I would like to take the time to add my two cents to the whole “climate change” debate, in particular in response to columns by Mike McFeely and Travis Nelson as well as the many others in the past who have addressed this issue.
I have several points to make, the first being: What is the alternative? A cooling climate? No temperature change whatsoever?
Right now, scientists claim that the Earth is warming and humans are at fault. For the sake of argument, what if we “win”? What will no climate change look like? Do people really expect our climate to be unchanging? Will it actually start cooling? Is a cooling planet a preferable to a warming one?
Clearly, we must consider what the alternatives are. Climate is a dynamic system, either warming or cooling, on micro and macro scales, most of which we cannot accurately measure due to the fact that thermometers didn’t even exist until the 1500s and wouldn’t be used to record global temperatures until hundreds of year later.
Second, what scientists fail to mention is that climate is not determined by temperature alone. We here in North Dakota and Minnesota will always have a temperate continental climate, no matter how warm it gets. Our location relative to the Gulf of Mexico, the Rocky Mountains, the arctic - basically stuck in the middle of a continent - has have more effect on our weather than any temperature changes. We will never become a desert, nor a tropical rain forest. We won’t be talking about the monsoon season, and I don’t see glaciers in our forecast any time soon. Our climate is driven by latitude, the tilt and spin of the earth, and geography, not atmospheric temperatures and CO2 levels.
Finally, the claim that the evidence points only to one conclusion is wrong. Evidence is what it is, but conclusions based on evidence are made by people and all people have biases and are capable of making not only different, but wrong conclusions, even from the exact same evidence. One of the supposed beauties of the scientific method is that it never ends, it’s always self-checking and changes. New evidence and/or seeing evidence in a different way drives this process. Unless we are addressing a scientific law, no conclusion if foregone.
Climate change is not a scientific law.