The debate rages on, by both those who know little or nothing about climate and those who are experts on the subject. Climate change is inevitable. It has always changed, and I expect that it always will. People are told that 97 percent of the scientists agree that CO2 is the reason that the temperature of the earth is rising. Folks, 97 percent of the scientists couldn’t agree on anything! The nature of scientific research is to set forth a theory and then watch while the rest of the scientific world attempts to prove that it’s wrong.

In past eras, scientists were imprisoned or even executed because those in power did not approve of the theories that they proposed.  Things haven’t changed much today except we are a bit more civilized and the penalties are less severe.

Most scientists are funded directly by the government or indirectly, via grants provided to universities by the government. If the current administration favors the CO2-warming theory, it’s going to be a lot more difficult to obtain a grant to disprove that theory than one which supports it. The result is that scientists who like to sleep indoors and eat regularly are more likely to skew their efforts in a direction which has a better chance of yielding a grant award.

Now, notwithstanding what you may have been told, although CO2 warming is a reality, it does not necessarily extend to catastrophic warming. So, how can we thread our way through the morass of information and misinformation with which we are bombarded on a daily basis? The engine of climate change is massive and it’s complexity is mind boggling. What might be referred to as minor changes occur over periods of hundreds of years while recent major changes occur about every 100 thousand years! Since you and I are not climate scientists, the best that we can do is take a good look at what the climate has done in the past and use that information to make an educated guess at what the future may bring.

Climate wise, things have settled down a bit over the past 500 thousand years so we can assume that, unless we are impacted by an asteroid or some other catastrophic event, it will be business as usual (I know, I know, the warmers will tell you that rising CO2 level is that event). Looking at the climate history for those 500 thousand years, there were five warm periods totaling about 60 thousand years or about 12 percent of the time. These warm periods are called interglacial warming periods and, happily, we are enjoying one now! It is interesting to note that this warming period has prevailed for about 9 thousand years, longer than any of the previous periods. During the cold periods ice sheets would cover Canada and most of North America.

During the current warm period there were times when the climate was nearly 1.5 degrees C warmer than it is now yet the world and mankind not only survived, it thrived! Since mankind was in its infancy when it was that warm, we lack details, but it is likely that crops fared better and people were healthier. Now the temperature trend in this current warming period has been downward for the last 3 thousand years to the tune of about 1 degree C and the downward curve is growing steeper!

Based on historical climate data, we are more likely to find ourselves adversely impacted by climate cooling than by warming. If this is so, we will need massive amounts of energy to maintain any semblance of the civilization that we now enjoy, yet the politicians and the warmists are urging us to change to energy sources which will be totally inadequate when the climate cools further. Only nuclear energy can supply the vast amounts of power we will need for space heating in greenhouses and habitats for people and for livestock, but nuclear energy is not politically popular, and no one is going to win an election by advocating that.

So, here we are in a world hurtling toward an ice age and we have non-scientist politicians and brainwashed children urging us to prepare for catastrophic global warming.

God help us!

(1) comment

Trinity Bob

Dear Mr. Jeans,

The scientists on the two sides of this debate are funded by two distinct sources: the government, as you point out, whose job it is to protect us, but also by energy companies, who have a vested interest in denying scientific findings that impinge upon their profits.

To illustrate how climate warming works, let’s perform a thought experiment. We’ll use a sealed glass globe to represent the closed system of the Earth. Within that globe is a finite amount of rock, dirt, water, and air. If inside that globe we generate heat, such as by burning coal or petrol, that heat will be trapped within the sealed globe (the seal is our atmosphere) and the temperature inside will inevitably rise. About that there can be no doubt. It’s called thermodynamics (the entropy of a closed system can only increase).

But let’s suppose that you are right and climate scientists are wrong. In that case, it still makes sense to invest in clean energy technology because that’s what customers worldwide want to buy. Will we sell that technology to them, or will it be the Chinese? I’d rather it be us.

Now let’s suppose that climate scientists are right and you are wrong. In that case, we destroy life on this planet—permanently. Is making a short-term profit from dirty energy sources worth that risk?

There’s an economic argument to be made for each position in this debate, of course, but if we destroy life here on Earth, does it really matter how much money we have if we kill everyone and everything on the planet?

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.