Wednesday, September 23, 2015

Climate Change… a debatable issue? well, not really...

Climate Change is not the debate, but whether man is exacerbating an increase in Green House Gases (GHGs), thereby speeding Climate Change. Conflicting reports and studies do nothing to make the issue either understandable for the lay person, nor does it convey a sense of consensus.

The statement that consensus has been reached and the "Science is Settled" does not correctly convey the reality as there are numerous scientists and weather specialists who disagree.



I think it appropriate that we examine the statement closely. The term "Settled Science" is obviously an oxymoron as science is an ongoing endeavor where dissent is an essential part of the over-all scientific conversation.

"Settled" for instance: according to Webster’s; Settle, Settled, Settling, as a "transitive verb" has 13 variations of usage; as an "intransitive verb", there are 8 additional variations of usage. Yes, I am aware that some of the variations may be eliminated, but confusion arises as to which ones when it comes to correctly stating the issue?

"Science": according to Webster’s; Science, a noun, has 7 variations of usage; again of these variations, which most closely and correctly define the issue of so-called "Climate Change".

Putting aside the obvious disparity of consensus with regards wordage, and to help put this issue into context the layperson can understand, we need only consult history where we will find numerous exhibits of unusual variations in the weather. For instance, during the 14th
Century there was a general cool-down of the northern hemisphere that was to decimate the Viking colonization of Greenland; in the 17th century cereal grains in Europe failed during what is called "The Little Ice Age"; coming to more recent history we find the destructive drought east of the Rocky Mountains in 1964 & 1965; the drought in France in 1976.
History also gives us numerous examples of "Settled Science" being rejected, only to be replaced by new scientific evidence that replaced the original doctrine. One prime example that was to consume 40+ years before the scientific community accepted the findings of Dr. J. Harlen Bretz as he explained the "Spokane Floods", a series of catastrophic floods during the Pleistocene epoch.

I recently was able to converse with a group of Marshall Islanders that were re-located from their island homeland. They confirmed that rising sea levels had forced relocation on them, but we must remember that sea levels are constantly changing. During the Pleistocene epoch sea levels fluctuated from 300 feet below today’s levels to 150 feet above today’s levels.

We are an adaptable species, but we do not accept change readily. Those who challenge or otherwise disagree with the statement of "Settled Science are called "Deniers" when in truth they simply are asking to be heard as they have a different point of view. I do not call these people "Deniers" but rather "Doubters" as they see data that draws them to a different conclusion.

"Those who speak of the incompatibility of science and religion either make science say that which it never said or make religion say that which it never taught." Pope Pius XI. "Science is simply common sense at its best - that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic." Thomas H. Huxley "Great is the power of steady misrepresentation; the history of science shows that fortunately this power does not long endure." Charles Darwin

These men did not accept the notion that science is an unassailable thing, but rather that as knowledge changed, so did their perspective, and that is it should be; but these same men would be labeled "Deniers" based on the standards of today. I take umbrage at the term "Denier" but readily accept the title of "Doubter" as it is most descriptive of how I view the issue of "Climate Change".

To be clear, I do not challenge the fact that the climate is changing, only the conclusion that man is destroying the planet. How do they explain the surge in the growth of ice in the Arctic? Simple, overlook the data. When you look at the conflicting opinions and data that does not support their hypothesis of manmade GHGs as the source of "Climate Change" or "Global Warming", it (pardon the pun) "Does Not Hold Water".

Walter Mow 2015