I am not a climate scientist. In fact I am not a scientist at all. But I have a solid basic scientific education, a mathematic mind, and a lot of common sense.
So I can’t say that I know who is right and wrong in the debate about global warming, but from my understanding, reading the arguments of both sides – and that included many hoaxes and lies and deceptions by some people on those both sides – I reached the conclusion that the “skeptics” were much more convincing than the “warmists”.
Now this is not the place to explain what is wrong with the official theory of Anthropological Global Warming – that is: Man-Made Global Warming – there are hundreds of sites debating the subject. I just want to illustrate quickly some of the problem, using the exact data that is supposed to prove that AGW is a “fact” that can’t be discussed and that anybody who does not agree is some kind of heretic to the true faith, funded by evil money from the “Big Oil”.
Of course, that makes no sense at all. Science is about being skeptic and criticizing even the most admitted theories. And the money argument is even crazier:
First, the oil companies have no particular reasons to fight the idea of global warming. It’s not an important threat to them.
Even if they did, the sums are small and dispersed among many research – many of them supporting global warming. Most of the time, the money given by oil companies is just a tiny percentage of the funding among many other sources, and the scientists do not even know who gave the money.
But of course, the real stupidity of this argument is that the big money is in fact in the other side: billions and billions of dollars of public funding for thousands of scientists and bureaucrats whose jobs is entirely dependent on the idea that AGW exists and needs to be fought. If not, they would be unemployed. That’s as big an incentive as it can get. That’s almost the same logic that leads anti-racist groups to find racism anywhere and even invent it when it does not exist – because without racism, they have no reason to exist.
But now back to what I wanted to say. Look at this graph up there from the NASA of the global warming between 1880 and 2011.
I won’t enter the issue of the validity of the data that makes the graph – neither the fact that some scientists explain that the concept of “global temperature” itself is a non-sense.
Let’s assume the data is correct and exact. This graph seems to support and prove the theory of man-made global warming. Since 1880 to 2011, temperatures went up, exactly at the time that industrialization started in the world. But some things don’t add up:
The rise seems to start in 1910 and continues up to the 40s. But in 1910, human activity was just a tiny fraction of what it is today. There were only 2 billion people on Earth, most of them living in pre-modern conditions, and even in the western world human activity was small in comparison to more recent times. So if this small human activity was enough to generate global warming, how can we hope to reverse it today unless we exterminate 90% of the world population ?
And if this small activity did generate warming, how is it that between the 40s and the 70s, a time of incredible demographic and economic growth, the temperatures stagnated and even declined ? The warming resumed in the mid-70s until 2000 and since then the temperatures seem to be stagnating again. But how is it that human activity since the 70s, that is a zillion time bigger than in 1910, did not generate a higher rate of warming ? If a small human activity causes warming and a much larger causes exactly the same warming – not a higher and quicker warming rate -, we have no reason whatsoever to reduce human activity.
So how can we solve this apparent problem ?
Maybe other factors intervened that reduced the warming caused by men – El Nino, the sun, and some other complex climate phenomenon. But if natural phenomenon can make the climate colder than it should be, why could not it be the contrary ? Maybe the increase in temperatures was caused by natural causes and this seems much more logical than some magical human activity than no matter how weak or strong causes the same warming.
Of course, the fact that the world experienced a “little Ice Age” between the 16th and 19th century can explain why the temperatures are rising now. It’s not that it is unusually hot today, but that it was unusually cold before. In fact, there is no “usual” temperature – the climate is changing all the time with or without us. Remember the Ice Age ? In fact Ice Ages are the « usual » state of the Earth, or have been for a few million years. The climate is some 8-10 Celsius degrees hotter in this intergacial age and we have nothing to do with it. It also was relatively warm 1000 years ago – more or less like today – and 2000 years ago.
The idea that Man is responsible for the climate – in what amounts to a negligible increase over a negligible period of time – is closer to a religious discourse than to serious science.