Newspaper articles from the early 20th century were raising red flags about the climate warming and the rapid rate of glacier recession. In the 1960's and '70's, the articles were about the climate cooling, and scientists speculated that we were on the precipice of another ice age. But then it started warming again. What's different this time? I suspect it's the invention of carbon credits -- a new tax. Governments around the world loved the notion taxing their people for a natural phenomenon. The study of climate transformed from a science into political ideology.
In an earlier post, someone had mentioned Milankovich cycles. There are probably other, longer-term cycles that have yet to be discovered and understood. We have been recording climate data for just over a century, and jumping to conclusions about millennia. Would we trust the conclusions of a cardiologist with one day of training whose diagnosis was based on a two second rhythm strip? I wouldn't. He might see the flat line between beats and determine that 40 percent of the time I'm dead, and my only hope was to raise my heart rate above 150. What science has told us is that CO2 on our planet has been as high as 1,600 parts per million, we are currently at 400, and anything below 160 is too low for plants to survive. I don't see the urgency. If anything, we should be adamant about getting the politicians out of science. After all, these are the same kinds of people who, with no evidence, told us that polyunsaturated fats were good for us. Has anyone noticed that the numbers of deaths from cancer have increased nearly identically to the increased consumption of vegetable oils?
|