Thursday, July 27, 2006

Consensus vs. truth

With newspaper article after newspaper article trumpeting Al Gore’s version of global warming as being truth incarnate, I was surprised to read a somewhat opposing view printed in the Peoria Journal Star.  Can anyone say investigative reporting?

It was an article on the front page of the Star on June 25, 2006.  Of course, to the left was a blurb touting a Parade magazine article in the same newspaper.  The blurb declared “INSIDE PARADE: Many predicted changes in the climate have already begun—we are warming up the earth and we must stop.  Learn about the changes that are taking place and what you can do to affect climate change.”  Of course, Parade magazine has long ago become a mouthpiece for the libertines in our society so I don’t give much credence to anything they report.

Back to the actual article of concern for this post.  The headline stated “Midwest dodges global warming, so far.”  Quoting some of the pertinent material in the story:

“Has global warming hit the Midwest?

The answer state scientists say, is ‘no’ and ‘not yet.’

The long term averages that scientists use to measure climate change show the Midwestern climate has not changed, though it could change in the future, two scientists said.

‘The Midwest is an area where compared to the rest of the globe, there’s been relatively little warming.  Especially in summer, we haven’t seen much warming,’ said Ken Kunkel, director of the Center for Atmospheric Sciences for the Illinois State Water Survey.”

“Hilberg (‘Steve Hilberg, director of the Midwest Regional Climate Center for the water survey’—my addition) and Kunkel take a longer view and focus on climate going back to the 19th century.  Variation is the norm, they said.

‘Historically we’ve had much worse summers in the past than in recent years.’ Kunkel said.

‘The most intense heat in Illinois (was) in the 1930’s and we haven’t reached those levels, other than a few days here and there.’” (page A16)

“Scientists try to predict the future based on models.  ‘Rainfall models are varied.’ Kunkel said.  ‘Models project (both) wetter and drier.  There’s no consensus.  It’s uncertain,’ he said.” (page A16)

“Climate is never permanent, Hilberg said.  ‘Back in the late ‘70s, we had bad winters.  The scientific community was talking about a little ice age at that time.  Now it’s major warming.’

Warmer winters may be a normal variation, he said.

‘Probably there’s no disagreement that the climate is changing,’ Hilberg said.  ‘The biggest bone of contention is the magnitude, one or two degrees, or 10 to 12 degrees.  The magnitude of the trend is the $64,000 question.’” (page A16)

Weather is day to day.  Climate is the long term average of day to day weather.  Over the last 100 years, climate has increased in warmth by one degree.  That is probably a normal pattern although over time that pattern may reverse and a cooling period may occur.  Note that in the 1970’s, less than 40 years ago, scientists were predicting a cooling trend.  40 years is a short period of time when dealing with climate.  

According to these two scientists and others, we can not proclaim that we are facing an Al Gore’s projected global warming.  The earth has gone through cycles of warming and cooling as far as climate is concerned.  

Over time, climate does change.  The question is how much and in what direction.  Al Gore and his cohorts do not know that answer definitively.  Claiming they do is claiming to know the future.  They don’t!!!

Question: How can it be global warming if not all parts of the globe are warming?  Isn’t that a contradiction in the very concept of global warming?  

I don’t know if these two quoted scientists believe or don’t believe that man has walked on the moon.  I do know they are being scientific when they say there is no consensus on Al Gore’s concept of global warming.    

So, why do we tend to receive only one view on the issue?  The answer, in part, is control and intimidation.  The media controls the information presented.  If they present only one view that becomes, in part, the accepted view.  If a view becomes the accepted view, other views become less popular and individuals who hold those views are intimidated not to contradict the accepted view.  For example, it is claimed that everyone who does not accept the concept of global warming is wrong and they are compared to people who believe we did not have men on the moon.  Sound familiar?
However, even if there was a consensus, the consensus may not be correct.  Consensus does not necessarily equal truth!!!

I do not know if global warming as envisioned by Al Gore is occurring.  Neither does Al Gore.  And that is the truth!!!  



Post a Comment

<< Home