Interesting about your glacier maps, Hillary. I tend to look at the current warming period as being part of the natural cycle also. I spent a few years working in Antarctica back in the 90's and am and will always be interested in Antarctic research. I recently read in the Antarctic Sun an article about mummified elephant seals found on the beaches of the Ross Sea. This was a significant find as the presence of elephant seals indicates that the area was much warmer than it is today. The kicker is that the mummified remains are estimated to be 1,000 - 2,500 years old. That isn't all that long ago. (If anyone is interested you can download the pdf at http://antarcticsun.usap.gov/2006-2007/documents/02-04-2007_antarcticsun.pdf and scroll down to page 7. The article is called "Extinct Hunt - Vanished elephant seal colonies indicate Ross Ice Shelf survived warmer climate in recent past.") What one has to understand though is that the human caused climate change fold are not interested in what happened to your glaciers or why elephant seals had a colony in the now frozen Ross Sea. As Abaddon wrote in one of his replies in this thread, "this time."
I've noticed a trend among the man caused warming advocates. Anytime someone presents research that doesn't agree with the man caused global warming proof they tend to dismiss the research by attacking the researcher. That scientist is from the wrong discipline, this researcher is funded by big business, that project was funded by big oil or coal or the auto industry or whatever boogeyman that springs to their mind. It is classic a "shoot the messenger" approach. What that group fails to remember, or perhaps what they are not aware of, is that one of the nastiest, most corrupt, vile corporations in US history played a vital role in starting the whole human caused warming movement. That company is now bankrupt and gone and the criminal CEO of the firm died before he was sent to prison for his crimes. The name was Enron and the CEO was Ken Lay.
Ken Lay recognized from the beginning of the global warming debate that a huge profit potential for Enron existed if it were "proved" that the warming was caused by humans in general and carbon dioxide in particular. Lay had access to the Clinton White House and was an advisor to the President. Ken Lay helped the Clinton administration develop positions for the Kyoto negotiations. Some of the positions that Lay pushed were:
- The official position of the US government is global warming is human caused.
- Carbon dioxide is a pollutant and should be regulated.
- Developing nations would be exempt from carbon emission caps.
How would Enron reap huge benefits if global warming became a human caused issue? Enron was in the natural gas business. If carbon dioxide was declared a pollutant and regulated coal fired electrical utilities would switch to natural gas. The result would be an increase in demand for natural gas and the price would rise. Enron was also in the pipeline industry and the more natural gas transported via Enron's pipeline system meant more profit. Enron was a major player in alternative energy being the owner of the largest wind farm in the world. Enron also was a co-owner of the largest solar energy array with British Petroleum. In addition Enron owned several natural gas fired electical utilities. If carbon dioxide were declared a pollutant and regulated, Enron was in a position to to claim scores of carbon credits that would have to be purchased by coal fired "polluters" when they exeded their allocated carbon caps. Enron's excess carbon credits would be a cash cow. Enron's desire to see emerging nations exempted from the warming debate stemmed from the fact that Enron had invested billions in places like India and former Soviet Bloc nations building coal fired power plants and carbon caps would be detrimental for those investments.
The wheels fell off the wagon, so to speak, for Enron when George Bush became President. Although the Bush Administration initially supported the carbon cap concept, in the end Bush decided that carbon caps would cause an unacceptable drag on the US economy. Ken Lay was floored by the Bush decision. Not long after Bush's decision, Enron's various frauds became unconcealable, Enron collapsed, Ken Lay and his cronies were accused and convicted for their crimes, and Lay died and went to hell. The funny part is that many people from the green side accused the Bush administration of being an Enron puppet while conviently forgetting that Enron was a crucial player promoting the global warming movement.
For those who believe global warming is caused by humans (and lets be honest, the primary cause of global warming is Americans, isn't it?) and dismiss contrary evidence as being tainted, why shouldn't your proof be subject to the same scepticism given the very root of the global warming movement was driven by a profit seeking energy company? I know that many advocates of Kyoto and global warming will read the above and consider me delusional. I ask that you do a quick google search of "enron kyoto" and read the results. Many of the articles are 5 years old. Apparently the media did not see the worth of pursuing the story. My own conclusion is that the global warming movement has little to do with drowning polar bears and a lot to do with expanding power for politicians and skyrocketing profits for firms that are positioned to exploit the guilt and fear associated with the percieved destruction of Mother Earth. It is truely shameless.
