Reply to Global Warming Blog Posts

Response to Global Warming Forum Errors
I am dismayed by the venomous, accusing attitude, oneupmanship, and smugness of the pro and anti Global Warming groups; further, the majority of the anti comments seem to be centered in the right-wing, anti-tax, anti-government, and perhaps politically Libertarian groups.
The earth is dynamic, which causes environmental data to be skewed within virtually all contexts. There is no evident “proof” of either pro or con arguments I encountered in this blog, after disregarding the political gibberish on either side, which is misplaced, void of import and renders scientific questions unanswerable due not to scientific, but political pursuasion. There are detractors from all scientific knowledge for reasons usually unworthy of merit or comment. Any scientific view against which detractors are isolated or punished directly or indirectly is not proven by the strength or degree of government or religious pursuasion and power. The power of the Inquisition did not survive the discoveries of Copernicus, Galileo, or Kepler, notwithstanding the Giordano Bruno’s it put to the stake or the rack.
What does merit attention are those factors which are evident, not all of which are generally understood or even known.
For instance, while admitting that the atmosphere is thinner at the poles, one blogger commented in a degrading fashion that while Arctic glaciation was disappearing, Antarctic glaciation was increasing. Apparently, this quasi-question posed to the comment he hoped to refute was offered as “scientific” evidence that global warming is a myth. There are significant flaws immediately evident in such retorts, which account for the fact that most posts are “anti,” and “pro” comments are a useless gesture, since once bound to political pursuasion, opinions voice that aspect in lieu of science, (which some perceive as an enemy?)
It is correct that the same planet . . . ours in this case, can manifest warming at the Arctic pole and cooling at the Antarctic pole, but this has little to do with the (at least stated) subject of the blog. I will give an example on both sides which might at least inspire in-depth consideration:
Richard McNeish, an archaeologist of note who died from extended exposure to Guano [bird excrement] during excavations of cave deposits in northern South America, encountered and discussed the anomalous fact that during the height of the Wisconsin glaciation in the northern hemisphere, melting was occurring in the southern hemisphere. Conversely, periods of glaciation in the southern hemisphere were concurrent with melting of glaciers in the northern. Why is this “pro”? Because it was offered as evidence by an “anti” detractor that global warming was a myth. Kudos, but not as he thinks.
Further, the change from “global warming” to “climatic change” is not an evasion, but required by McNeish’s discovery alone.
“Global” implies that the same phenomenon is occurring globally, whereas it actually occurs hemispherically (though not always) in terms of glaciation. “Climate change” is the more accurate description, as it cannot be argued that melting in the northern hemisphere is not accompanied by increased glaciation in the southern.
As McNeish’s observations were disregarded by many climatologists within the context of his time, I suspect that many on the “pro” side are troubled by data which should not disturb them at all, because there is no actual anomaly. Multiple instances of glaciation and concrrent melting were exposed by the data.
This should, if left unpoliticized, concern us greatly. In Greenland, for instance, meltwater is eroding the rock-ice interface at an increasing rate. The ancient Piri Reis map of pre-glacial times before ice-core drilling was completed at either pole, correctly depicted Greenland as THREE islands and also showed the northern Antarctic coastline, both free of ice! It has been credibly posited that either the Greenland or Antarctic ice sheets have, or, more importantly, COULD have, slid into the oceans. If today, the Greenland ice sheet massively shifted into the sea, catastrophic destruction would result along coastlines, which are particularly vulnerable to damage from tsunamis and other tidal waves.
Off the U.S. Gulf Coast and the Mediteranean coast are submerged ruins and fire circles now beneath up to 300 feet of water. If gradual, Venice’s can result, but if rapid, as if Greenland’s or Antarctica’s ice slid into the sea, it could interrupt the Gulf Stream which makes Europe, especially western Europe, inhabitable. Thus, European scientists are concerned, and should be. But we ourselves would also fall victim to catastrophic change.
There will always be those who for any number of reasons make what should be scientifically adjudged conclusions based upon the impact they foresee it having on their lifestyles and fortunes. But if this blog topic is to be taken seriously, the political distraction must give way to open-minded and forthright presentation and interpretation of the data available or being accumulated.
If you think the earth is “globally” cooling, you are as incorrect as those who think the earth is “globally” warming. Both positions argue against not only McNeish and Piri Reis discoveries, but substitute knee-jerk opinion for reflection, long-term research, and measured response . . . one which only a “global” alliance of governments can effectively address.
Galileo wrote to his friend, Kepler: “Oh, my dear Kepler, why are you not here to see the learned professor of astronomy at Padua [university] refusing even to look through my glass [telescope]. What shouts of laughter we would have at this glorious folly!”
If the Greenland ice sheet should slide into the Atlantic, or the intensity of northern hemisphere drought, storms and other weather patterns becomes critically severe, there will be few shouts of laughter.