Organized "science" is almost always wrong.
The same has been true of most important shifts in our understanding of the NATURAL processes to which the planet is subject.
It was not that long ago that "science" ridiculed the idea that the continents moved as impossible... although most now over-subscribe to plate tectonic theories to the degree of now having lost a proper degree of skepticism, in the opposite extreme expecting it has to be able to explain everything, while almost everyone in geology believes in a more or less plastic crustal covering over the entire earth.
It's also been not very long since geology dismissed entirely the possibility of there ever being catastrophic scale events... believing that the planet and the universe were benign enough to grant us only risks due to gradual changes. Today, of course, we properly interpret the data to show the planet, like others in the solar system, has been subject to major bombardment from objects in space, and that the western U.S. has been subject to monumental scale flooding... which many were aware of necessarily being true... the evidence is obvious... but, "science" still saw fit to ridicule the proponents of actually doing science by OBSERVING FACTS first... and then drawing conclusions... instead of determining desired conclusions first, and then trying to make the facts fit. Gradualism has now given way to accepting catastrophism... but, again, now to a degree in excess that has "science" again being wildly irrational in relation to fearfully confusing cause and effects in relation to the history of global temperatures and the CO2 levels. And, not just today, but in recent history, that's an error in focus that has been particularly true of climate...
The debate about the natural cycles in climate aren't new... en.wikipedia.org
Note, in that article... local people understood clearly enough that glaciers moved erratic boulders... but, "science" decided it had to be far more of a puzzle... and they couldn't accept the obvious ?
And, then, it took almost two centuries before "science" would accept that cyclic glaciations had occurred ?
The same link shows data which is consistent with modern readings of the long term data... which clearly PROVE that the historical linkages between temperature and CO2 have temperature rising naturally in cycles. Those cycles are likely controlled by the earth's exposure to cyclic phenomena in space... but, in any case, there are multiple cycles showing temperatures rising FIRST... with CO2 rising as a lagging factor... probably only as a function of a couple of generations of accumulated plant material decaying... with the warmer temperatures making the planet more hospitable for life, generating more plants to decay...
Our current spike in CO2 levels... comes from coal and oil based fuels driving a re-introduction of previously sequestered carbon from fossil plants... which can be expected to make plants all around the globe quite happy... but, there is no evidence in the long term record that suggests CO2 causes higher temperatures... rather than the opposite.
The data show the planet naturally cycles... between warm wet periods with lush vegetation (which is where and when the coal and oil came from)... and cold dry periods making the planet into a dusty desert...
 |
