There is big news in the world of Climate Change. Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark has published his work that shows a relationship between cosmic radiation hitting the Earth and the global climate. Svensmark's theory had earlier been tested in part at CERN. The work at CERN showed that increased radiation resulted in increased cloud formation in the upper atmosphere and resulting lowering of global temperatures. The levels of radiation hitting earth was inversely correlated to the activity of the solar magnetic fields. In other words, as the sun became more active, the magnitic field blocked cosmic radiation, fewer clouds were formed and the earth warmed. When solar activity waned, the process reversed and the temperature dropped. Now, Svensmark has taken his theory further. He compared the level of cosmic radiation in the past to climatic conditions on Earth. We know already that in certain parts of the galaxy, Earth has come near to the remnants of supernovae which give off enormous amounts of cosmic radiation. Svensmark has shown that when Earth neared these sources of radiation, the climate was correspondingly cold. When Earth was in the areas without high levels of cosmic radiation, Earth was warmer.
What all this means is simple: for the first time in all the discussions of climate change, there is now a theory which explains past climate conditions on Earth. We finally have a way to predict past conditions as well as those of the future.
So that brings me to Al Gore. Just the other day at Hampshire College, Gore gave another of his tirades about the settled nature of climate change theory and the ridiculousness of those who deny it. Of course, all of those computer models which tell us the effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (and which lead to climate hysteria) do not explain the past conditions on Earth. We do know past levels of Carbon Dioxide and they do not correlate well to global temperatures. Simply put, Gore is full of something, and it is not carbon dioxide.
One would think that if we have a theory that explains past climate and another theory that fails in that task, that the scientific world would immediately gravitate to the first theory. The media should follow quickly once more and more scientists realize the invalidity of the current theory of climate change. That does not seem to be happening, however, and I have to wonder why. I think it is the self importance of too many "scientists" and politicians. Why believe that cosmic radiation is the primary mover behind climate conditions when one could believe instead that it is man which is driving climate change? Are we not masters of the world? Does it not stand to reason that we are the ones who are responsible, the ones in charge, the ones who can control our destinies?
I have often thought that one reason why the hostility to climate change theory seems to be centered among conservatives rather than with the left is the higher level of religious belief among conservatives. We acknowledge that man is not supreme. We acknowledge that we are in the control of the one true God who created us. He controls the climate, not us. Of course, if one believes that man is paramount and that community efforts through the government can change the world (like those on the left), then it does not seem acceptable that climate could be determined by factors out of man's control. We are too important to be left to the vagaries of the weather. We must control it. We must be responsible for it.
Ultimately, I believe that the truth will come to the fore and triumph. Perhaps I am naive. I hope not. We must all come to accept that we are not in charge, not in control. The climate may change, or it may not. But certainly, we are not responsible and we need not fool ourselves into believing that we are.
No comments:
Post a Comment