Debunking Nonscientific Theories on Climate Change
A reader explains his viewpoint on climate change:
My view is fairly simple. While carbon emissions are something that we need to have common sense about, and pollution of the Ocean is definitely a serious concern, I do not believe that the UN backed climate studies are in any way reflective of the sum total of information on the subject of climate change. In fact the UN based “scientific” studies seem to be almost intentionally ignorant of basic and quite real subjects like Pole Reversal, and the 1200% increase in the frequency and effect of Volcanism and earthquakes just since 2008. Clearly no amount of carbon emissions can cause any one of those three concerns, and Volcanism and Pole Reversal would absolutely cause global climate change.
Additionally the UN based studies DO NOTHING to address the equally concerning DECREASE in average temperatures in various global locations.
Additional global concerns would be the overnight disappearance of rivers globally and the RECESSION of coast lines in certain parts of the world, which collectively indicate dramatic seismic change and does NOT fit a SOLELY Carbon based model for climate change.
I respond:
Pole reversals, which happens every 250,000 years or so due to the change of direction of masses of molten iron in the Earth’s outer core, takes place over tens of thousands of years (not centuries) and thus have no correlation to the climate change we’re experiencing mostly over the last century due to the buildup of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere.
There actually is no increase in the frequency and effect of volcanism, though there are more reports on the subject due to better measurement technology, rising population densities and communications technology.
Small earthquakes are on the rise in isolated parts of the globe in which fracking is taking place, but this too has no bearing on climate change.
That there are relatively small pockets of the Earth’s surface where temperatures are falling is actually predicted by the theory of global warming; this is not a refutation of the theory.
There will be no “overnight disappearance of rivers globally,” nor will there be recession of coast lines. Sea levels are rising as predicted by the theory, due to thermal expansion of the water and the melting of the ice sheets, principally in Greenland and the Antarctic.
Speaking for myself, I try not to have theories on this (or any other subject) that run counter to those of the relevant set scientists working in the field. I look at it this way: These guys are supremely unlikely to have missed any potential cause for the effects they are measuring, requiring correction from baseball coaches and pastry chefs. What I know about things like pole reversals or volcanic activity could fit on the head of a pin. Not so in the scientific community.
Craig,
From time to time, I notice you quote excerpts of comments by readers whose observations never appear in the comments column.
This raises questions of context, editing and authenticity.
The text of the reply you provide to your mysterious reader reveals an interesting insight into how you reason and interpret information.
You appear to have accepted an ideological agenda and now devote yourself to advocating the doctrines and theories of those “scientists” (no matter how tenuous the scientific qualification) who support your ideological agenda.
I’m afraid that’s not ‘science’ , that’s ‘faith’. You are a “true believer’.
For many years, decades even, one of my friends and business partners suffered from an intestinal ulcer.
He consulted the finest specialists, doctors of all kinds and basically received the same advice. The “consensus” opinion was this sort of ulcer was caused by diet and stress.
In other words, his “immoral” lifestyle of rich food, meat and alcohol plus a lack of healthy exercise was to blame. His diet wasn’t the only cause but his high stress occupation and hedonistic downtime were killing him and the ulcer was the first sign and most obvious sign.
The diagnosis was to change to a more “moral” lifestyle, become a vegetarian etc, his he wanted to be free of his ailment.
When I expressed my doubts as to the value of such advice, my doctor son, observed the specialist had spent their lives studying ulcers, written learned papers etc, he added, “what makes you, a lawyer, think you know better!” ?
Except a mere two years later, an obscure young Australian pathologist Robin Warren and West Australian physician Barry James Marshall, discovered peptic ulcers were not caused by “lifestyle” or diet, but by a bacteria named H. pylori.
The two Australians thoroughly deserved their Nobel prizes as the discovery is dramatic a breakthrough in understanding a causative link between Helicobacter pylori infection and stomach cancer.
The point is the “moral” explanation was so appealing. It’s easy to understand why it should be right! The hedonistic should pay for their forbidden and hedonistic lifestyle.
The is no evidence of any sort to support sea level rise. The “bath tub’ idea that ice melt will cause voluminous rise in oceanic levels has no scientific basis. Yet it “seems” right, and more importantly “righteous”!
But, “righteousness” (however appealing), is neither scientific nor relevant.
Likewise, “scientists”, no matter how studious, are always accurate or immune from criticism.
Taking part in a debate on environmental issues is just as valuable for a scientist as a pastry chef or baseball coach.