Increasing Temperatures Cause Global Warming!

I recently watched the History Channel’s production of “A Global Warning”.  In it,  much is made of the fact that ice core samples show that a group of animals known as “mega-mammals” were quite suddenly wiped out around 11,500 years ago and that this extinction followed by mere decades the last period of global warming. 

When I heard it,  I experienced a mental double-take.  Part of the problem that I and many other non-peer-reviewed non-scientists have with Global Warming hysteria is that it seems clear that the climatological times have always been a-changin.

“But its cause remains a mystery….” The program goes on to say.  It is noted that the extinction of mega-mammals ushered forth a flourishing of human civilization,  as men and women were able to adapt relatively easily to the warmer temperatures and new sets of conditions.  In this sense,  the only clear effect that past Global Warming is proven to have had on the human species has been both non-lethal and in-arguably positive.

But let’s get back to the real cause of this previous and embarrassing episode of Global Warming.  It seems unlikely that it was due to mega-mammal flatulence or the burning of fossil fuels.  We might imagine that GW Scientists are desperate not to have historical bouts of Global Warming muddying up the foregone conclusions of us dumb folk.  In fact, some scientists have postulated that it might have been caused by the occasioning of a stray comet.  How convenient!  I’ve noticed that whenever scientists can’t explain something,  they pull out the comet-strike theory to get us over the hump. It strikes me as the “dog ate my homework” excuse – sort of an “act of God” without the God.

Without an asteroid or comet to stir things up and explain earlier occurrences of Global Warming,  we are left with the obvious but not-so-politically-correct question: If it has happened before through no fault of our own, then how can we be so sure that we are responsible this time around? Can we really be so sure that we are so bad?  Are we all that confident in our ability to screw things up beyond all recognition? Or is it just possible that we are taking credit for someone else’s work?

The Problem With Change

How many times have you heard the case for Global Warming made in terms of actual science?  I keep waiting to hear that scientists have proven the link between climate warming,  which along with cooling occurs in regularity,  and man-made increases in atmospheric CO2.  But what I most often see is something that I was taught to believe that true scientists should always eschew: anecdotal evidence.  

1998 was the warmest year in the United States in all of recorded history, or so I’m told.  Not only that, but 2006 was also a very warm year in the U.S., quite possibly the 3^rd warmest in recorded history (the 2^nd warmest being 1934, but let’s not talk about that!)   Now, 2/3 of this supposed “trend” might sound rather impressive, until you realize that in terms of temperature, recorded history only began about 150 years ago.  Anyone who plays slots knows that you can win the jackpot on the first pull, or the 150^th.   After winning on the 150^th, you are just as likely to win on the 151^st.   When that happens, a reasonable person might reasonably conclude that they are on the cusp of a genuine trend (in fact, this is precisely how most gamblers think), but the reality is that in order to prove any real trend, you need to look at massive amounts of data over incredibly long periods of time.   The notion that we can look at 150 years of climate data and conclude ANYTHING about climate change, makes about as much sense to me as picking LOTO numbers based on last weeks winners.  

Now, I’m not a scientist,  but since when did scientists become so easy? Frankly I expect a bit more in the way of healthy skepticism out of my slide-rule jockeys and number crunchers. 

Way Up Norse

Greenland, named for the lush, green pastures that attracted Norse settlers in 986, stands today as a glaring reminder that earth’s climate has changed over time with little or no help from carbon spewing inhabitants. For three centuries, these Norse visitors of Greenland subsisted on the cattle, grain, and hay crops they were able to produce on these northern lands, until they were ultimately driven off by the cold fortunes and invading ice of the Little Ice Age, when the Inuit took over.

The ice and the Inuit remain to this day. Unfortunately for The Norsemen, they were not blessed, or cursed,  depending on your point of view,  with a characteristic leader who could sell them carbon multipliers and effectively mobilize a buffalo hide campfire movement to fend off the encroaching ice.  Had there been a Vlad Gore, could the Little Ice Age have been stayed, and would Greenland even now be considered the breadbasket of the World?

We may never know. 

Paulie