Late last year, I got into a discussion with a fellow who was quite sold on the idea that man’s activities were warming the Earth.
While not a hardcore ideologue, it was apparent the gentleman had accepted the climate change narrative presented by mainstream media and believed we truly were imperiling the planet.
I didn’t say much to him initially, as we were engaged in some recreation, but later on, I resurrected the topic and told him I just wanted to pose one question.
“What is the ideal average temperature of the Earth?” I asked.
It was clear he was without an answer, so I explained my rationale.
“If we don’t know what the Earth’s ideal average temperature is,” I stated, “how can we know if a given type of climate change — whether naturally occurring or induced by man — is good or bad? After all, we can’t then know whether it’s bringing us closer to or moving us further away from that ideal temperature.”
It was as if a little light bulb had lit up in his head, and he said, “You know, that’s a good question!”
I haven’t seen the man since, as we were just two ships passing in the night, and I don’t know how his thinking has evolved (or regressed) between then and now.
I do know, however, that someone who’d seemed so confident and perhaps even unbending in his position had his mind opened with one simple question and a 20-second explanation.
Of course, part of the question’s beauty is that no one can answer it. There is no “ideal” average Earth temperature, only a range within which it must remain for life as we know it to exist.
At the spectrum’s lower end, polar creatures proliferate; at its higher-end, tropical animals do (though warmer temperatures do breed more life, which is why the tropics boast 10 times as many species as does the Arctic. Moreover, crop yields increase when CO2 levels are higher).
This brings us to another important point: Apocalyptic warmist dogma is buttressed by the virtually unchallenged assumption that if man changes something “natural,” it is by definition bad.
But this is prejudice. Most of us certainly don’t believe this, for instance, when humans cure disease and use science to preserve and extend human life (or that of our pets).
As for climate, there have been at least five major ice ages, and “the most recent one began approximately three million years ago and continues today (yes, we live in an ice age!),” informs the Utah Geological Survey.
Then there was the Cryogenian period, during which the Earth was completely, or almost completely, covered with snow and ice. If man had existed during that time, would it have been bad if his activities had raised the temperature a couple of degrees?
Within ice ages are shorter-term cycles known as glacials (colder periods) and interglacials (warmer ones); glacials last approximately 100,000 years while interglacials last about 10,000 to 30,000 years.
We’re currently in an interglacial called the Holocene Epoch, which began 11,500 to 12,000 years ago. This means that we could, conceivably, be poised to soon enter another more frigid glacial period.
Now, again, if this is mitigated by a couple of degrees via man’s activities, would that be a bad thing? Warmists suggest this is the case.
For example, citing research, science news magazine Eos wrote in 2016 that our Holocene Epoch “may last much longer because of the increased levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases resulting from human activity.”
Once more, would this be bad? Why? What’s that ideal average Earth temperature that this climate change would supposedly be moving us further away from?
If you’re a member of one of the vast majority of Earth’s species, those prospering in (relative) warmth, it sounds like good news.
The question in question won’t cut any ice (pun intended) with those emotionally invested in the doom-and-gloom global warming thesis.
After all, “You cannot reason a man out of a position he has not reasoned himself into,” to paraphrase Anglo-Irish satirist Jonathan Swift. But with the more open-minded majority, the question can turn down the heat on the fear.
Read more at American Thinker
I see the usial lies about Global Warming/Climate Change from The Guardian its no different then the NYT’s
Politicians are well aware that global warming is a non problem, that CO2 will not decrease whatever they do, and quite likely has no effect anyway. Windmills are a fetish: expensive, useless. Warming started 15000 Years ago with the end of the last ice age and won’t stop until the same changes that caused it to start, will somehow come undone. But it’s a nice distraction for the faith driven Greenies who can show us who and what they are and lets government tax and spend. Now we only need to wait for some substantial discontent; and when industry is sufficienty devasted, there will be. It looks like an experiment on 1970s Catastrophe Theory: take the wrong road and see what happens. We can go back in space, but not in time.
Oh thank heavens. I’m glad we’ve got that sorted then; finally !!!
For example, let’s ignore all of Earth’s climate history and potential natural drivers, shall we – and also put it down to advanced early human interventions, utilising world-wide “HAARP-like” technology ?
Suggest, stick with the scientific method and the allowed scientific-based bla bla bla … that ensues and less delving into conspiracy theories.
That’s all bla bla bla bla…
I’ve been noticing for many years that you refuse to offer your readers the historical fact that some nations have been using WEATHER MODIFICATION for many decades, and this is the main and only reason for ‘freak weather’ patterns.
While “CHEMTRAILS” are gradually killing everything organic on earth, “HAARP” is the single biggest weapon of mass destruction, so big that puts the atomic bomb in its pocket.
There are plenty of documentaries, books and articles on these topics… one of them is NASA’s 2001 doc “FUTURE STRATEGIC ISSUES/FUTURE WARFARE”… a slide presentation by the then CIA director Dennis Bushnell.
So stop the distracting secondary issues and go for the jugular!!!
KEEP IT SIMPLE!!!
Fool!!!!
I love that question and it is good to ask but the writer states we are currently in an ice age and then a few sentences later states we are in an interglacial period…. and that we may soon enter another ice age…..?????? huh?
This paragraph before explains.
“ Within ice ages are shorter-term cycles known as glacials (colder periods) and interglacials (warmer ones); glacials last approximately 100,000 years while interglacials last about 10,000 to 30,000 years.”
And he never says we may enter another ice age, he says “ This means that we could, conceivably, be poised to soon enter another more frigid glacial period.”
I asked a similar question a long time ago : Who gets to say what the temperature should be? It seems to be the United Nations, via the IPCC.
I suggest that the UN leans communist.
Who is prospering the most? Communist China, with the blessing of the IPCC. Remember that the European Union was formed after the fall of the USSR. Socialist Europe felt that an unchallenged USA was a threat. The Masters of Capitalism had to be hobbled! Infiltrate Washington with group think. What you see today is the result. Who is going to round up the traitors?
I agree Global warming/climate change is a communist construct to hamstring the economic, military and political power of the USA. By falsely blaming CO2 as the cause automatically invites severe regulations and taxes on all hydrocarbon energy! There are plenty of globalist types in congress, the executive branch and even SCOTUS that ruled CO2 can be regulated as a pollutant by EPA! Not to forget our bureaucracies are loaded with globalist thinking types. Our government is in the process restricting our freedoms, decreasing our wealth and mobility so they can rule us with an iron hand!