Climate change 5.5 million years.

Spiritual Ecology Versus Science

by Lewis Loflin


Note the following definition:

Spiritual ecology is an emerging field in religion, conservation, and academia recognizing that there is a spiritual facet to all issues related to conservation, environmentalism, and earth stewardship. Proponents of Spiritual Ecology assert a need for contemporary conservation work to include spiritual elements and for contemporary religion and spirituality to include awareness of and engagement in ecological issues."

Science has nothing to do with spiritualism.

The real dispute is empirical science based on observed facts and debate versus hypothetical computer models. The "authority" of experts overrules evidence and observed data. I reject the merging of social science, spiritualism, and socialist ideology into science. Eco-crackpots like Pope Francis advocate such thinking.

What does Al Gore say about the 'science' behind climate change?

"As it happens, the idea of social justice is inextricably linked in the Scriptures with ecology."

Science has nothing to do with social justice.

This is a direct quote from his book Earth in the Balance Al Gore's rambling pseudo-religious text that combines religious mysticism (Eastern, New Age, American Indian), far left politics, and a massive misuse of science not to convey scientific facts, but to give authority to his beliefs. Ecology is not a science in the same way sociology is not a science - all fail the scientific method.

Dr. Marcel Kuntz, Director of Research at the prominent French institution CNRS voices concern over this issue:

"Postmodernism considers that scientists cannot be trusted, and that their research must be subject to a democratic process, more precisely to a 'participative democracy'."

The scientific method is not democratic. See Postmodernism Attacks Reason, Science, and Culture.

Rasmussen Reports Nov. 12, 2015 Little Support for Punishing Global Warming Foes;

But 68% of Likely U.S. Voters oppose the government investigating and prosecuting scientists and others including major corporations who question global warming...Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided. Just over one-in-four Democrats (27%), however, favor prosecuting those who don't agree with global warming. Only 11% of Republicans and 12% of voters not affiliated with either major party agree.

In other words 32% even considering such a thing is alarming. Is it any wonder people are scared?


New essays on this subject October 2018:

Typical again is a report from www.washingtonpost.com on October 7, 2014 about record Antarctic sea ice that continues into 2016:

The Antarctic has been brimming with sea ice in 2014, hovering around record-high extent for most of the year. On September 20, it peaked at 7.78 million square miles, breaking the previous Antarctic sea ice extent record, which was set in 2013. But while it might seem that this record throws into question the validity of global warming, scientists say this just isn't the case.

Up north, the sea ice loss in the Arctic is exactly what you would expect in a warming world. 2012 was a record-low year for Arctic sea ice in the satellite record, and 2014 was the sixth lowest.

The report is dishonest by leaving out one other vital piece of information - the satellite record only goes to 1979! Once again look at the NOAA chart. They did mention the need for further research and I'm sure NASA is in need of the funding!

This is opinion and science is not interested in your opinion or title. In fact the ice pack in Antarctica has grown to the point a research vessel full of climate scientists trying to prove melting got stuck in record ice.

See Prof. Chris Turney Stuck in Record Antarctic Ice - in the Antarctic summer!

Now a further quote from the Journal Nature,

"The ozone hole, sea-ice and westerly winds have been significant in influencing regional climate change in recent years," John Turner, lead author of the study, stated in the report. Despite this cooling trend, scientists say global warming has not necessarily ended.

What? They are now saying "global warming has not necessarily ended"? Don't they know? This cooling was not supposed to have happened according to those same scientists a few years ago.

Antarctica controls the world's climate by radiating massive amounts of heat into space and whose cold, deep sea currents it generates effect temperatures into the North Atlantic and around the globe.

That is not their only problem. The Daily Caller 7/20/2016 article "Global Warming Expedition Stopped In Its Tracks By Arctic Sea Ice" notes the following:

A group of adventurers, sailors, pilots and climate scientists that recently started a journey around the North Pole in an effort to show the lack of ice, has been blocked from further travels by ice.

The Polar Ocean Challenge is taking a two month journey that will see them go from Bristol, Alaska, to Norway, then to Russia through the North East passage, back to Alaska through the North West passage, to Greenland and then ultimately back to Bristol. Their objective, as laid out by their website, was to demonstrate "that the Arctic sea ice coverage shrinks back so far now in the summer months that sea that was permanently locked up now can allow passage through."

There has been one small hiccup thus-far though: they are currently stuck in Murmansk, Russia because there is too much ice blocking the North East passage the team said didn't exist in summer months...

Oops that wasn't in the computer models ether. Coincidence that both the N and S poles are colder than the "scientists" predicted? I don't have the space to debunk present hysteria over record heat. Let's go further.

Sporer Minimum 1460-1500; Maunder Minimum 1645-1715; Dalton Minimum 1790-1830. Ref. The Great Extinctions by Norman MacLeod P59

In addition we had three climate altering volcanic eruptions in about a 100 year period following the cold periods that all led to earlier glacier expansion:

Laki Iceland eruption 1783-84. To quote, "The Laki eruption and its aftermath caused a drop in global temperatures, as sulfur dioxide was spewed into the Northern Hemisphere. This caused crop failures in Europe and may have caused droughts in India.

The eruption has been estimated to have killed over six million people globally, making it the deadliest in historical times."

Mount Tambora Eruption 1815. The eruption blasted 38 cubic miles of material into the atmosphere. "It had a long-term effect on global climate" producing what was known as the "year without a summer". Smaller eruptions occurred in 1819 and "around" 1880.

"This was the largest and most violent eruption in the last 5000 years." This caused massive cooling, crop failures, etc. across the globe.

Krakatoa Eruption 1883. "In the year following the eruption, average Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 Deg. C (2.2 Deg. F). Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years, and temperatures did not return to normal until 1888." How convenient they started the graph in Fig. 1 at 1890.

"The eruption injected an unusually large amount of sulfur dioxide (SO2) gas high into the stratosphere...The resulting increase in cloud reflectivity (or albedo) would reflect more incoming light from the sun than usual, and cool the entire planet until the suspended sulfur fell to the ground as acid precipitation." Ref. all Wikipedia.

Thus we had centuries of below normal temperatures which are now getting back to normal in my view. That massive cooling you see on the left edge in Fig. 1. was caused by Krakatoa. Complaints about melting glaciers is no big deal as they expanded during this prolonged cooling period and should be melting.

If we pull back 5.5 million years using sediment cores, this illustrates how variable climate really is - even if present scare mongering is correct we won't even be close to the geological normal.

Mass extinctions have occurred mainly during strong global cooling, volcanism, and asteroid impacts such as the one that killed the dinosaurs.

The John William Pope Center notes in their article The Academic-Governmental Complex that government funding of research tends to "distort scientific priorities" and to quote;

Federal funding can actually pervert the direction and outcome of scientific research. Federal funding agents are careful not to make awards that stray from existing research paths...in some cases they want to see successful results even before making the grant. That is destructive of genuine research, in which the outcome isn't known when the scientist starts out...

...in 1930 the entire research budget of all American universities totaled $51 million, federal grants represented 10 percent of the total. In 2008, federal funds represent about 60 percent out of a total of $51.9 billion.

That's a whopping $31 billion and will continue compromising scientific objectivity. For that kind of money we could have a real space program. In Southwest Virginia (Appalachia) I've watched tens of millions of public funds going to green energy research as economic development that has produced nothing. It was never about science, it was about the money.

As a final note we need to clean up scientific research and should consider reducing government interference. Research needs to be driven by reason and a clear purpose, not religious style hysteria or political agendas.

Web site Copyright Lewis Loflin, All rights reserved.
If using this material on another site, please provide a link back to my site.