.
Climate change activists have focused on greenhouse gasses and global warming. The Liberal dominated media has picked on the issue. Some scientists, politicans, and media figures have pursued this as a virtually religious crusade.
Huricans impacted the Americas annually. And they have been notd since Columbus' discovered the New World. The most famous was the 1900 Hurricane that destroyed Galveston and killed 6,000-12,000 people, making it the dedliest natural disaster in American history. Death tolls have been sharply reduced by modern forecasting and warning systems. The issue of hurricanes comes up each year when hurricane season rolls around. When ever a majpr hurrican strikes, we are told by the mainline media which sees the climate change narative basically a religious crusade that this is evidence of climate change being accelerated by greenhouse gasses without the slightest evidence that this is the case. It seems likely that climate chnge meaning global warming could cause a greater number of hurricanes and/or more intense hurricanes. This has not yet been proven, but it is certainly something that should be followed closely. It is not something that the talking heads on televisiom are doing. One way of telling that that the climate change advocate is poorly informed or being dishonst if he or she uses dollar damage data to compare hurricanes over time. This is because the damages have more to do with where a hurricne strikes than the intensity of the hurricane. A massive category 5 hurricane is going to do limited damage if it stays out to sea. On the other hand a category 2 hurricane can do emormous damage if it strikes a heavily populated area or in conjuction with other weather formations. Damage tolls are also rising by factors that have nothing to do with climate change, including indlation, and increasing populations in hurricne prone areas such as Florida and Gulf coast states. Frequency and intensity are a differnt matter. The number of hurricanes can be easily counted. And for some time intensity has been measured. The Saffir-Simpson scale measures the intensity of a hurricane. It is based on measurements of wind speed, height of storm surges, and central barometric pressure in millibars. The Saffir-Simpson scale ranges from Category 1 hurricanes with a barometric pressure of greater than 980 millibars that cause minimal damage, to Category 5 hurricanes with a central pressure of less than 920 millibars. Category 5 hurricanes are capable of causing catastrophic damage, but this will be determined by where they strike.
We are told repeatedly by the mainstream media, President Obama, forner Vice-President Gore, and other lberal politicans like formner House Sopeaker Nancy Pilosi that the science on climate change has definitively been decided. We have been told that the reputable scientists agree with the alarmist prediction of an impending global disaster. This is, however, simply not true. There are many important, respected scientists who question many aspects of the sciebce behind the climatic alarmists. In America alone 31,000 scientists signed a public statemebnt rejecting the warming hypothesis--the Oregon Petition. Respected scientists argue that the alarmists forecasts are derived from faulty scientific procedures. The Wharton School published a peer review paper finding that the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) forecasting procedures violated 72 of 89 relevant principles. [Armstrong] Even worse, there are incidents of the climate alarmists seeking to silence those that discent from the trendy alarmist view. Nothing of course could be further from the principles of science. Some scientists campare the climate change alarminsts to the infamous Trofim Denisovich Lysenko (Трофи́м Дени́сович Лысе́нко) who set back Soviet science, especially biology, a generation. It is instructive to see how the climate alarmits treat the data. Some are alarmed that the data, especially recent data, does not support the alarmist view. Real scientists do not cheer for the data to meet popular assumtions, instead they follow the data whereever it might lead. And even worse, some scientists have even falsified data so that it supports alarmist models.
The mainstream mediam focuses primarily on global warming and suggests that any one who questions the warmiong hypothesis and efforts to reverse global warming is flat-earther troglsdite. In fact that are serious questions about the whole climate change debate that the media because of its lineral bias, refuses to present. Global warming is only one part of the overal question.
Glovbal warming is only one part of the overall climate change debate. Increases in temperrature should be data that is relatively easy to compile from existing hard data. Unfortunately, even this fairly straightforward exercise has been called into question by notable climate change scientists falsifying data. This is a good good indicator that the data is not as alarming as the media suggests. a Some date compiled in recent years suggests that the warming projections published by climate alarmisrs are not coming to fruition. Not only is some of the historical data in question, but the greater problem is the models showing alarming trends. Historical data is factual information. Projections are a different matter and scientists claiming objectivity have clearly been altering their models to support political and social agenda. We do not contend that global warming is not occurring or that it may be a serious prroblem. We do contend that liberal political figures and sympsthetic medial outlets have attempted to prevent a fact-based sciebtific debate on the issue. There are reputable scirntists who raise important objections to the climate change activists.
A more difficult issue than global warming is ghat may be causing the warming. The climate alaemists point to green house gasses. Some scientists contend that 1) it is not clear that green house gases are the major cause of the temperature increases. Rarely medntioned is the fact that the planent has undergone many warming and cooling periods before the industrial era when man made carbon dioxide increased. There is no hard evidence that man made carbon dioxide and other green house gases are increasing temperatures. Again we are not saying this is not happening, only that science has not definitely established what the cause of gliobal warming is. The youngest child who gas seen the ammated film "Ice Age" is aware that the Earth has gone through far greater climatic change than the current global warming trend. This highlights the fact that the Earth is subject to a range of changes which can affect climate. Greenhouse gasses are just one of these changes.
Perhaps the weakest of climate change argumednts is that the very costly emedies proposed to reduce green house gases would have only a minor impact on emissions. The climate change advocates are demansing huge government expenditures, but even if these expenditures were made with massive impavts on economies and jobs, the potential impact would be only minor.
Armstrong, J, Scott. Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, "Let's deal in science and facts," Wall Street Journal (November 19, 2010), p. A18.
Navigate the Children in History Web Site:
[Return to the Main climate page]
[Introduction] [Biographies] [Chronology] [Climatology] [Clothing] [Disease and Health] [Economics] [Geography] [History] [Human Nature] [Law]
[Nationalism] [Presidents] [Religion] [Royalty] [Science] [Social Class] [Royalty]
[Bibliographies] [Contributions] [FAQs] [Glossaries] [Images] [Links] [Registration] [Tools]
[Children in History Home]