When presenting scientific data fairly, it is important to give long-term perspective and context to that data. Yet, when we see CNN or MSNBC scientists come on and present their data, we only see the past 200 years, or maybe even the past couple thousand years. But what about over the long-term, say, within the past 425,000 years? You don’t see that very often.
Typically, when presented with the Earth’s historical average temperature, we are presented with a chart looking somewhat like this, you know, which as the line moves closer to the right, the colors mysteriously fade from blue to red, to somehow subliminally indicate things are getting out of hand and the Darwinian Doomsday is at the door:
If this is the only information you see (above), along with a long-winded scientific explanation that we are on a collision course with the forces of evolution if we don’t act, of course you are going to think we are on the verge of a global meltdown (literally) and need to work to try and steer the global temperature so that our coastal cities are not flooded from the ice caps melting, or whatever.
But what if you saw data that is not presented in the media, say, by other scientists who are actually being fair and giving you the larger context, the long-term picture of the climate temperature? Would you be convinced then that there was very little we could do about it? Well, here’s a long-term chart for you from the past 425,000 years:
As we can see, there has historically been quite a bit of fluctuation over the millenniums. Could it be there are many, many other factors beyond our ability to control that affect whether the atmosphere warms or cools? The overall, long-term evidence shows there are rather large fluctuations that have always occurred, yet life has persisted somehow for quite some time now. I mean, you would think maybe there’s a sovereign God in control of all things or something.
Now that’s not to say we should not try and take care of the Earth God has granted to us through reducing pollution and creating more efficient systems to create energy. I’m all for that. But I sure could do without the atheistic, gloomy worldview the “Going Green” and climate change movements arise from. And it would be nice if the small group of environmentalists out there would stop imposing on the majority a, might I say, religious worldview (in the form of legal reform, the very thing they accuse Christians of doing), a worldview system that is evangelizing short-term data alone to “prove” their case, all the while ignoring the long-term data readily available for their viewing pleasure, all in an attempt to back up what they view as the inevitable Darwinian destiny we all face IF we don’t act now.
I believe all of this is really just smoke and mirrors for systematically implementing a form of utopian socialism on a global scale, the fundamental theories of which we saw worked so well in practice in the USSR, China, Cuba, and North Korea, and now Venezuela, in upholding human rights and all. But never mind history and lessons that could be learned there. All of this just sounds like something to believe in, to make us feel “right” in ourselves, to unite us as one, to bring about some sort of eternal, permanent meaning to our existence, doing the thing religion does for people (particularly Christianity) without the fuss of believing that we will one day be held accountable by an infinitely powerful God who created us for His purposes, not ours, whom we have rebelled against with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, in every way imaginable, with every faculty of our being.
I guess I just do not understand why “believers” of the Darwinian persuasion even care really about going green if “from dust we come, to dust we go?” Who really cares within their worldview? We just die and that’s it. So what’s all the fuss about climate change in our culture? These things just happen, it’s the way things are. Why try to find any significance or meaning? Or why try and redeem any purpose for humanity if we are no better or worse (really of no more value) than rocks or fox’s or water? Could it be possible we have built within our being the inherent knowledge of an eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, almighty, awesome God who spoke matter into existence “ex-nihilo,” from nothing? And could it be we inherently sense that we do have meaning as humans beyond that of trees, rocks, and even other animals, but that we are somehow disconnected from that meaning, alienated even? I do believe it does. Scripture attests to all of this. Here is the meaning we are seeking after … http://www.westerfunk.net/gospel/
Charts and data taken from http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch … change.htm
Update at 4:19 pm:
Only Gore could take a giant natural disaster where people are suffering in ways we can’t imagine right now from our cushy offices and use it to push his marketing agenda:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/article … 60205.aspx
I believe at this point, people are so divided on “Global Warming” and now the new phrase that has been coined in its place, “Climate Change,” we need to all at the very least look at the problems and address them quickly. When you put global issues in terms of over-population, the destroying of vital terrestrial ecosystems like the rain forests, pollution of all forms (whether or not it’s causing global warming or not) are issues that all nations very quickly need to address with great urgency, because the world population is fixing to explode by 50% in the next 45-50 years. Here’s the problem though. In my estimation, every consumer “going green” only solves a marginal amount of the problem. Maybe more than marginal. But we need something more drastic.
Now let me start off by saying that I am in no way disputing the data that has come out from this panel. I’m sure it’s accurate. What I do question though is whether these scientists have done long term data studies to see if this happened back several thousand years ago, like many other scientists have done; or are they simply ignoring all the long-term data that other scientists have already published? Sure okay, the Earth is the warmest it has been in 400 years. But what about 2000, 4000, 6000, 10000 years ago? The data has already come out concerning this: we are in a natural warming phase of the Earth based on cyclical patterns analyzed by many other scientists besides this panel. And really, scientists are in agreement that the Earth is warming, but most agree that it is not caused by man-induced pollution. I mean come on, can you really conclude much from the past 400 years or even 1000 years? If you want to be logical about it, you need to take a step back and analyze data from several millenia to make an accurate assessment. This has already been done. And this is why I personaly conclude that this is just another political agenda thrown out by libs to try and win Capital Hill back from conservatives. They’re trying to look like the good-guys who are pro-environment, pro-nature, and the conservatives are the bad guys, destroying the forests, ruining the Earth, and thus (as many libs have hinted) conservatives are the cause of the hurricanes. This is non-sense. Most libs pollute just as much as conservatives. You can’t tell me all the hollywoodites don’t waste and consume products any less than their conservative counterparts, can you?