When the consciences of liberal thinkers - probably sparked initially by Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" (DDT - insecticide, but also a killing poison); then evolving into "Save Endangered Species" movements - finally morphing into the "Save the Planet from Human Global Warming" ideology - should there not have been a real scientific inquiry beforehand - probing "natural" causes prior to allocating blame on civilization's carbon emissions? Before the UN's "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" was set up (clearly to solidify the jump-to-conclusion of human-cause) - in view of the obviousness of puny man compared to the gigantic forces of nature: earthquakes (from continent-sized tectonic plates shifting), hurricanes, tidal waves, volcanic eruptions - and, certainly our sun (minor by galactic standards, but to planet Earth, overwhelmingly powerful) - should not natural causes have been considered and eliminated first?
Considering the drastic consequences upon the US that such ideological thinking was rushing to impose, should not the first undertaking have been to solidly prove the conclusion; the second, to evaluate the most probable cause - our sun? In his "Warning in the Stars", scientist David Archibald addresses the issue head-on, "If 'climate' is not a random walk, then we can predict climate if we understand what drives it. The energy that stops the Earth from looking like Pluto comes from the Sun, and the level and type of that energy does change. So the Sun is a good place to start, if we want to be able to predict climate."
Scientists like Dr. Archibald describe what the sun has done recently and also over the past two thousand years: from glacial geologic records of Southern Alaska; from Carbon 14 remnant-records in strata; from ice-rafted debris in sea-bed cores of the North Atlantic; from the temperatures of North Atlantic seas; from lake sediment in southwestern Alaska; from solar activity and from the consequences of Earth's magnetic field upon the sun's solar wind (charged solar particles): the increasing turbulent motions of the Earth's molten metal core - which generates the Earth's magnetic field - which protects the Earth from powerful solar radiation - which strips away Earth's atmosphere (aha, climate), etc. This is solid, solid science - many aspects of a tremendously complex issue - not a simple (ideological "feel-good") theory, with email-leaked-descriptions of a handful of simple temperature readings (modified or omitted - as necessary to "prove" the theory). What a scientific researcher is led to understand by the above and similar articles, is a (head-nodding) comparison of the (De Vries) 208-year solar cycle - to the observed 200- year rhythm in glacial activity in Alaska (Wiles et al, 2004). Similarly, high-resolution analyses of the Alaskan lake sediments suggest that century-scale shifts in the Holocene climate were modulated by solar activity (Hu et al, 2003); etc. The scientific message: our planet is huge, the interacting forces are powerful and complex.
Does all the above and similar scientific studies truly "prove" that there is global warming, or does it suggest a mere possibility, or nothing at all; is it truly climate change or cyclic climactic patterns - or inter-acting influences of our solar system itself; or some of the above - and, if any of it obtains, do human-based carbon emissions have a major or trivial effect? Regardless: yes, no or maybe - it certainly seems that world leaders of 1995-2010 should have been more cautious about imposing drastic restrictions upon industrial activities, with huge financial penalties upon civilization and its continuation (prestige of the UN notwithstanding).
However, once there was general acceptance of the theory that human emissions were the causal-factors of global warming (thus the concern over ultimate planet inhabitability), the immense power, prestige and influence of the United Nations (and its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) came into play - solidifying the assumed-conclusion, sweeping the worlds of both climatology and common man. To supportive climatologists the rewards were many: career-enhancing awards, grants, articles to be published - even the Nobel Prize Committee was convinced. Overlooked or dismissed were articles critical of this jump-to-conclusion, one signed by over thirty-one thousand scientists and students of science, arguing that the matter was not proven scientific fact - the signatures and challenge were ignored, the conventional wisdom sweeping across the world. Was it not predictable that occasionally some data points would be discovered that did not quite support the theory? (But, if so, so what - if a bit of data modification is required, or some data becomes "carelessly lost"; or even if challenging articles by not-quite-convinced climatologists are blocked from being published - what counts is that the theory is correct, right?) Then, of course, some embarrassing emails were leaked, a muted outcry by the media was heard (briefly) - calling indignantly to "shoot the messenger" - no focusing on the revealed bogus science. Eventually, there was some admitted embarrassment, some resignations by UN "scientists" (however, the "issue" having been successfully "swept under the rug", life and politics apparently still continue apace - the conventional wisdom of global warming - even despite a bitter winter - still holding sway).
Thus (and shockingly - in supposed "science" - where a single data point should make or break a theory), nothing has really changed (despite the email leaks and the bitter winter, hardly evidence of "warming") - the UN's Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change was convened, 192 countries and their leaders attending; President Obama was the featured speaker, making it clear that he and all attendees still believed in global warming - and caused by industrial carbon emissions (totally ignoring the exposure of the famous "hockey-stick temperature chart" as a fraud); promising that the U.S. will impose emission limits and penalties (Cap-and-Trade bill and Environmental Protective Agency requirements); and that the US would lead the way in emission reparations to 3rd world nations - paying most of 10 $Billion soon, and 100 $Billion by 2020, annually.
A colossal credibility-vs-cost confrontation seems inevitable, world-wide in scope - "Climate Change vs Climate-Gate", pitting almost all world leaders: the United Nations itself; the Nobel Prize Committee; heads of all countries - against the verity of Science - enormous consequences of economic and industrial efficiency for the US, or egg-on-face embarrassment for world leaders, including President Obama, Al Gore and the US main-stream media!
Aaron Kolom qualifies as a "rocket scientist" with over 50 years aerospace engineering: Stress Analyst to Chief of Structural Sciences on numerous military aircraft, to Corp. Director Structures and Materials, Asst. Chief Engineer Space Shuttle Program through first three flights (awarded NASA Public Service Medal), Rockwell International Corp.; Program Manager Concorde SST, VP Engineering TRE Corp.; Aerospace Consultant.
Comments
Post a Comment