I’d like to start by bursting a very old bubble.  Scientists and Intellectuals like to portray themselves somehow “above it all.”  They are just people.  Before telling you that anyone who questions man made climate change is ignorant, intellectually dishonest or a hack liar for big business they will first describe themselves as seekers of truth motivated only by the facts – the data.  Horse hockey.  Scientists live in a world of grants, tenure and pressure to “publish or perish.”  The threats to the academic careers of “deniers” have already been well documented.  Imagine the pressure on those who agree with the “party line” of man-made change, but are betrayed by uncooperative (or should I say inconvenient) facts.  We already know of two important “fact enhancements” performed by researchers to get the data to agree with the party line.

This isn’t new.  In an earlier post I mentioned the Pythagoreans and Galileo.  Lest you think that perhaps things are different now I would cite the case of J H Bretz in the early 1900s.  There is a geologic feature in Washington State called the scablands.  It is very unusual.  Bretz studied the scablands for several years and arrived at a remarkable conclusion.  He published his findings and his conclusion that the scablands were formed not by normal geologic processes over eons, but by catastrophic floods of unbelievable proportions.  The “establishment” representing the scientific consensus quickly attacked Bretz.  Brezt had just begun a 40-year battle that would go on until it was finally acknowledged that he, like Galileo, was right.  He humorously suggested at age 96 that he won only because he outlived all of his critics.  Interestingly, there were a few scientists whose own research lead them to agree with Bretz, but were afraid to do it publicly for fear of hurting their academic careers.

Also interesting was an interview of Neil Degrasse Tyson by Charlie Rose.  In it he proposed that the mainstream media was failing the public by giving news coverage to the deniers.  He used the term “equal” coverage, which is a crock.  The media will do a several minute segment on the scientific consensus and finish up with a line or two about the deniers’ position delivered usually with a tone of disdain.

OK, let’s take a look at the chart above.  (The chart has been moved to PART 2)  This is a chart of the global temperature for the last 350,000 years.  Remember now, this is not my data.  This is U.S. gummamint data.  NOAA data to be specific.  Note the four yellow columns.  They are numbered at the top.  These yellow bands mark the peaks of the interglacial (warm) periods.  They may also be called the “glacial minimums.”  Notice that there have been four in the last 350,000 years according to the scientists’ data.  One important fact you need to understand from this chart is that the temperature is always going up or down.  Just look at the chart.  There are trends that go up then down that constitute the three glacial epochs on the chart, but on that trend line there are constant little rises and declines along the way.   There are no horizontal lines on the temperature graph.  Now that doesn’t mean that the temperature for a few hundred years could not remain relatively static.  If you look closely at the magnified detail at the top of the chart between bands 3 and 4, you will see a tiny red dot right above the peak at 10k years ago.  That dot represents a period of 396 years.  Also from that detail you can see that over the last 12,000 years the trend line has flattened out.  There are still rises and declines within the trend and there have been cooling spikes of almost a full degree at about 10,500 and 2,500 years ago.  Let me mention that NOAA in full political correctness mode refrains from using the dating conventions BC and AD and instead uses BP (before present).

Also notice the horizontal line passing near the three upper peaks of the interglacial temperature graph line.  This is the average temperature of the peaks of those last three interglacials.  Of special interest is the peak of the current interglacial.  If you look closely at the line indicating the current global temperature in band 4, you will see that the current temperature is three degrees cooler than the average of the previous three interglacials.  Why is that?  I don’t know.  More importantly, the scientists don’t know.  They talk about man made warming adding a degree to our current temperature, but it would have to climb three degrees just to be average for an interglacial period.

I would ask that you look carefully at the chart.  Look at the similarities of the temperature spikes in bands 1 and 2.  Then look at the similarities of the “soft” spikes in bands 3 and 4.  Look at the myriad of rises and declines across the entire length of the temperature record.  In my next post I’d like to talk about some interesting facts regarding the glacial maximum periods, sea levels, polar bears and some possible causes for these temperature variations.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s