Human Caused Global Warming: Real or Imagined?

January 29, 2008
by Cliff Carson

Human caused Global warming is one of the more controversial issues facing the world today. It potentially can effect the survival of the human race as we know it, or depending on the rightness or wrongness of the theory, could affect our life as to the amount of government control it might initiate, exercised on everything we can or cannot do. The best scenario would be that human caused Global warming does not take place.

But if it is truly occurring, then we must do every thing we can to stem the trend if for no other reason than simply to save the human race. If it's not already too late. In 2002 an iceberg the size of Rhode Island broke off the Antarctic Ice shelf opening up water that has been frozen over for the past 12,000 years. Is this a sign of human caused Global Warming, or is this just a natural occurrence of Nature that has happened countless times in the ageless past?

Global warming is defined as a continued rise in the earth's atmosphere. And this is a phenomenon that has endured over the entire life of Earth. But Global warming today is often represented in many circles as the direct result of human pollution of Earth's ecosystem. This is a false presentation. Global warming and cooling is established fact, but the "Human Caused" Global warming is nothing more than a controversial theory.

At this point we really need to separate the two theories, Global Warming is a result of Human input to the system versus Global warming is a natural occurrence of which Human input is of no effect. Both ideas are being discussed but are often co-mingled as one and the same. We can control the Human side, but we have absolutely no control over natural fluctuation, it will happen no matter what we do.

The Human Global Warming Theory was first put forth in the early 1970's. Basically the theory is this: That due to the industrial pollution caused by the rise of our world's industry and in the continued use of fossil fuel, such as oil and coal, the atmosphere of the earth is becoming saturated with fine particles and chemicals that keep heat from the sun trapped in Earth's environment with a result that the overall temperature of the earth is continually rising.

The supporters of this theory raise an alarm that Earth's temperature will continue to rise to the point that the environmental system will become unable to support current plant life that feeds the animal food chain. The implication is that the world would ultimately perish if something isn't done to reverse global warming. If the theory is true, then everyone on earth will be affected one way or another. A failure to reverse the warming will ultimately mean the end of all life on earth. But if the theory is false, then there is still something to worry about - that those who believe it to be true will seize the opportunity to exercise control over the lives of all who inhabit the planet.

And what if China and India for example don't agree and therefore won't join in to "save the world" What then? During a discussion about Global warming recently in the Senate, Senator Boxer, when asked if the United States should place a caveat on U S controls depending on China and other countries joining in a treaty to stop pollution stated that she doesn't take her orders from China and therefore wouldn't change U S Policy because of what China does or does not do.

Now think of that asinine statement. They were talking about "World" pollution. And of course what the rest of the world does about human caused Global warming would have a consequence on every life on Earth. That includes us. If we truly believe that human caused Global warming is leading to the end of life on earth, should we attempt to force all that disagree to conform to whatever controls we impose? Would force mean war? If we are to go to war with China or other countries, should we use Nuclear weapons, that could also cause the end of life on earth? What I am interested in is what are the ramifications of making a wrong decision?

Unfortunately, confusion is generated by the way climate data is presented. Human caused theory believers don't properly broadcast the facts concerning natural fluctuation of climate, inferring that everything can be blamed on human pollution and the anti-theory disclaimers want to place all climate change on natural fluctuation. What the world needs to know is what percent of the temperature fluctuations (up or down) is caused by humanity and how. And it needs to be presented in easily discernable and provable form.

The conclusions need to have irrefutable proof that the human pollution input to the system is consequential to Global warming. Then and only then can we decide what the influence of humanity is on climate fluctuation. As an example, since the dawn of the industrial age (about 1850) the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen from 280 PPM (Parts per Million) to about 360 PPM. Depending on which side of the theory you are on, that increase can be represented as a 29 % increase (80/280) or a rise of 80 PPM which is an 8/1000th of 1% increase of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere, up from 28/1000th of 1% to 36/1000th of 1%. It's all in the presentation.

And what caused the Global warming and cooling before human pollution? Remember it comes in very predictable cycles.

The long-term threat to humanity is therefore real, whether the human pollution theory is true or false. The only way that the average citizen can come out of this dispute unharmed is for the theory to be false and for all in power to agree that it is false. However that leaves a potential problem: That the theory might not be false. And that leaves just one thing for us to do. Determine which is correct - true or false, and then act to solve the real problem. The survival of the human race may depend on what we do now. In either instance we will be impacted.

(Article Continues Below)

The case for global warming is easy to support. Evidence to support Global warming abounds. "The current weather this year where we have floods and such is caused by changing weather patterns caused by an earth that has been experiencing a growing temperature since the industrial age began around 1800". "In fact, not only has the past year been the hottest on record, but the past century has been the hottest in the last 600 years". We are bombarded with statements like these daily and they are immediately followed by claims that most reputable scientist agree it is the fault of humanity. This is a common error observed in the use of Statistics - the treating of Independent events as if they were Dependent events. That type of data manipulation yields inferences that are incorrect.

Scientists have been measuring a hole in the ozone layer over the South Pole and found that it was growing larger by the year. If the ozone layer is destroyed then humanity is in serious trouble. This layer of ozone screens out the ultraviolet rays from the sun and not only helps cool the earth, but left unchecked, will cause cancer and other effects to become rampant.

Supposedly the ozone layer was broken down by aerosol sprays that are used any time you spray something from a can. But now the hole has been measured to be smaller - why? Have we stopped using Aerosols?

People who study the oceans have noted that the level of the water in the oceans is rising steadily. And the water level has risen over the past 100 years. This rising sea level has been blamed on melting of glaciers and the ice cap of the poles, all caused by the rising temperatures caused by human pollution. But over the ages, before human industrial input, those ocean levels have fluctuated as much as ninety feet. And humanity had noting to do with it. The ocean levels have risen about 1 inch in the last 100 years.

The case against human caused global warming is just as strong as the case supporting the theory. Not all scientists believe that doom and gloom preached by the global warming theorists. The worlds weather always fluctuates - always has, always will, they say. And they can present mountains of data to back up their position. The historical record of the world's weather shows periodic fluctuations that are much more severe than what is now being observed. Those who think that our current weather driven by the El Nino weather system is caused by human caused global warming, ignore that there have been colossal El Nino's over the past 5000 years and there was no human industrial output to cause global warming then.

Ice ages show the advance and retreat of great sheets of ice that would have to be caused by a decline and rise in world temperature but there was no industrial waste spewed into the atmosphere then, so what caused the ice ages? It certainly wasn't human caused global warming. And the worry about the rising sea levels is misplaced since the historical record shows that seas levels have risen and fallen over time. The historical record of those fluctuations could not have been caused by human Industrial input.

No provable facts are available to indicate that global warming is caused by mankind and that leaves us to ponder - which theory is right? Many weather scientists have gone on record as stating " It cannot be determined from current evidence whether El Nino's are becoming more frequent or more severe due to global warming. The weather data sample is just too small for a proper determination to be made.

We must remember that 100 or even 1000 years in the history of the earth is just a blip in time. Sufficient information is not available to determine whether mankind can save the world and ensure their survival. If it weren't for the seriousness of the consequences, this situation would be laughable. Since we are presented with having to make a decision of either accepting or rejecting the Human Caused theory, and with human survival the motivation to make a correct decision, we need to make the most informed decision possible.

Why you should become concerned is easily addressed. Whether the human pollution theory is real or imagined, you will be at risk. The risk of government control; is real. Whichever way the theory is seen by those in control, it will be a good excuse to exercise control over society. Depending on who you listen to, an international treaty to stem global warming will create 800,000 jobs, or put 1.8 million people out of work, it will cost the United States nothing, or will consume 2 to 4 percent of the GNP and deliver a massive recession. At least these results are just economic. But a wrong decision on human caused global warming could also be a life extinction event for mankind.

Hardly anyone wants to admit the uncertainties of global warming. It's politically incorrect to question whether this is a real problem that thinking people ought to take seriously. But it would be political suicide to do anything costly about it. Here is what we know: In the past century, average surface temperature has risen about 1 degree. The widespread suspicion and the basis of the Human caused theory is that these two things are related. The rival theory of Natural fluctuations is that the small temperature rise is a periodic climate variation. Here's what we don't know: We don't know how much, or if, temperatures might rise in the next century. We don't know - despite much scare talk - what the effects of warming might be. We don't know how to prevent warming. We don't seem to even know for sure what is causing it.

The idea that global warming is a certain calamity simply isn't proven. But if we are not careful we will lose something in either case as has already been discussed. We must give the global warming theory intense investigation. Every fact possible must be thoroughly examined for its effect on our future. We must treat this controversy as seriously as if our very existence depended on it - because it just might. And we must absolutely join with the rest of the world to find the solution.

If you enjoyed this post, please make a donation to help keep this website active: