My problem with the whole argument for man-made global warming
is the narrowness of the time frame of observations being used. My
reservations are based on my personal experience. I grew up in Missoula,
Montana. It was a prehistoric lake. I was painfully aware of this
as a kid, because anytime anybody tried to dig a hole to plant something there
was about an inch of topsoil, an inch of gravel and then a seemingly infinite
layer of big smooth boulders, most much bigger than the original size of the hole, that had
to be removed. It turns out that Lake Missoula got filled repeatedly as
the result of ice dams on the Clark's Fork River 15,000 to 13,000 years ago.
Periodically the dams would break up suddenly and flood everything
downstream with the contents of the Lake Missoula.
This personal experience and subsequent
exposure to paleoclimatology led me to understand that climate varies quite
widely over geologic time based on natural processes. I believe that the
state of our understanding of these natural processes is exceedingly
incomplete. We have had the computational power to study these processes
for less than 30 years. This is really not enough time to build all of
the relevant factors into the models and then run them enough to understand the
bugs and fix them. If we are going to take action that requires drastic
expensive changes to our economy, the burden of proof is on the people calling
for the drastic expensive changes. We should be sure beyond a reasonable
doubt that the changes are necessary. It is not enough to find warming.
It has to be shown that the warming is caused by increased CO2 emissions
or other alterations to the ecosystem that are the result of human activity. At
this point, I think even showing the warming is a stretch. It is definitely
not proven that human activity is causing any warming observed.
I think the 135 year time span of the
primary detailed observations leaves a lot of room for reasonable doubt,
particularly since the satellite record for the last 36 years shows no change.
The obvious political motivations of the people behind the global warming
movement, who seek unchecked absolute power through the control of all energy
use, makes me believe they have the motive and opportunity for falsifying the
data. The fact that Michael Mann's famous hockey stick did not show the
Medieval Warming Period at all should make everyone think that something is
fishy. When the Climate Research Unit refused to share the raw data and
fought off a Freedom of Information Request by saying they accidentally erased
the data, I really became suspicious. Science is supposed to be open and
reproducible. Accidentally erasing the data is the scientific equivalent
of "the dog ate my homework." I have provided a link for the
erased data incident.
Personally, today I am dealing with 10
degree F weather in Chicago. I have found global warming to date
extremely disappointing. Last year there was a 35 foot high pile of snow
extending 100 feet along the edge of the parking lot where I work. When I
posted a picture of it on my Facebook page, one of my friends wanted to know if
it was Montana or Illinois. I know some legitimate scientists take this very seriously.
But I believe that the planet is a very big place with a huge amount of
water that is going to buffer whatever man does in the short run. I think
AGW is a political movement disguised as science. I don't think AGW has
met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.