Climate Change

My eldest niece is 16. She is a very sweet girl with a heart of gold. However, she goes to government-run indoctrination centers (public school) and thus, has not been taught how to independently think. She has bought into the mantra of "people are destroying the environment" and is very vocal about it. When her family of 6 was visiting a few weeks ago, she complained when we ate dinner off of Styrofoam plates.

First, let me say that I believe it possible to be skeptical of "man-made climate change" and still have a healthy respect for the environment. As a matter of fact, I believe that Christians have a God-given obligation to watch over the environment in much the same way as a trust-fund manager has the responsibility to oversee a trust fund. I also believe that Christians have the responsibility to make use of the environmental resources God has provided. We can not be like the man with one coin who buried it. This, of course, leads us back to an old mantra of mine that life is about Trade-Offs. There is a delicate balance that mankind must walk between using environmental resources, leaving a "footprint" in the environment and abusing the environment.

Unfortunately, many environmental groups have engaged in debate tactics that smear any opposition to their agenda. Routinely, they shout that if you don't agree with every single point of their argument, then you are a money-hungry, capitalist-pig, bent on pumping toxins that kill women and children into the air and water just so you can make a dollar. Either you accept their extremist views or you are vilified as a person who wants dirty air and dirty water. This is unfortunate because it stifles legitimate disagreements.

I, for one, am very skeptical of the man-made climate change doctrine being broadcast over the media. First, I'm not sure if we can look at current sets of data and project what will happen in a linear model. While I am not an expert on climate data, I am very aware of how to use data, read data, manipulate data and work with data. I work with large data sets everyday. I work with sub-sets of that data everyday. One thing I know is that a subset of data usually does not reflect the properties of the entire set of data (depending on the randomization techniques one is using and the statistical methods one is applying). Climate changes in the past appear to be measured by changes in the climate over thousands, if not tens of thousands of years. Looking at a 50 year period of data and assuming it is as reliable as ten thousands years is foolish.

Secondly, I do not believe humans have as big an impact on the environment as many of the environmentalist do. If anything humans, through the use of technology, have done more to help the environment than hurt it. Most people don't realize that America has more trees and forest land now than it did in 250 years ago when we were over-throwing an oppressive government. This is because of technology's impact on farming. Today's technology allows us to grow more food on less land than it did 250 years ago. So, that land has been reverted back to forests. Of course, if a decision comes to make a trade-off to use the land for forest or for food, what right-minded person would decide it is better to let people go hungry so that you can have a tree? You can't eat shade.

Third, I have a hard time believing the models used to forecast doom. How can they predict the future, when they can't even predict the past? The ability of these models to accurately simulate historical climate changes determines the credibility of their predictions of climate change in the future. When I design a piece of software I always take legacy data (i.e., old information) and plug it into my computer program to make sure that I get the correct result. If the climate computers models are indeed correct, then the scientist using them should be able to take data from the 1970s and 1980s, plug it into the model and project what should have happened in the 1990s. Then, compare the results of what the computer model "predicted" to what actually happened. If the projected outcomes match what really occurred, you have a good computer model. So far no model has been able to do this without fiddling with the software until it finally produces the results the climatologist wants. I don't think this is how honest scientist are supposed to work.

Fourth, Earth is not the only planet experiencing global warming. Mars is also getting warmer. Interestingly enough, it is getting warmer at the same rate as Earth is getting warmer. This really suggests that Sun is burning hotter (which is a confirmed fact) and that has a greater effect than the "man-made" greenhouse effect.

These are just a few of the reasons that I am skeptical of what I read and hear in the media. I know that it is very difficult for a non-scientist to observe all the bickering and come up with a well-formed, independent opinion. My stance is that regardless of the confusion, reduction of pollution is a good thing. Reduction of waste is a good thing. Reusing and Recycling are worthy while endeavors that should be pursued by individuals. However, all the costs should be considered and individuals should be allowed to make the choices they wish instead of being forced by busy-bodies to reduce their lifestyle.