ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • Environment & Green Issues

A New View on Climate Science

Updated on March 31, 2017


The science of climate change or global warming have been wih us since the early 1990s. The theory was publicized by Vice President Al Gore in his award winning documentary film "An Inconvenient Truth."

- Feb. 2017

What Do We Know for Sure?

There are some things we do know for sure. We have a long history and records. The earth have been around 4 billion years or so. We humans have only been here a few 100,000 years. Our recorded history is only a small fraction of that of 5 thousand years.

From the ice core data, we know the earth have undergone many ice ages on the order of 100,000 year cycles. This, scientists have determined to be a natural phenomenon due to the orbits of the earth in reference to the sun and the tilt of the axis and the precession of the earth which repeats every 26,000 years.

For million of years, the earth has gone through this slow process of change with some periodic jolts due to astroids hitting the earth, volcanic activities and magnetic field reversals.

These are well established science and planetary events.

What We are Asked to Belief?

In order to present the theory of climate change due mainly to human activities, we have to buy into some basic assumptions.

1. The current period of climate from 1900-2000 or so, is what is ideal climate for humans. Thst is because we have accurate data covering this past 100 years, we know the average range of temperatures from the extreme cold to the hottest places on earth.

2. Our ecosystem, includes the oceans and forests and all animals, are in a state of balance. That is to say, it is an ideal environment where there is balance between animal life and plant life. A equilibrium if you will that exists and that we humans, in the last few decades of industrial revolution, have affected negatively.

3. We are the primary causes of recent climate change events and that we are changing the natural cycle in a dramatic way and in very short time frame, on the order of decades instead of 100,000 year natural cycles.

4. The only way we can restore this balance is by changing our behavior of reducing our energy use of fossil fuels which produces greenhouse gases....

5. If we don't follow these strict reduction guidelines, we are dooming our future and causing irreparable harm to the environment. The preservation of our environment is primary and foremost goal.

Let's Review To See If They are True

1. The average temperature of the Earth is ideal from 1900-2000. Why not 1800-1900, or 1700-1800, or 1600-1700? In fact, some scientist have studied this and determine there are advantages of a warming climate because of increase food production and longer growing periods... In past history, when the climate was cooler, we had less resources and could not sustain a large human population. It is only with modern farming methods that we are able to produce enough food to sustain 7 billion people on earth today. Therefore, this arbitrary designation by climate scientist that the past 100 years is ideal to humans is false. It is not a hard fact. The truth is, our planet have been through a much colder climate in the ice ages and even a warmer periods during high solar activities as during the medieval period.

2. The false ecosystem balance. The fact is, we were never in this balance. The earth ecosystem have undergone drastic changes in the past. Species have come and gone on a regular basis due to climate and other factors. The dinosaurs became extinct due to a meteorite stike 65 million years ago.

3. We humans are the primary causes of recent climate changes. It is changing much faster than natural variations. Is that really true? Some scientists have admitted they just don't know and they are also admitting the recent changes is within natural variations. Other scientists have made dire predictions that failed to materialize.

4. Reducing fossil fuel is not the only way to affect change. It is also an unknown of how much influence we have on the overall system since it is so complex and with many variables. For example, we may use geoengineering methods to affect climate. Some extreme proposals have been made and some are being considered such as adding aerosols impurities to exhausts of airplanes to counter the greenhouse effect.

5. The environment is the selling point of climate change proponents. They make the argument that cleaning environment is a bonus. They equate CO2 as a pollutant which it is not, at least by standard definition. CO2 is one of many greenhouse gases but it is also necessary for all life. The Carbon cycle is basic to life on earth.

What the EPA Projects for the Northeast?

Here is direct link to the EPA site on changes to the Northeast due to climate change.

The projections are too extreme...

The Northeastern climate is experiencing noticeable changes that are expected to increase in the future. Between 1895 and 2011, temperatures rose by almost 2°F and projections indicate warming of 4.5°F to 10°F by the 2080s.[1] The frequency, intensity, and length of heat waves is also expected to increase. The total amount of precipitation and the frequency of heavy precipitation events has also risen in the region.[1] Between 1958 and 2012, the Northeast saw more than a 70% increase in the amount of rainfall measured during heavy precipitation events, more than in any other region in the United States.[2] Projections indicate continuing increases in precipitation, especially in winter and spring and in northern parts of the region. However, the timing of winter and spring precipitation could lead to drought conditions in summer as warmer temperatures increase evaporation and accelerate snow melt.


The climate change debate will go on for some time. There are too much invested in this controversy. Unfortunately, it has also been politicized by a small group of environmental extremists and globalists who are using it to level the playing field.

I am hopeful that with time, common sense will eventually prevail. The earth and climate is a huge and complex system. No one factor can dominate. If anything, the very size of it is the only true fact. Regardless of the causes of climate change, the benefit of size cannot be underestimated. Because of the size of the earth, any changes will take a long time to make a dent one way or another. This gaves all of us hope that we have the means and the time to deal with any adverse effect of climate change, both warming and cooling.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 11 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Doc, have you had a chance to read the report cited in the previous posted link?

      It seems the observation of climate in 2016 is not as dire as claimed...

      Just wondering your views on this. Is this report biased? Or does it have a point? After all, it is based on real observations instead of climate models...

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 11 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Latest report on climate observation in 2016 -

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 11 months ago from Yorktown NY

      An article from 2011 worth reading -

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 11 months ago from Yorktown NY

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 12 months ago from Yorktown NY

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 12 months ago from Yorktown NY

      You are correct we have the technology to deal with this. I disagree that government is the only way. For one thing, government is very inefficient. The changes or mitigation for a warmer climate are many. It may include better power sources, relocating coastline cities, or better construction of new buildings... In any case, the private sector will come up with the optimum solution.

    • profile image

      Sanxuary 12 months ago

      I believe we have the technology to change our future. I do not believe corporations can lead this change. I think the government must truly lead this change for it to happen. From there it can help lead corporations to better changes. We have to truly decide what the dangers are and find a reason forward. If costlines are going to rise then what do we do? Do we wait for the disaster? Instead why do we not create a coastal damn system and make energy doing it? Push the coast out and make a thriving fish farming industry. I could come up with a lot of ideas. The reinvention of America is the key. Replacing everything we have created so far with something even better. People should not live on coastlines, on top of volcanoes and we can build a better World that can survive better in a disaster.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 12 months ago from Yorktown NY

      So there solution to this perceived problem is to allow the UN to dictate policy, transfer wealth from developed nations to the rest...

      Spend tax $$$ on endless models that don't work.

      Prevent the 3 rd world nations from industrializing since that would involve more fossil fuel...

      Create carbon credits to bring profits to people like Al Gore so he can jet around and buy masion along a beach...

      Sounds like you buy into all this guilt. Are you driving an electic car yet?

    • Oztinato profile image

      Oztinato 12 months ago from Australia

      Indigenous isolated people without political exposure are saying the same thing as intelligent scientists ie the climate is drastically and negatively changing due to man.

      Only greedy corporations and bloated orange CEOs are in denial because climate change is "bad for business" therefore to them it can't be true. It's just their greedy infantile view of the world.