That earth’s climate changes is not debatable: repeating ice ages and warming periods are prominently exposed in the geological record. Whether the climate is presently changing as a result of human activity is today’s heavily politicized debate. The fact that it is a debate is undeniable when the proponents of the two sides refer to each other respectively as “alarmists” and “deniers”. That it is politicized is visible when one side claims absolute, total certainty to the point that opponents should be silenced. Honest science is a perennial debate.
On climate measurement, there is plenty of room for debate. The two most significant temperature measuring systems are surface weather stations and satellite sensors that do not agree very well. The surface measurements are reported after significant “adjustments” have been made to them. Their thermometers cluster in some developed areas and are few in remote places and even if they were evenly sited over earth’s entire surface, daylight and dark, wind and seasons provide a kaleidoscope of variances hard to reconcile. The earth has recently warmed but that process has appeared to be on hold for the last dozen and a half years as best we can tell. Some glaciers are indeed melting; others are growing, Reporting on this politicized subject seems like so much else, questionable.
The belief that human activity is causing whatever changes may be occurring is a theory, not proven fact. The theory is based upon computer climate models that are improved (i.e. “corrected”) regularly. These corrections are often not small. And the geological record shows that our planet has been warmer and cooler than it is presently. The “alarmists” claim to “settled science” is politicized fakery; some of the deniers are not much better.
The reality is that we can’t predict the weather very well; predicting climate is even more an educated guess. Changes in the sun’s output are a large factor of which we have much to learn. The earth’s precession (cycling axial tilt) is a big factor too, altering distribution of sunlight, volcanism and the planetary magnetic field.
We admit to a suspicious mind when politicians are involved; the magnitude of carbon taxes regularly proposed in the name of warming must be tempting . Very large amounts of money are involved in abandoning carbon for “renewable” energy, another reason for suspicion as these shifts become compulsory. Billions of dollars are already in play with a great deal more to come with those carbon taxes, which are expected to hurt the poor without reducing atmospheric carbon.
We think the President is right in refusing to be stampeded by the climactic Chicken Littles fronting for very arge dollar interests until the facts are in.