Fill In The Gap

The earth is getting warmer. All the scientists meeting in France have said so. And it's us, human beings, who are at fault. But, was the earth ever this warm before? Not within our lifetime, but within the earth's lifetime.

As a matter of fact, the earth was warmer 125,000 years ago. Geologically speaking, that's recent history. Sea levels were as much as twenty feet higher back then, and that had nothing to do within fossil fuels or homo sapiens. So if the ice sheets were smaller then, why is it not normal now to see retreating glaciers? 24,000 years ago, early humans migrated from England to France on foot. The sea level was so low that there was no English Channel to cross. 10,000 years ago, the place where I am now sitting was under a sheet of ice. Is it a bad thing that the glaciers retreated then? How do the climatologists know that this current warming is not part of an ending ice age?

Lost in all the 'sky is falling' hysteria are the answers that I need to be convinced about man-made global warming. I agree that pollution is bad for our health, as the human lung was not made to suck in massive amounts of toxic gases. Oxygen, carbon dioxide, a bit of nitrogen, all harmless in the proper proportions, but carbon monoxide and a host of other pollutants can harm the human organism. But the whole warming issue?

Analyzing data, scientists have concluded that temperatures were relatively stable for a few thousand years. During that time, we endured a mini ice age. Is that the benchmark for normal? What is normal? In the past century, temperatures have gone up, hence the alarms. But is there any change in solar activity during that same time period? Why is the increase in temperature so shocking, when the earth used to be warmer and sea level higher?

Sea levels are predicted to rise, but scientists don't understand the whole process well enough to gauge the rate at which the change will take place. Yet, if this is a natural earth climate cycle that runs over tens of thousands of years, shouldn't we be prepared to deal with coastal loss that will occur whether we cut down on pollution or not? The report out of Paris states that temperatures will continue to climb, even with a reduction in greenhouse gasses. Why is that? Is it because the earth is on a warming cycle anyway, and pollution is making it worse?

Back in the '60s, overpopulation was the boogey man for the globe. Many people alive today remember the hand-wringing, the wailing and gnashing of teeth that was the panic of excessive population growth. Forty years later, we see that it never happened, and the scientists were wrong. Trained to be sceptical, we ask them now, is this the overpopulation bugaboo revisited?

With the meeting taking place in Paris, but aimed squarely at the US of A, scientists might turn to the historians for a nugget of advice.

"The genius of this nation is not in the least to be compared with that of the Prussians, Austrians, or French. You say to your soldier, 'Do this' and he doeth it, but I am obliged to say, 'That is the reason why you ought to do that'; and he does it."

We're not Euro-socialist pinheads over here, you see, and we weren't born yesterday. Baron von Steuben figured it out two hundred thirty years ago. Two hundred thirty years ago. In the mini ice age, back then. Cooler temperatures...crop failures...starving peasants...the French Revolution. Yes, the historians really should be weighing in on this report.