Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Global Warming?

UPDATE: Here's another post on the scientific problems with the global warming claims. The conclusion:

First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists--especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade.

Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce--if we're lucky.


Oprah's show today was on global warming. Unfortunately she didn't deal with the contradictory evidence nor with the fact that in the 1970's the "scientific" fear was that a new global ice age was coming. Maybe what we need to do to counter the global warming trend is whatever we were doing in the 1970's to encourage the new ice age then.

Tony at Always Right, Usually Correct has a good column dealing with contradictory scientific findings on the global warming scare.

Here's a little taste:

"But our CO2 levels have to be devastating to the world...they simply are not natural at the levels we are making."

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

No comments: