Friday, September 02, 2011

Of global warming, glacial grooves, idiots, evidence and belief

In light of the most recent news on the globaloney front, the melting/retreat of the Petermann Glacier in Greenland, my trip to Kelley's Island and a view of the glacial grooves there couldn't have been more timely.

We visited the Glacial Grooves State Memorial. It consists of 3.5 acres and has been administered by the Ohio Historical Society since 1932. There is a walkway around the grooves with numerous plaques which tell about the grooves, how they were formed, why they look like they do, how they were discovered, etc. I didn't know, but I learned from one of the plaques, that these are the most famous glacial grooves in the world because of their size and accessibility - and they've been an object of interest for over a century.

Even though it's not a long pathway, it's filled with lots information and it gives you plenty of vantage points from which to view the amazing results of the pressure of ice and - gasp! - climate change.

What is particularly interesting is the information on this sign at the beginning of the walkway around the groves:

In case you're having difficulty in reading it, it says:

Approximately 75,000 years ago when the climate was much colder and wetter, a great continental glacier flowed from Canada into northern Ohio.

Hmmm... 75,000 years ago. What was going on back then? Well, according to many, that's about the time that evidence of man's intelligence was being created:

The first signs of human intelligence and consciousness only appeared around 75,000 years ago, when the Khoisan people of southern Africa, sometimes also referred to as Bushmen, started leaving behind an array of spectacular cave paintings all over this part of the continent. Finely crafted beads and bracelet fragments found in a cave at Blombos in the Western Cape, South Africa, show that these early humans had already developed a feel for the arts and crafts.

But the next line on the plaque is the one that throws a monkey wrench into all the current claims that we are all to blame for everything that happens with the weather:

After the climate warmed and the ice melted (about 10,000 years ago), this island retained a spectacular reminder of the glacier's presence here - these huge glacial grooves...

And what was man doing back then, when the earth started to warm and the ice began to melt? We were living in caves.

Humans at that time weren't generating tons of carbon dioxide, which the EPA has declared is a dangerous pollutant, unless you somehow believe that a limited number of people burning wood in a cave is what caused the entire earth to warm up and start melting the glaciers.

*** Side Note:

How do EPA scientists and bureaucrats come to the conclusion that what we exhale is a pollutant?!? Our earth has a magnificent process by which animals consume/breathe oxygen and produce/exhale carbon dioxide. Conversely, in a symbiotic relationship which benefits all, plants consume/breathe carbon dioxide and produce/exhale oxygen. Without carbon dioxide, we wouldn't have oxygen - and plants and animals on the planet would die. So how did these idiots at the EPA - and many 'climate scientists' - come to the conclusion that this essential compound is a pollutant and, therefore, bad?!?

And don't you think that this perfect symbiotic relationship is just a bit more than coincidence and survival of the fittest?

End side note ***

And there was no 'evil industry' back then, providing us with electricity and products and jobs, so obviously that can't be to blamed for the warming of the earth. Perhaps other things - cosmic rays, the sun, sunspots, the earth's magnetic field, etc... - are what influence and impact the climate of this planet? What other explanation could there be since man-made contributions weren't around to cause either the last ice age or the warming which ended it?

CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world’s largest and most respected centers for scientific research - which is known for such things as the Large Hadron Collider and the World Wide Web, recently published findings in the journal Nature which indicate that cosmic rays and the sun, not human activities, are responsible for global warming.


As International Business Times reports:

CERN ... has now built a stainless steel chamber that precisely recreates the Earth's atmosphere. In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes demonstrated that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules which grow in Earth's atmosphere and seed clouds, making it cloudier and cooler.

"Because the sun's magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth's atmosphere (the stronger the sun's magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth," Lawrence Solomon, director of Energy Probe, wrote about the experiment.

Theories which said that sun and cosmic rays are primarily responsible for climate changes were proposed, as early as 1996, by two scientists from the Danish Space Research Institute, at a scientific conference in the UK.

Within a day, chairman of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), Bert Bolin, denounced the theory, saying, "I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible."

Henrik Svensmark, physicist, whose research has suggested a possible link between the interaction of the solar wind and cosmic rays, and downplays the significance of CO2 emissions, in global warming, welcomed the new results, saying that they confirm research carried out by his own group.

"CERN's CLOUD (Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets) experiment is designed to study the formation of clouds and the idea that Cosmic Rays may have an influence. The take-home message from this research is that we just don't understand clouds in anything other than hand-waving terms. We also understand the effects of aerosols even less. The other things to come out of it are that trace constituencies in the atmosphere seem to have a big effect on cloud formation, and that Cosmic rays also have an effect, a "significant" one according to CERN," David Whitehouse, of The Observatory said.

WOW - "we don't understand clouds in anything other than hand-waving terms" but never mind that - we'll just promote the idea that man, not clouds, are the cause of earth's overall warming. Yeah, right!

And upon hearing the mere theory that natural causes might play a part in the climate of the earth, the head of the IPC - without any justification or even remote curiosity - claims the suggestion is 'naive' and 'irresponsible'!?! What's irresponsible is to insist that there is nothing more to learn - other than what this idiot has concluded - about the earth, it's climate, the sun and it's impact!

What's even more scary is the story of the CERN CLOUD project and how it almost didn't happen.

It was proposed in 1998 by scientist Jasper Kirkby who thought that - again, GASP! - global warming might be part of the earth's natural cycle. Global warming alarmists would have nothing of that theory:

"The global warming establishment sprang into action, pressured the Western governments that control CERN, and almost immediately succeeded in suspending CLOUD. It took Kirkby almost a decade of negotiation with his superiors, and who knows how many compromises and unspoken commitments, to convince the CERN bureaucracy to allow the project to proceed. And years more to create the cloud chamber and convincingly validate the Danes' groundbreaking theory," Lawrence Solomon says.

"Although they never said so, the High Priests of the Inconvenient Truth - in such temples as NASA-GISS, Penn State and the University of East Anglia - always knew that Svensmark's cosmic ray hypothesis was the principal threat to their sketchy and poorly modelled notions of self-amplifying action of greenhouse gases," Nigel Calder, well-known science writer wrote about the CERN findings. "In telling how the obviously large influences of the Sun in previous centuries and millennia could be explained, and in applying the same mechanism to the 20th warming, Svensmark put the alarmist predictions at risk - and with them the billions of dollars flowing from anxious governments into the global warming enterprise."

A-ha! It's the money, stupid!

But even in the official publication of the findings, non-scientific and quasi-religious global warming fanatics still had their influence. A critical graph was omitted, though it was included in the supplemental on-line material and is currently making the rounds for all to see and evaluate. And in a note of irony, thank you CERN for the Internet!

The problem is that too many see the whole thing as a religion, even calling people like me, who question anthropomorphic global warming, 'deniers.' They believe, so it must be true. Forget science (and questioning and challenging and verifying), it's now a debate between 'believers' and 'deniers.'

And then there's the idiot Al Gore who recently likened us 'deniers' to racists. The problem is though, in doing so, he doesn't talk about how they have to go about providing proof of man-made global warming. No, he talks only about how his fellow 'believers' have to win the conversation. That's just wrong - and too much like George Orwell's 1984.

Fortunately for all of us, there are too many people with common sense. When you can see for yourself the fact that glaciers once covered this part of the earth and clearly see the evidence that they were here - and are now gone - you cannot help but know (not 'believe') that the earth has gone through dramatic changes in climate. You know that the warming and cooling of the earth must have other causes - perhaps even natural and cyclical - than what we can ever impose. You also know that people who say otherwise must have goals and aims other than the actual factual and scientific discovery of why our earth is like it is and why it does what it does.

Anyone who argues otherwise must be 'stuck on stupid.'

But...but...but...what about all those scientists who say the issue is 'settled' - that it's all man's fault?

As my recent Quote of the Day indicates:

"There is no maxim in my opinion which is more liable to be misapplied, and which therefore needs elucidation than the current one that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong.... In fact it is only reestablishing under another name and a more specious form, force as the measure of right...." ~ James Madison

The real problem is that such a perspective - that the science is settled - inhibits further discovery and knowledge about our earth, and even our impact on it. As Dennis Byrne at the Chicago Tribune writes, it's not the 'deniers' who are trashing the science (emphasis mine):

The CERN experiment does not point directly to man-made greenhouse gases as the cause of global warming, although it is reasonable to believe that it is an early step in the chain of evidence. On the other hand, concluding that the experiment stops far short of proving that man-made greenhouses cause global warming doesn't make one "anti-science" or a "denier." It's just the give and take of science.

The certainly with which some regard the evidence of man-made global warming as undeniably conclusive insults science and its principles. Raising questions about research is exactly what science demands, even if the consensus of the world's best minds declares the world flat. Demands that we all bow to some "consensus" that greenhouse gases cause global warming are as senseless as declaring that there is no evidence to support the theory of evolution.

Click here for more information about the Kelley's Island Glacial Grooves.

If you want more information, I suggest this short publication from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, "The Ice Age in Ohio."

No comments:

Google Analytics Alternative