Global Warming - myth or reality? News reports recently (circa Aug 2004) suggested that in the last century global temperatures rose 0.6 degrees Fahrenheit. First question coming to my mind is why Fahrenheit? The scientific community generally uses Centigrade/Celsius to describe temperatures. Thinking about it, perhaps because most Americans are not very scientific or technical and wouldn't understand... But there could be another reason, the fact that 0.6 F is only 0.3333333 Celsius. If you're trying to sway someone into thinking you have a serious problem, of course you use bigger numbers. Either way, it's a fraction of a degree for about 100 years of recorded meterological data. However, you hear the environmentalists, socialists and ecologists declaring that within another 70 years there will be global warming many times that amount. In one article they extrapolate 3 to 8 degrees within the next 90 years or so, based on the last 100 years which only revealed a fraction of a degree. Again, questions come to mind. Our meterological records are not that extensive, perhaps 100 years worth of somewhat accurate data over what, 4,000 years of known history, or 4 million plus years of supposed existence based on the evolution model? A fraction of a degree over 100 years is not likely to be very significant. One must consider the other cycles that we know about such as solar cycles, and other patterns that we've been able to see in recent history and as recorded in tree rings. We simply do not have enough data to show that this is a real problem. We can not panic either and stop all technological advancement because of fears based on incomplete information. We must analyze and monitor, but do so in an unbiased and objective manner. It is clear that many involved in these dire predications have an agenda. Their worldviews are such that man is perceived as a threat to the planet, a virus that should be exterminated. This is a flawed world view that is not based on history, logic or science. We are as much a part of this planet as any other species. If your worldview includes the Bible then you understand man to be placed on this planet as part of the creation to manage and tend it. Man is to be the master of it and placed in a role of stewardship. We are not to let the planet "go wild" because it is under a curse. We are to work it, to manage it, to tend it. We have been given resources to use for our betterment. We are to be fruitful and multiple. Good stewardship mandates that we treat the planet wisely. Producing toxins and not handling them properly is not a good idea. However, we know from nature that many toxins are produced from natural sources and the planet does quite well with them. Volcanoes being one of the largest "natural" polluters. Animal methane and other gases produced by rotting vegetation are another. We should monitor what we do, but we must also monitor what we think and how we react to data. We must be aware of the worldviews involved as well as the data that we are looking at. We must use good science to understand what is going on, not emotional reactions and fear, uncertainty and doubt. Global warming may or may not be a real issue. But we simply do not have enough data to know for certain. To say that we do is disingenuous. The recent movie about global warming was filled with junk science, was primarily an emotional adventure. The scientific community must be willing to present information in an objective manner, identifying the uncertainties and working with integrity. If it doesn't, it will lose credibility... unfortunately in the meantime "knee-jerk" legistlation, treaties, laws and restrictions imposed based on this junk science will continue to haunt mankind, impose onerus costs, and impede the betterment of mankind through technology. On the other hand, some of the concerns are forcing designs and improvements in technology that are more efficient and less polluting. However, limitations in our understanding has caused us to make changes that eliminate the use of known good materials for ones that could be far worse. We simply do not know and must accept that as an answer. Reacting emotionally to issues does not solve the problems, it creates more. Question assumptions, question ideas, question worldviews. Insist on objective and measureable data. Whether a person is a pagan mother earth goddess worshipping scientist, or a Bible believing creationist who trusts Jesus Christ, should be immaterial... science should be objective. It's the analysis and interpretation of the data that MUST be questioned. The gathering of data can even be affected by the worldview and the preconceived notions of the analyst. We have to focus on the data and maintain integrity above all else. Our world views will differ and WILL affect how we interpret information. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- excerpts from: http://my.netscape.com/corewidgets/news/story.psp?cat=50201&id=2004121112170001272176 (who cares what a 37 year old farmer in a third world country thinks??? that is NOT science, it's emotion. What does history, archeology and meterology reveal about the patterns in the climate and weather? We must THINK and not react.) ------------ A study by Tom Wigley of NCAR and Sarah Raper of the Climatic Research Unit in Britain found a 90 percent probability global temperatures will rise 3.1 to 8.9 degrees between 1990 and 2100 as a result of human influences if greenhouse gas emissions continue unchecked. ------------ Other experts disagree, saying Earth's temperatures have varied greatly over time, and little is known about how the atmosphere copes with temperature change. ``If you look at the long-term records of temperatures, you will see periods warmer than today and periods colder than today,'' said John Cristy, a climatologist at the University of Alabama. ``We don't see the same warming in the deep atmosphere,'' he said. ``If it were man-made, that's where you would see the warming.'' ---------------------------------------------------------------------------