The chart above shows mean world-wide air temperature since the last glacial period. Other than the Ice Age 13,000 years ago, the trends above and below the average of 15°C have been slight, seldom exceeding one degree variation in either direction. Moreover, the vertical scale is confined between 10 and 17°C which tends to exaggerate the excursions from normal. If the vertical scale were to be set such that the maximum (maybe 55°C) and minimum (perhaps -40°C) observed surface air temperatures were at the top and bottom of the chart, one would be hard pressed to see a ripple in the average temperature curve being plotted.
Looking at the chart, we observe that the current trend is above the average line by a fraction of a degree. We also observe warm and cool periods taking place way before men had fossil fuel-burning machines. What caused the warm periods roughly 2, 4 and 7 thousand years ago? All three of those plus the medieval warm period meet or exceed the current warming trend being blamed on anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
The logical conclusion from all of this is that the climate and air temperatures do change over time, but there is no connection between anthropogenic activity and temperature trends. I guess that makes us who apply logic to the argument to be considered “Climate Change Deniers” even though we admit that the climate does change.
In fact, it’s quite evident that not only does the climate change naturally, but the warmer it is, the better. See the chart above. Earlier warm periods, which dwarf today’s warmth, were climate optimums. How is it that previous warmer times were referred to as climate optimums? Let’s look at the definition of optimum.
Used as an adjective, optimum means this: most conducive to a favorable outcome; best.
As a noun, this: the most favorable conditions or level for growth, reproduction, or success.
Will the term “optimum” have to be adjusted, or will the temperature need to be adjusted down to fit the current missive of impending disaster?
The “climate change denier” label is a straw man argument that is designed to isolate, demonize and destroy people with false labels.
The whole argument as to what is best for us going forward is simple.
1.) How much is man responsible for variances that were previously exclusively natural?
In my opinion, most of the warmth today is likely natural given the tiny amounts of CO2 relative to the entire system, of which the oceans have 1000x the heat capacity and are the great thermostat of the planet, taking centuries of action and reaction to reach where they are now.
2.) Is this worth the draconian reactions that will handcuff the greatest experiment in freedom and prosperity in history, the United States of America?
3.) This question may arise, if one wants: Would not the cost of adaptation to such things, rather than trying to correct what has always happened in the past anyway, be a sounder fiscal response?
Let’s remember, our own EPA administrator said all this would save .01 degrees Celsius in 30 years, and that it was mostly an example for the rest of the world. Color me skeptical that the rest of the world is going to follow; instead, it will take advantage of repercussions on the American way of life that this causes. Not every nation is our friend, after all, if you actually look at the real world. No one is against any form of clean, safe, cheap energy. I am against economic suicide like we have seen in Europe, which will then handcuff generations for the chance of economic peace and prosperity.
Increased CO2 in the atmosphere has never been proven to cause anything other than enhanced benefits for life, both flora and fauna. The drumbeat from the warmists is steady and their support from the media makes the feeble-minded proletariat all the more convinced that glaciers will melt and coastal cities will be destroyed. You know, the sky is falling, the end is near, etc.
