While the chart suggests substantial warming since the 1600’s, humans cannot be blamed for any significant amount of warming until after about 1950, which is when atmospheric CO2 concentrations began to increase markedly.
So, how is it that the warming from about 1700 to 1950 was natural, but the warming before 1700 is not?
Discovery of the “whys” for previous warming cycles, like what occurred during the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods are unlikely to qualify for government funded research, so the easier route to funding is to enhance the seriousness of the need to prevent the ‘current’ warming cycle and its potential threat to humanity, the same humanity that endured previous warming cycles.
Almost all climate-change research is funded by government. That means you the taxpayer. Government has been on the global warming bandwagon from the beginning. If young climate researchers today want to build their careers, their chances of getting government funding for their proposals is directly proportional to how seriously they portray the threat of global warming. If their research project themes are skeptical of human-caused climate change, their chance of getting funded are great reduced.
In his 1961 Farewell Address to the nation, President Eisenhower warned us of the dangers of the trend toward Government-sponsored science. When politicians have the ultimate say over who gets money for what reason, you can suspect that political motivations and desired policy outcomes will inevitably result in biased research. Additionally, Eisenhower pointed out that scientists eager to keep the funds flowing might take control of public policy to benefit their own careers.
Unfortunately, very little of research funding goes toward understanding natural causes of climate change, like what occurred in the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, and the warming from about 1700 to 1950 all of which occurred before the Industrial Revolution. Interestingly, that warming was natural during those periods, but warming since 1950 is not?
Why don’t more papers tackle the thorny issue of determining how much warming is natural versus anthropogenic? In contrast to the CO2-based theory natural climate change is largely not understood, unpredictable, and so researchers do not look there for causes of warming which may be the driving force for government funds to research solution for the doomsday forecasting.
Global Warming is the ultimate cash cow for climate researchers. The bigger the perceived problem, the more money agencies like NASA, NOAA, DOE, EPA, and NSF can get.
The modern-day blaming of weather events on human-caused climate change in the news reports, at a minimum, intellectually lazy, and is probably mor aptly described as journalistic malpractice and fearmongering. Admittedly, some in the science community have enabled this feeding frenzy.
The Press will not report on DATA or FACTS that counter the emotions as they are deemed as deniers of that emotion driving the public.
The news media are only interested in covering predictions of doom, which further amplifies the emotional bias. How could thinking people NOT be skeptical when it comes to the outlandish claims, we receive from the news media? Why then, does it seem to so many like our weather is getting worse? It is partly because alarmism pervades the news on an almost daily basis.
Poverty kills and forcing people to use more expensive energy will worsen poverty. Poverty, not global warming, remains biggest challenge.
Yes, fossil fuels are probably a finite source. But as they become scarcer, their price will rise, and other sources of energy will become economically competitive. Innovation will lead to new energy technologies. Because everything humans due requires energy, energy demand WILL lead to an energy supply.
Interestingly, regarding energy literacy on renewables and fossil fuels, it is not that we are stupid, we are too emotional. One of the principles of branding is that people do not buy WHAT you do, they buy WHY you do it. We make most of our decisions based on feelings and emotions, NOT data and facts.
The WHY in this equation is simple, as it equates to getting off fossil fuels to reduce emissions at any cost. Emotions takes it from there, and any data or facts to the contrary are categorized as deniers to the emotional decisions in play. Elected and appointed officials, and special interest groups, feed off the WHY for government funding, to reduce emissions at any cost, for votes and money.
Nothing seems to have changed since Former President Eisenhower pointed out 60 years ago that scientists eager to keep the government funds flowing might take control of public policy to benefit their own careers.