Frankly, I was a bit surprised when I read this blog, since it kind of twisted what I believe *a bit*. I’ve always believe that human are the biggest contributor for the climate changes. We are responsible because of our reckless development and industries *even though, I do not point my finger to certain subject*.
However, the article kind of broaden my perspective about climate changes … what have caused climate changes and its underlying issues. The article was taken from:
“The Present Climatic Fluctuation” by Hans W. Ahlmann (namesake of the Ahlmann Glacier), of the Swedish Geographical Institute, published in The Geographical Journal, Volume 112, No. 4/6, pages 165-193.
and I quoted them from Fabius Maximus and his excellent blog. I kind of fascinated by Fabius‘ conclusion, which literally I well understood compare to the journal author itself.
This is his conclusion:
(1) Anthropological global warming (AGW, caused by us) is more difficult to prove than global warming
The data showed clear indications of global warming in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Hence the difficulty of demonstrating AGW as a substantial driver of current warming, since the natural warming trend was established before massive global industrialization. Proving causation requires more than showing a trend, since the trend was already there. This is a repeated fallacy of general media articles about global warming (but not, of course, of the climate science literature).
(2) Keeping the public ignorant of normal climate cycles
The inconvenient truth about 19th and 20th century warming is omitted from many “educational” articles and movies, along with any mention of past climatic swings. Doing so makes it easier to arouse fears about AGW by exploiting the public’s ignorance of history and logic. AGW can be proven by appealing to post hoc ergo propter hoc — if industrialization preceded warming, then industrialization must have caused warming. This is a wonderful use of propaganda: false fact used to support false logic.
(3) Will warming on balance help or hurt humanity?
A thorough, balanced analysis might show that the global warming forecast will cause net harm to humanity. Or perhaps not. Has anyone done such an analysis? Unfortunately today the path to fame and glory today comes from articles attributing only ill effects from global warming – no matter how outlandish. One can read many, many articles before finding any hints that warming might have a few good effects.
So, there are the new perspective … which I most outline for the third conclusion. I guess, I just need to start looking for those outlandish facts …
1 Comment
July 14, 2008 at 6:58 am
Thanks for sharing this, I would love to be your friend