Global Warming or Man’s Inflated Ego

I preface this by stating:

• I know this is a controversial matter and I am not attempting to prove or disprove anything. I am merely commenting on my observation of what I believe could be considered, in the right light, as a rather amusing debate.
• I confess that I do have an opinion on the matter and it is difficult to hide in my writing.
• Additionally, I believe humankind is to be as responsible in caring for the planet on which we live.
• This is a tad lengthy...

Recently leaked snippets of a draft summary of the next report of the “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” (a global warming study) bring to light just how passionate people can be about what they believe.

Many people of all ages are completely convinced, or perhaps I should say hoodwinked, that the phenomenon of global warming is purely a human caused condition affecting our planet. Maybe this is because Al Gore has told them so, and since he did invent the internet after all, he is an incredibly reliable source of information. The wonderful “free” media in the U.S. would like to blame their favorite target, President George W. Bush. However, with only a little bit of internet research, one can easily find that there is far from scientific consensus on the issue. Additionally, it should be noted that all the signs and indicators leading to the conclusion that man is at fault, may also be linked to natural earth cycles or astronomic events completely beyond anything man could be capable of.

The first thing one who attempts to be an objective observer must note is the language of what has been informally “released” from the uncompleted report. “It is more than 90 percent likely that global warming since 1950 has been driven mainly by the buildup of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases…” In addition, from the previous report, “there is a 66 percent to 90 percent chance that human activities are driving the most recent warming.” The words ‘likely’ and ‘chance’ are not words associated with absolutes, if they were, gambling would be far more lucrative. These are possibilities. I emphasize the word possibilities. It is possible that the sun could quit shining. It is like a weather forecast: it is possible that it could rain this afternoon, but in reality given the time of year. If we were to get precipitation today, it is more likely that it would be snow. It is likely, it is possible, there is a chance… these are words associated with what could be, what might be. I have tried to remain objective in this are so while the evidence considered may suggest that it could be a possibility, it is far from conclusive.
One needs only to quickly peruse the internet on the subject to find that there is far ranging debate on the subject and there is far from any consensus among scientists on the matter. One article states that the real reason for global warming is that the sun is responsible. Imagine that. Yes, the sun has apparently gotten a little hotter over the last century and that it is increasing the temperature of the earth. Inconceivable: that big round ball of fire in the sky might actually make it hotter here on earth; imagine that. That article also noted that this is a concept worthy of more study and that man and his SUVs may not be responsible at all.

I have been absolutely amazed at the recent “Letters to the Editor” in the local paper that have taken the words from this report lead people to believe that this whole matter is now proven fact and that all the “real” scientists agree that it is so. One letter from on man proclaimed that only “flakes and flat-earthers” deny that humankind is unequivocally responsible for global warming. I was so glad to be convinced because I do not want to be a “flake” or a “flat-earther.” Another person wrote in that the problem lies with all the large farming equipment emissions and also cited a somewhat recent study relating bovine methane emissions contributing to the problem; then went on to reference a website about veggies for the environment. This writer also mentioned the excessive deforestation to support cattle grazing and crop production. This is insightful. I would have to infer from this that we should eliminate all the cattle from the earth to reduce the bovine methane emission problem and cease to use large heavy farming equipment. Therefore, the solution takes care of itself. Humankind would no longer be able to contribute to global warming because most of the population would starve to death. How and where, I wonder, does this pro-vegetable person get their vegetable from, a grocery store, perhaps? I could be wrong, but I would bet they are not growing enough vegetables on their own to feed themselves and their family for an entire year. Hence, their proposed “solution” is reliant on an industry they decry. Oh, and I wonder if and how the environmentalists would consider the impending extinction of cattle. Is it okay because they are not wildlife but domestic animals? Of course, human extinction would probably be acceptable as a solution to this purported problem except that it is also entirely possible that the excess gases released from masses of decaying bodies will only further contribute to the problem. Another, more humorous writer suggested this might be a good thing because the warmer weather was more enjoyable and provided a longer growing season. He must be a farmer.

I must confess I am left puzzled by some of these interesting propositions.
I put forth some questions that I have considered. Is it possible that it is part of a natural cycle in the life of our planet? God made our planet to be like a living organism and it has cycles that it goes through as part of its life, similar to the creatures He has placed on it. Is it something simpler like the amount of time that we have been able to keep accurate records of the earth’s temperatures is simply not long enough to get an accurate picture of the cooling and warming cycles that our earth goes through? Is it possible that based on this, the computer models just do not have enough information to make a reliable prediction of what could happen over the next 100 years?

In general, the intent of my commentary is to encourage those who read this to give the matter some study and analytical thought. I will end with the assertion that I believe man might be just a little too full of himself to think that we ultimately have control over, or are the cause of such major global changes, good or bad.