When ancient fossils of creatures that live on the ocean floor have been found in rock formations at the summit of Mount Everest, that ought to give us a clue that big changes in the earth are nothing new, and that huge changes have been going on long before human beings appeared on the scene.
The recent statement that the earth was warmer in the Middle Ages than it is today, made by the climate scientist who is at the heart of the recent scandal about “global warming” statistics, ought to at least give pause to those who are determined to believe that human beings must be the reason for “climate change.”
Other climate scientists have pointed out before now that the earth has warmed and cooled many times over the centuries. Contrary to the impression created in much of the media and in politics, no one has denied that temperatures change, sometimes more than they are changing today.
Three years ago, a book by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery was published with a title that says it all: Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years.
Contrary to clever political spin that likened those who refused to join the “global warming” hysteria to people who denied the Holocaust, no one has denied that climates change. Indeed, some of the climate scientists who have been the biggest critics of the current hysteria have pointed out that climates had changed back and forth long before human beings created industrial societies or drove SUVs.
It is those who have been pushing the hysteria who have been playing fast and loose with the facts, wanting to keep crucial data from becoming public, and even “losing” some of that data that supposedly proved the most dire consequences. It has not been facts but computer models at the heart of the global-warming crusade.
Nothing is easier than coming up with computer models that prove almost anything. Back during the 1970s, computer models were predicting mass starvation and global cooling. The utter failure of those predictions ought to make us at least skeptical of computer models, especially those based on data that advocates want to keep from public view or even “lose” when investigators start closing in.