So it turns out the sun is cooling down. According to a research team at the University of California San Diego, an event defined as the “Grand Minimum” will result in a sun that is seven percent cooler than it is now, which may mean a mini Ice Age by mid-century.
A mini Ice Age?! My goodness, if there were only a way we could warm the planet to keep that from happening!
This latest bit of news highlights one of the fundamental flaws in the whole climate change debate. The argument shouldn’t be about whether or not humanity is having an impact – but on what the nature of that impact actually is. If the sun is getting cooler, then wouldn’t anthropogenic warming be a useful tool to offset that? What is the globe’s optimum temperature, anyway? Is current climate change getting us closer or farther from that perfect spot on the worldwide thermostat?
Science is about asking questions, and that should apply to climate change science too
Those aren’t questions that anyone is allowed to ask. Only a “denier” would try to make sense of fear-mongering about the illogic of worrying about boiling oceans and new ice ages at the same time.
No, the current brand of global warming alarmism requires an acceptance of a whole litany of tenets, many of them contradictory, and skepticism surrounding any one of them throws the whole thing out of whack. So slapping the “denier” label on anyone who raises any questions along the way effectively bundles the argument into a single, tidy, yes-or-no package. It’s quite simple, really – either you think the globe has warmed unusually quickly due solely to humanity’s irreversible pollutionary damage and that massive governmental intervention to dismantle industrial society is the only solution, or you don’t.
The science is settled, so shut up.
Except calling people “deniers” and censoring anyone who dares to question global warming orthodoxy is indicative of a subject that people are trying to “settle” by means other than science. There are no “gravity deniers” because gravity is impossible to deny, and anyone could confront a deluded soul unwilling to accept Newtonian physics with empirical evidence that they’re wrong.
If you want to drop a bowling ball off the top of the Empire State Building, you can calculate precisely how long the ball will take before it hits the ground. Other factors may come into play – wind resistance, say, or some foreign object interrupting the ball’s fall – but the effect of gravity on the ball’s trajectory isn’t really open to debate, and the velocity can be reliably determined with a great degree of accuracy.
That, see, is how science is settled. Not by fiat; not by some bullying, fallacious argument from authority. It is settled by a consistent series of observed results.
So you want to settle the science, alarmists? Then cough up empirical facts, not flawed models. Present a plethora of accurate predictions, not empty credentials used to justify bad guesses. And explain why humanity warming the planet is a bad thing when the sun is trying to cool it.
We should settle for nothing less.
(Image of a long filament of solar material that had been hovering in the sun’s atmosphere, the corona, erupted out into space by the Solar Dynamics Observatory via Wikipedia)