The Cool Blue Blog

Healing the Ozone hole

Back in 2000, Friends of the Earth published an article in Foreign Policy In Focus decrying the demise of the Ozone layer. Author Jessica Vallette Revere key points were

• The U.S. is spending billions of dollars each year to combat the effects of ozone depletion and global warming on human health and weather patterns.
• Two groundbreaking international treaties, the Montreal and Kyoto protocols, have failed to adequately curb use of the chemicals causing ozone depletion and global warming.
• Ozone depletion and global warming are both man-made and interconnected, and they constitute the most serious environmental crises ever.

She also notes that

U.S. treatment of the Montreal and Kyoto protocols as mutually exclusive environmental treaties not only fails to internalize the new scientific evidence demonstrating the correlation between ozone depletion and global warming but also leads to ineffective, discordant policymaking that does not adequately protect life on earth against these synergistic atmospheric threats. In addition, the Clinton administration has accommodated industry interests bent on prolonging the use of ozone depleting and global warming chemicals. Washington, for instance, has refused to accelerate the HCFC phaseout or to close a loophole that allows methyl bromide (MB) use in developing countries even after 2005, when it is phased out in developed countries.

Well, it looks like the Bush Administration has fixed that pesky hole in the ozone. According to the AP

The ozone hole over the Antarctic is likely to begin contracting in the future and might disappear by 2050 because of a reduction in the release of chlorofluorocarbons and other ozone-depleting gases, according to a team of Japanese scientists....

Chlorofluorocarbon levels in the Earth's atmosphere have been declining since the mid-1990s due to international efforts to reduce emissions.

The new findings are based on a series of numerical simulations carried out by Eiji Akiyoshi of the National Institute for Environmental Studies, near Tokyo, using projected emissions of chlorofluorocarbons and other gases blamed for the ozone hole....

The team's findings are in line with research by other scientists, including a favorable outlook from U.S. scientists published in the journal Nature earlier this month.

Recent reports also show that the rise in global temperature is no where near what environment alarmists have been saying

Duke University scientists announced yesterday that "the magnitude of future global warming will likely fall well short of current highest predictions."

    Supported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation, the Duke researchers noted that some observational studies predicted that the Earth's temperature could rise as much as 16 degrees in this century because of an increase in carbon dioxide or other so-called greenhouse gases.

    The Duke estimates show the chances that the planet's temperature will rise even by 11 degrees is only 5 percent, which falls in line with previous, less-alarming predictions that meteorologists made almost three decades ago.

Professor Bob Carter, I think, called it right when he said

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

He also pointed out that many in the scientific community have been stifled when they refused to go along with the Global Warming populist consensus theory

First, most government scientists are gagged from making public comment on contentious issues, their employing organisations instead making use of public relations experts to craft carefully tailored, frisbee-science press releases. Second, scientists are under intense pressure to conform with the prevailing paradigm of climate alarmism if they wish to receive funding for their research.

So when Friends of the Earth criticized Clinton for not doing enough to fix the hole in the ozone, will they now come out and praise the Bush Administration for effecting its reduction?

Of course I'm being facetious since Bush is no more responsible for the hole in the ozone than Clinton was. On the other hand, since it appears that the reduction of freons and halons in the atmosphere has contributed significantly to the reversal of the Ozone hole's fate, we can thank the first President Bush for that.

But that's not likely...

UPDATE: Last year the Environmental alarmists were convinced that Global Warming was the cause of last year's killer hurricane season. What a difference a year makes

...conditions don't appear ripe for a repeat of 2005's record activity, the National Hurricane Center predicted Monday.     There will be up to 16 named storms, the center predicted, which would be significantly less than last year's record 27.

Natural disaster

Al Gore is out hawking his new book and movie, both titled "An Inconvenient Truth". If you couldn't guess, they're about Global Warming a situation which he calls "a planetary emergency."

"He's taking an increasingly high-profile role in working on the climate change issue," Gore spokesman Michael Feldman said.

Is his plan to run for President by ignoring the Global War on Terrorism and focusing on Global Warming?

Gore repeatedly has brushed aside talk of another presidential bid, telling a Tennessee audience last month, "I'm not planning to be a candidate again. I haven't reached a stage in my life where I'm willing to say I will never consider something like this."

A payment of $40,000 to a Democratic polling firm stirred political talk, but pollster Mark Penn said it was settlement of a 2000 account.

Unfortunately, the actual truth is inconvenient for Al Gore

Global warming may not be as dramatic as some scientists have predicted.

   Using temperature readings from the past 100 years, 1,000 computer simulations and the evidence left in ancient tree rings, Duke University scientists announced yesterday that "the magnitude of future global warming will likely fall well short of current highest predictions."

    Supported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation, the Duke researchers noted that some observational studies predicted that the Earth's temperature could rise as much as 16 degrees in this century because of an increase in carbon dioxide or other so-called greenhouse gases.

    The Duke estimates show the chances that the planet's temperature will rise even by 11 degrees is only 5 percent, which falls in line with previous, less-alarming predictions that meteorologists made almost three decades ago.

    In recent years, much academic research has indicated otherwise, often in colorful terms and citing the United States as the biggest contributor to global warming. This month, a University of Toronto scientist predicted that a quarter of the planet's plants and animals would be extinct by 2050 because of rising temperatures. On Wednesday, two geophysics professors at the University of Chicago warned those who eat red meat that their increased flatulence contributes to greenhouse gases.

    Last year, Oregon State University research linked future "societal disruptions" with global warming, while the Carnegie Institution reported that the insulating influence of northern forests alone would raise the Earth's temperature by 6 degrees. In 2004, Harvard University scientists informed Congress that warming had doomed the planet to climatic "shocks and surprises."

    The Duke research, however, found substantial ups and downs in the Earth's temperature before modern times, countering other studies that confine noticeable temperature increases to the industrialized era. Marked climate change in other centuries resulted from "external forcing," said the Duke findings, citing volcanic eruptions and other influences.

    "Our reconstruction supports a lot of variability in the past," said research director Gabriele Hegerl of Duke's Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences.

    Although her study found that the Earth is, indeed, warming, Ms. Hegerl discounts dire predictions of skyrocketing temperatures. The probability that the climate's "sensitivity" to greenhouse-gas levels would result in drastically higher temperatures is "substantially" reduced, she said.

You'd think that information such as is contained here would deflate the silly rhetoric of Al Gore and his ilk. But the fact is that there are those who deny evolution despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary and their mirror are those who deny the facts of Global Warming no matter what is said.

The real Natural Disaster is humans who choose to remain ignorant and those who will exploit them.

And there's a bunch of them.

Not feeling the heat

A geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, Professor Bob Carter who is engaged in paleoclimate research tore away the mask on the Global Warming numbers in a recent piece printed in the Telegraph

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Hmmm. 1998 to 2005 were the Golden Years of SUVs, no?

In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.

Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?

Simple. We're being scammed.

First, most government scientists are gagged from making public comment on contentious issues, their employing organisations instead making use of public relations experts to craft carefully tailored, frisbee-science press releases. Second, scientists are under intense pressure to conform with the prevailing paradigm of climate alarmism if they wish to receive funding for their research. Third, members of the Establishment have spoken declamatory words on the issue, and the kingdom's subjects are expected to listen.

Oh! I thought it was Bush who was strong-arming scientists in order to cover-up Global Warming. That must be true because, you know, Bush is an idiot.

Two simple graphs provide needed context, and exemplify the dynamic, fluctuating nature of climate change. The first is a temperature curve for the last six million years, which shows a three-million year period when it was several degrees warmer than today, followed by a three-million year cooling trend which was accompanied by an increase in the magnitude of the pervasive, higher frequency, cold and warm climate cycles. During the last three such warm (interglacial) periods, temperatures at high latitudes were as much as 5 degrees warmer than today's. The second graph shows the average global temperature over the last eight years, which has proved to be a period of stasis.

The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming.

Natural cycles, whoda thunk?

People who go about screaming that the Earth is warming and humans are to blame never stop long enough to answer questions such as how is this different from what has gone on in the past? Nor do they ever consider what the consequences might be if we were to "fix" the situation. How do we know it would be beneficial?

I sometimes wonder what these people imagine. Do they think that we can make it so that the world's temperature levels off from this point forward if only the United States would control it's Greenhouse gases? And given the fact that there have been eleven or so heating/cooling cycles in Earth's history, do they imagine that this would be "natural"?

What's even funnier is that these same people who think they are oh so scientific will deride those who believe in Intelligent Design never considering that their views on Global Warming are just as unscientific.

The vast majority of people, American and otherwise, need a science refresher course.

Real Global Warming

Scientists have recently discovered the meaning of graphite striations found in very old rock formations.

The graphite line is graphic evidence of dramatic global warming that consumed so much oxygen that it nearly wiped out all life on the planet 247 million years ago

Did they have cars back then? Didn't think so. But you know what they did have?

Plants.

But what could have caused such a life threatening situation?

Scientists aren't certain what caused the episode some 247 million years ago. They estimate that temperatures ranged in the low 100s year-round for thousands of years, he said.

"Its kind of scary that we don't know for sure what caused the worst catastrophe of life on this planet," he said.

But, of course, many would have you believe that scientists know what causes global warming today.

He said the new evidence suggests that "we had a runaway hothouse effect because of the excess carbon dioxide. There was so much carbon dioxide introduced into the atmosphere, mostly from methane from the oceans."

Of  course carbon dioxide is precisely what plants create. And they emit methane, "a greenhouse gas that is second only to carbon dioxide in its impact on climate change"

Methane, which is produced by city rubbish dumps, coal mining, flatulent animals, rice cultivation and peat bogs, is one of the most potent greenhouse gases in terms of its ability to trap heat.
 
Concentrations of the gas in the atmosphere have almost tripled in the last 150 years. About 600 million tonnes worldwide are produced annually.

What's interesting to me is that the US, as well as other areas of the world were essentially deforested 150 years ago and America has more forest land now than it did 100 years ago. (Read this too).

Does that mean anything? I don't know. But neither does anyone else.

Global Warming: An alternative view

For all of you who believe that it is a settled scientific fact that humans burning hydro-carbons is the main cause of global warming, it's time, once again to reexamine why it is you believe that.

A new theory to explain global warming was revealed at a meeting at the University of Leicester (UK) and is being considered for publication in the journal "Science First Hand". The controversial theory has nothing to do with burning fossil fuels and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. According to Vladimir Shaidurov of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the apparent rise in average global temperature recorded by scientists over the last hundred years or so could be due to atmospheric changes that are not connected to human emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of natural gas and oil. Shaidurov explained how changes in the amount of ice crystals at high altitude could damage the layer of thin, high altitude clouds found in the mesosphere that reduce the amount of warming solar radiation reaching the earth's surface.

Shaidurov has used a detailed analysis of the mean temperature change by year for the last 140 years and explains that there was a slight decrease in temperature until the early twentieth century. This flies in the face of current global warming theories that blame a rise in temperature on rising carbon dioxide emissions since the start of the industrial revolution. Shaidurov, however, suggests that the rise, which began between 1906 and 1909, could have had a very different cause, which he believes was the massive Tunguska Event, which rocked a remote part of Siberia, northwest of Lake Baikal on the 30th June 1908.

I have pointed out on many occasions (here, here, and here) that most of what people think they know about the causes of Global Warming is mere pseudo-science; akin to believing in Intelligent Design.

And consider this: Even if it was true that humans were the primary cause and we could identify what precisely we were doing to encourage Global Warming, then what? Do you really believe that warming is better than cooling? What if we precipitated an Ice Age, would that be better?

Living as I do in the New England, I'm not anxious for an Ice Age any time soon. How 'bout you? I should think the the primary thing on our mind if we were in an Ice Age is how to warm things up again. You think?

 

The fact is, we don't know what causes global warming and we don't know what cause global cooling. And worse, we don't know what would happen if we were to figure out how to reverse the trend.

Today, I'm just looking forward to Spring....

and Summer.

Plant assassins

It seems that the easiest way for a country to meet their Kyoto Protocol targets for reducing greenhouse emissions is deforestation; or more precisely, kill all the plants.

German scientists have discovered a new source of methane, a greenhouse gas that is second only to carbon dioxide in its impact on climate change.

The culprits are plants.

They produce about 10 to 30 percent of the annual methane found in the atmosphere, according to researchers at the Max-Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics in Heidelberg, Germany.

Strangely, it is less developed countries that have more vegetation than developed countries and are actually producing more Methane gas as a result. Oh, and what about saving the Rain Forrest? Forget it, you'd just make matters worse.

"Keppler and colleagues' finding helps to account for observations from space of incredibly large plumes of methane above tropical forests," he said in a commentary on the research.

And just in case you're thinking that Methane emissions are a big deal

Methane...is one of the most potent greenhouse gases in terms of its ability to trap heat.

So the next time someone tells you to go green, you might want to point out that that would be bad for the environment.

Unless, of course, you're like me and live in a place that could sorely use some global warming action especially in the winter.

In which case, start a big garden.

The fallacy of Normal

A friend will come up to you and say "Oh you're thinking of buying that car? I wouldn't if I were you, I have had nothing but trouble with mine from the day I bought it."

The problem is, you just checked a report about this very model of car which rigoursly collected data on thousands of owners and found that it is, in fact, a very reliable model.

What do you do?

Strangely, most people will choose the testimonial of the friend rather than the scientific data.

But obviously it should be the other way around. After all the problem may lie with your friend and not the car, he may not do proper maintenance, or his driving habits may be very taxing. Or it could simply be that your friend got a lemon. It happens. The scientific survey is more likely to tell you about objective reality than is the personal testimony of a single individual.

When it come to the weather, the situation is similar.

Arguably the most common item of casual discussion is the weather, and these days a lot of discussion, including on the Internet, centers around what "strange weather" we've been having lately. The putative weirdness of the weather is attributed variously to the Jet Stream, the Greenhouse Effect, El Niño, volcanic eruptions, alien visitors, the imminent end of the Universe, and so on. A lot of this has its origins in such sources as newspapers, Sunday supplements, popular science magazines, tabloid papers, and of course, the television. Within the latter, programs about the weather appear within fairly serious presentations on PBS, in commentary and features by your local weathercasters, in the TV versions of magazines and tabloid newspapers, and on The Weather Channel. I am going to say straight up that the vast majority of what you read and hear in terms of "explanations" via the various media is fabrications, mythology, gibberish, or grotesque oversimplifications. No matter how many reputable folks they trot out in front of the cameras to capture the inevitable "sound bites" that television uses in lieu of content,^[1] what the media present is mostly fluff and half-truths. The media are not in business to do science ... they are in business to sell beer, automobiles, cosmetics, toothpaste, fast food, and perhaps themselves. If good substantive science sells, that's fine, but there is a tendency to push toward the controversial and sensational, almost always at the expense of substance. The programming is mostly an excuse to put their products in front of you, the "consumer." If they happen to say something educational, it is mostly coincidental. Let the buyer beware.

Science tends to bore folks because it requires careful thought and attention. Most folks watching television, or thumbing through the mags on the local newsstand, or even surfing the Internet get bored easily. They don't want to think very hard or very long. Thus, they are easily mislead by the hype and exaggeration, lies, and mythology they encounter about the weather.

When you hear morons and politicians talk about Hurricane Katrina in the same breath with "Global Warming" you know they don't know what they're talking about. The New York Times has the scoop

Because hurricanes form over warm ocean water, it is easy to assume that the recent rise in their number and ferocity is because of global warming.

But that is not the case, scientists say. Instead, the severity of hurricane seasons changes with cycles of temperatures of several decades in the Atlantic Ocean. The recent onslaught "is very much natural," said William M. Gray, a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University who issues forecasts for the hurricane season.

From 1970 to 1994, the Atlantic was relatively quiet, with no more than three major hurricanes in any year and none at all in three of those years. Cooler water in the North Atlantic strengthened wind shear, which tends to tear storms apart before they turn into hurricanes.

In 1995, hurricane patterns reverted to the active mode of the 1950's and 60's. From 1995 to 2003, 32 major hurricanes, with sustained winds of 111 miles per hour or greater, stormed across the Atlantic. It was chance, Dr. Gray said, that only three of them struck the United States at full strength.

Historically, the rate has been 1 in 3.

Then last year, three major hurricanes, half of the six that formed during the season, hit the United States. A fourth, Frances, weakened before striking Florida.

"We were very lucky in that eight-year period, and the luck just ran out," Dr. Gray said.

Don't believe the New York Times? I understand why you would be skeptical. But there is no need to trust them, or, like President Reagan once said, "Trust but verify." Here is a chart of hurricane activity over the past 150 years collected by NOAA and put in a chart form by Gea3 of the EU Rota blog

So there you have it. Real data. Now, believe what you want, but the truth and the facts are independent of what you believe.

(Instapundit contributed to the making of this post. Yeah, I still link to him. I'm not big on throwing the baby out with the bath water. Besides, the ACLU once helped James Taranto win an anti-conservative discrimination suit against his University. In California, no less. He was very happy with the result. Ask him. He'll tell ya.)

Clean Air

One of the problems with the Kyoto Treaty was who was exempted from cleaning up their emissions.

China is one notable exemption.

the treaty does not cover developing countries such as China, the second-largest source of greenhouse gases. At its current rate, China will surpass the United States in emissions by 2030.

Of course another drawback is that it would dispropotionaly hurt the US economy which is why, in my opinion, Europe is so hot on selling it to us.

The second problem found with the Kyoto Protocol evolves from this unfair advantage. Requiring CO₂ reductions would encumber many nations’  economies. Even the former Clinton Administration, which had agreed to such a pact at the 1997 conference, recognized the economic havoc such a treaty would wreak upon the United States economy. Alexander F. Annett of the Heritage Foundation noted, “President Clinton’s own Department of Energy predicted catastrophic gasoline and electricity price increases if America ratified the Kyoto Protocol.”[8]         According to the Department this would mean an increase in gasoline prices by as much as 66 cents a gallon and electricity could cost 86.4 percent more than it would otherwise amount to in the year 2010. Other studies showed even more traumatic effects. A study by the Wharton Economic Forecasting Associates (WEFA), a leader in economic information and forecasting, predicted that by ratifying the Kyoto Protocol a total of 2.4 million jobs would be lost in the U.S., and the U.S.’s annual GDP would drop 3.2 percent.

Taking a different tack, the new energy bill will not only provide incentives for building more, clean, nuclear power plants in the US, stimulating economic growth, but also provides incentives for alternative energy use in cars.

The AIADA newsletter reported that the Energy bill, currently awaiting signature from President Bush, would provide some of the biggest tax credits to date for hybrid consumers, according to an analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Depending on the model purchased, hybrid owners will receive $1,700 to $3,000 in tax credits beginning January 1, 2006. At present, hybrid consumers receive a $2,000 tax deduction, which is less attractive than tax credits that provide tax payers a dollar-for-dollar reduction.

According to USA Today, “The new energy legislation includes a bigger credit for hybrids that save the most fuel compared with 2002 models and those expected to conserve the most fuel over the life of the vehicle.”

Consumers of clean-burning diesel cars, trucks and SUVs will be eligible for the same kind of tax credits as hybrid consumers under the new legislation.

But what is the Bush Administration doing about reducing the Global production of CO₂?

The answer, as always, is more than you're being told.

Six Asia-Pacific nations, Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea and the United States, announced here Thursday to form the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate.

    A vision statement announced at a joint press conference said that the six nations will work together to create a new partnership to develop, deploy and transfer cleaner, more efficient technologies and to meet national pollution reduction, energy security and climate change concerns, consistent with the principles of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

    The partnership brings together key developing and developed countries in the region to address the challenges of climate change, energy security and air pollution, in a way that strives to encourage economic development and reduce poverty.

India, who is part of this Partnership is another big emitter of CO₂ (and rapidly getting bigger)  was exempt under the Kyoto Protocol. But under this plan

Rather than regulation of energy, it will focus on research on new technologies.... 

The Asian Pacific strategy  supports growth and promotes research in new technologies to manage emission of carbon dioxide. That itself makes it more appealing.

It also has the benefit of turning the tables on Europe.

But while Greens lament, a more ominous scenario will be looming in the minds of

Europe's leaders. This Asia Pacific grouping includes the world's best performing economies and the drivers of the world economy. It includes the economies with the requisite energy and dynamism to develop and commercialize new technology.

While the scope of the pact is climate change, it is the sort of arrangement that can engender a habit of cooperation. All of these economies are interested in the new technologies that will drive growth in future such as information technology, biotechnology and nanotechnology. And Europe is not part of this.

And even though the US didn't sign up to Kyoto, how does the scorecard look? U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick:

"to give you a sense of our own commitment to this overall process, the United States under the Bush administration has reduced carbon dioxide emissions by 0.3 percent during the first three years. And just to give you a set of contrasts, carbon dioxide emissions in all the other G8 countries increased during this period, for example the EU 15 by 3.6 percent and the EU 25 by 3.4 percent."

While the US under two different Administrations dominated by two different political parties have consistently rejected Kyoto as bad for America, this does not mean that we think cleaner air is inconsistent with our values.

But when was the last time you heard that the Bush Administration is doing anything but destroying the environment?

The fact is, those who make such shrill announcements are out to destroy America. You don't believe me? Would you believe Dr Patrick Moore one of the founders of Greenpeace?

Environmentalism has become anti-globalization and anti-industry. Activists have abandoned science in favor of sensationalism. Their zero-tolerance, fear-mongering campaigns would ultimately prevent a cure for Vitamin A deficiency blindness, increase pesticide use, increase heart disease, deplete wild salmon stocks, raise the cost and reduce the safety of healthcare, raise construction costs, deprive developing nations of clean electricity, stop renewable wind energy, block a solution to global warming and contribute to deforestation. How sick is that?

Pretty sick.

The Global Warming scam

It keeps coming up, humans cause global warming and we'd better stop it or bad things will happen.

Let's understand the facts of the matter.

Global Warming has been ongoing for around 10,000 years; since the end of the last Ice Age.

There was a mini-Ice Age between 1560 and 1850, and there have been four Ice Ages in the Earths geological history, each broken by an intervening period of global warming.

The last Ice Age ended as a result of global warming and this global warming trend continues today.

Now everyone knows there was an Ice Age, and everyone knows it ended. Therefore, whether consciously or unconsciously they must know that it ended as a result of global warming as well. And they must also be aware that there were no cars or factories 10,000 years ago.

This is not rocket science (more like meteorology or geology, I 'spose, but you get my drift).

Now the question for us today is whether or not global warming is accelerating as a result of human intervention.

I say, who cares?