Sanders: Science or politics
August 3, 2018
When do you believe science or perhaps the question should be which scientists do you believe? There are a vast number of strong scientists who do not adhere to the global warming claims; they say weather is cyclical and that is why in the 1970s we were told there was a glacial age on the near horizon.
On Sept. 12, 1972, an Associated Press article out of Norwich, England, was published in the Canberra (Australia) Times. Quoting from the scanned, online newspaper, it said: "A new ice age is beginning to creep over the northern hemisphere and during the rest of this century the weather will become progressively colder, a British climate expert says." The colder conditions would make themselves felt gradually with higher central-heating bills, drier weather and persistence of snow lying on the ground. However, he said the full impact of the new ice age would not be for another 10,000 years and even then it would not be as severe as the last great glacial period."
The antithesis is from an undated (but obviously recent) online post from National Geographic: "The planet is warming, from North Pole to South Pole. Since 1906, the global average surface temperature has increased between 1.1 and 1.6 degrees F (0.6 to 0.9 degrees C) — even more in sensitive polar regions."
Then there is this from NASA: "Is Climate Change Cyclical? NASA Study Suggests Yes" by Jason Rhian, on June 25, 2012: The severity of the current climate change "crisis" has been blamed almost exclusively on man-made carbon dioxide emissions and that the change is permanent. A recent study conducted by several universities as well as NASA point to an "inconvenient truth" — that neither of these statements is true.
“The severity of the current climate change “crisis” has been blamed almost exclusively on man-made carbon dioxide emissions and that the change is permanent. A recent study conducted by several universities as well as NASA point to an “inconvenient truth”
— that neither of these statements is true.”
Recommended Stories For You
Antarctica's climate was once warm enough to sustain substantial vegetation including trees. How warm? Some estimates place it at 20 degrees warmer than present day.
So here are three strong, science-supported viewpoints. Are they tainted by the political beliefs of the writers? Or are scientists misusing data to support their viewpoints? Could it possibly be that the weather changes, but it is not monumental and does not point to immense differences after all?
As Ronald Reagan said, "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." The basis is not whether someone is liberal or conservative but how does anyone determine what to believe?
Whether it is the media or science or medical sites or anything, the information disseminated usually has a bias. In other words, these sites tell readers or listeners what they want the public to hear. Individuals follow sites with which they are comfortable therefore they believe them, and they tell others the "facts" as if the individual himself witnessed the action or worked on the study.
In other words, we spout off as if we truly know the situations, but all we have is what the outlets want us to hear or read. Think of this before you go on a rant: from our personal observations we actually don't know squat. ❖