The sun shines on the arrogant few

The last I heard about global warming was that—surprise! surprise!—when the sun melts the permafrost the lately labeled greenhouse gas methane is released. This is real science. I read this at physorg.com where I also read about quantum mechanics, outer space and medical news. The global warming humanocentrics—those who believe that global warming is solely due to humanity—would find this appalling, except that they do not read physorg.com. In fact, I don’t think they read any real science. Which creates quite a conundrum.

The homocentric global warming claque say that science is on their side and they believe in science, so that anyone—scientists or not—who holds a different view is a climate sceptic. (I use the British spelling of the word for its double entendre abilities.) That is, in shouting at the tops of their lungs that they only believe in science, they deny real science.

This, of course, does not bother the real scientists at all; they keep on doing their research—including field research and historical research—and publish it in real scientific journals. All of these scientists believe in global warming, they just do not believe it is caused solely by humanity’s behavior. There’s just too much evidence to the contrary.

I’m happy that the humanocentrics are not so much in the news lately. I’m not happy that the news media blows off real science. But I’m not surprised. It’s to be expected nowadays.

Here is an example of an absurd humanocentric belief that, according to William Nordhaus has been proven via computer simulation: there is absolutely no way there could be global warming without humanity’s ill-got behavior (Cf. The New York Times Review of Books, Mar 22, 2012, “Why the Global Warming Skeptics are Wrong,” pp 32–34).

First, Nordhaus’s “scientific fact” says that there has never been global warming before the advent of industrial revolution technology. This qualifier—the advent of industrial revolution technology—is an unstated assumption in Nordhaus’s humanocentric science’s factoid—etymologically “something like a fact”—because for millions of years before the advent of industrial revolution technology there have been humans and on and off for millions of years there have been periods of global warming. Further, there can be no comparison because this present global warming warming hasn’t happened (and dissipated) yet. Projections of weather conditions are notoriously wrong.

Second, real scientists of every discipline and historians know—for a fact—that Nordhaus’s humanocentric scientist’s finding is simply not true. That is, real scientists have proof to the contrary: such as the Sahara Desert, Death Valley and the Azolla (ferns) found fossilized above the Arctic Circle, as well as The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles and Serreze and Barry’s findings that about 55 million years ago parts of the Arctic supported subtropical ecosystems (The Arctic Climate System, Cambridge University Press, New York: 2005).

However, global warming’s humanocentrics’ history does not go back very far: the most I’ve heard is 100 years. At the time I read this 100 years would have taken us back to the late 19^th century, about the time the mini-ice age ended and the world began to warm up, returning us to the temperatures of the Middle Ages, a time of discovery and cultural blossoming.

Third, did you know that C02 is a by-product of digestion? And that since C02 is too large a molecule to be absorbed we get rid of it by farting? (The smelly ones are H2S mostly.) I’m glad the homocentric global warmers don’t know this or they’d be pushing butt plugs.

Fourth, a computer simulation is not science nor does it prove anything, according to Karl Popper. Karl Popper says that computer simulations only prove what you want them to prove. The simulationists are only putting into the equation the variables they want (or believe are all there is). So, simulations don’t really prove anything.

Oops.

But that’s okay. The humanocentrics don’t read Karl Popper.

Let’s take things a step further.

These humanocentric global warmers are Armageddonists. They believe that global warming will kill off humanity. And they believe this will happen soon as opposed to hundreds of years. So, what are they doing about it? Nothing. Nothing other than fretting in a feathered fury.

For instance, these self-important people panic over the release of methane and its devastating effects but they don’t bother to think of ways to contain or use the methane, as ancients did. To do anything would undercut Armageddon.

Others who actually see a future are doing something that will make the gas useful.

There really isn’t much difference between the global warming humanocentrics and America’s own schismatic Christian Armageddonists. Why, you might ask, are these kinds of people so anxious for and exulting over the end of the world?

I don’t know.

But I think they are hunkered down in their anti-sceptic tanks creating more rationalizations or they’d not be so quiet.

Thought does not seem to be a biggie in the global warming anti-sceptic tanks.

Let me recap . . . yes. The earth is warming up. No, it is not solely due to humanity’s behavior. No, it is not the end of the world. Because there have been many over the years. Always, though, it has been catastrophic ice ages that have reduced humanity almost to extinction. (Why did Malthus not think of creating an ice age to control overpopulation of the poor and disadvantaged? It would, of course, be another act of God. As if God only does disasters.)

So. The sun heats up the permafrost and this releases methane. Double bad, sun!

Do the humanocentric global warmers know that the earth’s axis was altered a few years back and that the northern hemisphere ,in particular, is getting more sun, i.e., heat?

No. Of course not. Humanity could not have changed the tilt of the earth’s axis and everything is humanity’s fault. So, it only stands to reason . . .

Why is this important? Because when all of the means by which to control the humanocentric idea of global warming is in place and functioning, there will still be global warming. Then real science can take over, hopefully before the true deniers begin bellowing that’s it’s all hokum and stop the helpful anti-pollution, anti-environmental changes.

Copyright © 2013 Euripides and Minna vander Pfaltz