This Global Warming Question Can Change People’s Minds

Late last year, I got into a discussion with a fellow who was quite sold on the idea that man’s activities were warming the Earth.

While not a hardcore ideologue, it was apparent the gentleman had accepted the climate change narrative presented by mainstream media and believed we truly were imperiling the planet.

I didn’t say much to him initially, as we were engaged in some recreation, but later on, I resurrected the topic and told him I just wanted to pose one question.

“What is the ideal average temperature of the Earth?” I asked.

It was clear he was without an answer, so I explained my rationale.

“If we don’t know what the Earth’s ideal average temperature is,” I stated, “how can we know if a given type of climate change — whether naturally occurring or induced by man — is good or bad? After all, we can’t then know whether it’s bringing us closer to or moving us further away from that ideal temperature.”

It was as if a little light bulb had lit up in his head, and he said, “You know, that’s a good question!”

I haven’t seen the man since, as we were just two ships passing in the night, and I don’t know how his thinking has evolved (or regressed) between then and now.

I do know, however, that someone who’d seemed so confident and perhaps even unbending in his position had his mind opened with one simple question and a 20-second explanation.

Of course, part of the question’s beauty is that no one can answer it.

There is no “ideal” average Earth temperature, only a range within which it must remain for life as we know it to exist.

At the spectrum’s lower end, polar creatures proliferate; at its higher-end, tropical animals do (though warmer temperatures do breed more life, which is why the tropics boast 10 times as many species as does the Arctic. Moreover, crop yields increase when CO2 levels are higher).

This brings us to another important point: Apocalyptic warmist dogma is buttressed by the virtually unchallenged assumption that if man changes something “natural,” it is by definition bad.

But this is prejudice. Most of us certainly don’t believe this, for instance, when humans cure disease and use science to preserve and extend human life (or that of our pets).

As for climate, there have been at least five major ice ages, and “the most recent one began approximately three million years ago and continues today (yes, we live in an ice age!),” informs the Utah Geological Survey.

Then there was the ‘Snowball Earth’ period, during which the Earth was completely, or almost completely, covered with snow and ice. If man had existed during that time, would it have been bad if his activities had raised the temperature a couple of degrees?

Within ice ages are shorter-term cycles known as glacials (colder periods) and interglacials (warmer ones); glacials last approximately 100,000 years while interglacials last about 10,000 to 30,000 years.

We’re currently in an interglacial called the Holocene Epoch, which began 11,500 to 12,000 years ago.  This means that we could, conceivably, be poised to soon enter another more frigid glacial period.

Now, again, if this is mitigated by a couple of degrees via man’s activities, would that be a bad thing? Warmists say yes it is.

For example, citing research, science news magazine Eos wrote in 2016 that our Holocene Epoch “may last much longer because of the increased levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases resulting from human activity.”

Once more, would this be bad? Why? What’s that ideal average Earth temperature that this climate change would supposedly be moving us further away from?

If you’re a member of one of the vast majority of Earth’s species, those prospering in (relative) warmth, it sounds like good news.

The question in question won’t cut any ice (pun intended) with those emotionally invested in the doom-and-gloom global warming thesis.

After all, “You cannot reason a man out of a position he has not reasoned himself into,” to paraphrase Anglo-Irish satirist Jonathan Swift.

But with the more open-minded majority, the question can turn down the heat on the fear.

See more here: climatechangedispatch.com

Header image: The Heating Company

Editor’s note: A few years ago, either Hansen, Mann or Schmidt (I don’t remember which one and I didn’t note it) was asked what is the ideal temperature for the Earth. The answer was the temperature that existed before the Industrial Revolution, which meant the Little Ice Age, which saw repeated crop failures, famine, disease and mass deaths due to starvation and cold. If that is the case, then bring on the global warming I say!

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.

Comments (18)

  • Avatar

    Joseph Olson

    |

    Dr James Fetzer and I have a series of lectures on Astronomical, Geological and natural fission climate forcing factors on Bitchute, here’s latest Part #4

    https://bitchute.com/video/kyQIOrrxBSUy/

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi Joseph Olson (JO) and Joseph Postma (JP),

      October 3, 2016 John O’ posted an essay titled: A New Scientific Law and The Greenhouse Effect (https://principia-scientific.com/new-scientific-law-greenhouse-effect/) And then, November 6, 2016, another essay (Solar Radiation Sufficient! No Greenhouse Effect of Certain Atmospheric Gases!) was posted. (https://principia-scientific.com/?s=solar+Radiation+Sufficient)
      Neither of you, to my memory, has ever given me any evidence that you have read these essays.

      JO, I went to your link (https://bitchute.com/video/kyQIOrrxBSUy/) and listened to the first several minutes of PSI’s new feature. JP, do I really need to remind you how Galileo, with a new instrument (a telescope), used it to establish (OBSERVE) that the Earth did not STAND STILL.
      You both observe, and I also, some fundamental problems of the METEOROLOGICAL COMMUNITY. R. C. Sutcliffe (Science & Climate, 1966), in his introduction, reviews what the probable causes of these problems might be. “… that the problems presented by weather, by wind and rain and warmth, were amongst the earliest to force themselves on consciousness and that in a historical sense meteorology lay at the foundation of physical science. It was, and is, a difficult science to reduce to its basic principles … and it was another of the environmental sciences, astronomy, the very limited positional astronomy of the solar system, which was first illuminated by the light of Newton’s genius.”

      This quote is from the 2nd and 3rd sentences of Sutcliffe’s introduction. I stop here to ask the question: Why did Sutcliffe not begin with Galileo’ genius who demonstrated with observations made with the new instrument—the telescope—that the SUN did not STAND STILL???
      Sutcliffe gives hint of the problem as he continued: “But thought the history of modern science dating from that time in was significant that ‘natural philosophy’ was almost a synonym for physical science. The dual interest of the scientist in the natural world of phenomena and in the basic principles which explain them, which identify the natural with the rational, was accepted generally and did not begin to lose its validity until—with the tremendous success of experimental laboratory physics of the late nineteenth century—the applications of basic physical theory were largely diverted from the natural macro-environment of man to the essentially simpler physical systems which he invented for himself and learned to construct and control.”

      I stop here to ask the question: Why of the late nineteenth century and not the early nineteenth century??? The previous question and its possible answer gives a hint to a possible answer.

      This comment is already too long by my standards. Lots of meat to ponder and digest.

      So, have a good day, Jerry

      Reply

      • Avatar

        LLOYD

        |

        Why this fixation with Galileo? You are meandering all over the place like a rudderless sail boat.

        Reply

      • Avatar

        James McGinn

        |

        Jerry: (Quoting Sutcliffe):
        “… that the problems presented by weather, by wind and rain and warmth, were amongst the earliest to force themselves on consciousness and that in a historical sense meteorology lay at the foundation of physical science.

        Due to our (human’s) tendency to spiritualize it we should expect our ability to comprehend the sky (weather, climate) rationally to be severely compromised as a result of factors that are subliminal. Consequently one has to be very careful about what you think you know that just ain’t so:
        The Momentum of the Jet stream is Maintained by Vortices
        https://youtu.be/N36vjLK8Ggc
        James McGinn / Genius.

        Reply

  • Avatar

    Alan

    |

    There is no ideal average as pointed out and one reason is that we cannot add temperatures together to find a total so there is no average that means anything. It might be a useful concept for deciding where and when to go on holiday but that is all.

    We have a distribution of temperatures on a daily or annual basis. The range on any day from max to min makes discussion of fractions of a degree variation from an average look meaningless, which it is.

    We should only view the temperature distribution and define it in terms of a statistical mean and a standard variation.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi Alan,

      Are you smiling as Andy seems tp contradict (Craig & Sherwood Idso’s work shows the optimum level for best plant & crop growth is 1200ppm”) your point and the point of this article’s author?

      Have a good day, Jerry

      Reply

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi Alan,

      You wrote: “We have a distribution of temperatures on a daily or annual basis. The range on any day from max to min makes discussion of fractions of a degree variation from an average look meaningless, which it is.”

      In case a reader missed it; this comment is an attempt to draw attention to the wisdom of your statement

      Have a good day, Jerry

      Reply

  • Avatar

    richard

    |

    A friend from a middle eastern country said it was always cold in the UK.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    matina

    |

    I was diagnosed as HEPATITIS B carrier in 2013 with fibrosis of the
    liver already present. I started on antiviral medications which
    reduced the viral load initially. After a couple of years the virus
    became resistant. I started on HEPATITIS B Herbal treatment from
    ULTIMATE LIFE CLINIC (www.ultimatelifeclinic.com) in March, 2020. Their
    treatment totally reversed the virus. I did another blood test after
    the 6 months long treatment and tested negative to the virus. Amazing
    treatment! This treatment is a breakthrough for all HBV carriers.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Tom O

      |

      Interesting, though off topic post. Thank you for the information. It has always been my opinion that Mother Nature has more useful ways to make us well than does the pharmaceutical companies. For one thing, she wants us to be well, not just alive so we can buy drugs.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Andy

        |

        That comment by Matine has appeared on many articles in the last few days, we are currently looking for them and deleting, as they are obviously spam.

        Reply

  • Avatar

    MattH

    |

    If one was to ignore the ocean’s absorption and emission of temperature dependent CO2 levels, between 150 PPM and 10,000 PPM what is the optimum concentration of atmospheric CO2?

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Boris Badenov

      |

      What ever keeps plants growing and producing O2, I’m voting for 3x what it is now but the planet will do it’s thing with or without our help.

      Reply

    • Avatar

      Andy

      |

      Craig & Sherwood Idso’s work shows the optimum level for best plant & crop growth is 1200ppm.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        MattH

        |

        Hi Andy.
        I was always under the impression the Ipsos did not take their research to higher CO2 concentrations than 1200 PPM so higher concentrations may give greater growth rates.
        I have bee mistaken before.

        Cheers Matt

        Reply

  • Avatar

    Tom O

    |

    Agreed that we have no idea what the right average temperature is, and agreed that an average temperature is meaningless. Probably they should be talking about “the thermal capacity of the environment” or some such thing. But the truth is, there are no indications that we are moving towards a warmer environment, but there are plenty of indications that we are moving AWAY from a warmer environment. We can still have hot days and hot months or years, but the overall appearance seems to be that we are moving towards a cooler climate. Changing the readings from the past does not change the true trend of reality. One thing is certain, however, and that it is not likely that “green” energy sources will last until they are needed most – when the thermal capacity of the environment has dropped to a figure that makes it impossible for a cooling trend to be denied.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Anthony Bright-Paul

    |

    Was it not James Peden who posed the question “Where does one place the thermometer?” After all, does the Earth include its atmospheres to the edge of space? Does it all also include the interior of the Earth? Certainly the late Hans Schreuder pointed out that in the atmosphere alone there is a vast range of temperatures. There is no such entity as an average temperature unless it is clearly defined what is being averaged.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Share via