February 26, 2012 Leave a comment
I have always been somewhat skeptical about the issue of global warming. Part of that is because I’m flat-out contrary. When a large group of people believes something to be true or likes an idea or even a movie (ahem, “Twilight”), I have a tendency to pull staunchly in the opposite direction. This is not necessarily logical thinking. I think it actually ranks somewhere between “crotchety grandfather” and “blackguard-cynic.” Whatever the case, I always think that there is no such thing as too much evidence, and in the case of global warming, I’m not convinced by the evidence that is generally available for mass consumption.
Now, I’ll admit up front that I’m no scientist. I find science interesting, but I would never claim to have an aptitude for it. That said, I have heard other theories of global warming that involve sunspots and periodic cooling and heating of the Earth’s surface due to natural climate change. I think it’s hard to argue that the Earth’s climate changes naturally, independent of any human influences. See the Ice Age for proof of this one.
I found the theory about sunspots to be compelling, though I’m not going to go too far into it today. Basically, what it states is that the sun goes through periods of heightened sunspot activity. This is known and documented by NASA. In fact, we are currently entering an “active” period for the sun. During this period, the extra radiation emitted from the sun actually blocks gamma radiation coming from space that would heat up the Earth. This would result in a cool-down. Now, whether or not this has any merit is beyond me, but it is interesting. From what I can tell on the Internet, many institutes think it’s a crock.
I was checking in at Mises today, and there was a new article called “The Skeptic’s Case” by Dr. David M.W. Evans, and it has a lot of really interesting information on global warming and why some (most?) scientists might be getting it wrong. This is one of the more scientific looks into the possible fallacies surrounding global warming that I have come across, and I found it a worthwhile read. Again, I do not claim to be any kind of climate change expert; I am not savvy on the subject by any stretch. That said, I think it’s healthy to explore all points of view.
I don’t think that pollution is a good thing, so don’t misunderstand me. I hardly think we should be poisoning our drinking water or killing off all the bees. Again though, I think it’s worthwhile to explore all angles of the argument, and this article struck me as a very good place to start with the counterargument.