Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Global Warming’

More Than 650 Scientists Protest Global Warming Claims

2008.12.11 Comments off

A new Senate report is poised to present a major challenge to the dogma of global warming.  The preview, made available today, provides some tasty hints as to what the full report will contain.  Here’s my favorite quote:

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

My favorite part of the quote: “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly.”  The unspoken implication is deafening.

The article made another interesting point: since 1980, almost half of the land temperature monitoring points have vanished as the old Soviet Union’s science infrastructure has been dismantled.  Their location?  Siberia.  Hmmmm…

Meanwhile, the National Snow and Ice Data Center presents an interesting picture: arctic ice buildup is rapidly increasing to its 30-year average level, while Antarctic ice is ahead of its 30 year average.  I thought that the Antarctic was a goner?   Hmmmm…

And the voices of reason are raising in unison.  The fact is that the IPCC, the organization most responsible for elevating the climate change issue, bases its conclusions not on historic data but on computer models that, among other flaws, do not take into account solar activity. This alone should be sufficient to completely disregard their findings since solar activity vastly overwhelms any man-made factors in determining global climate.  Solar activity is a greater issue because data are showing that we are at a historic low for sunspot activity.  Fewer sunspots means a hotter solar output.

Climate models wildly disagree with one another as well and do not agree on extraordinarily powerful factors such as clouds.  When data are presented which challenge the model, the data are adjusted to fit the model, not the other way around.

I was Googling to find the original NASA report regarding ocean cooling, and learned that NASA has changed its report so that now the oceans aren’t cooling.  Perhaps an improvement in the methodology, perhaps political conformism.  Who can say?

In the meantime I found this article by Lorne Gunter that deserves a little homage:

In fact, “there has been a very slight cooling,” according to a U.S. National Public Radio (NPR) interview with Josh Willis at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a scientist who keeps close watch on the Argo findings.

Willis was reporting on his findings that have since been adjusted.  Gunter goes on to add:

Just look how tenaciously some scientists are prepared to cling to the climate change dogma. “It may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming,” Dr. Willis told NPR.

Yeah, you know, like when you put your car into reverse you are causing it to enter a period of less rapid forward motion. Or when I gain a few pounds I am in a period of less rapid weight loss.

The big problem with the Argo findings is that all the major climate computer models postulate that as much as 80-90% of global warming will result from the oceans warming rapidly then releasing their heat into the atmosphere.

Keep looking, guys.  I’m sure that the evidence is out there.

Advertisements

Global Warming, R.I.P.

2008.12.10 Comments off

Is global warming dead?

Last March, NASA reported the oceans have been cooling for the last five years. Sea level has stopped rising, and Northern Hemisphere cyclone and hurricane activity is at a 24-year low.

Environmental extremists and global warming alarmists are in denial and running for cover. Their rationale for continuing a lost cause is that weather events in the short term are not necessarily related to long-term climatic trends. But these are the same people who screamed at us each year that ordinary weather events such as high temperatures or hurricanes were undeniable evidence of imminent doom.

I wonder how long it will be before this guy gets shot?

To the extent global warming was ever valid, it is now officially over. It is time to file this theory in the dustbin of history, next to Aristotelean physics, Neptunism, the geocentric universe, phlogiston, and a plethora of other incorrect scientific theories, all of which had vocal and dogmatic supporters who cited incontrovertible evidence.

Couldn’t agree more.

The Science is Unsettled

2008.10.04 Comments off

Last night, Joe Biden said of global warming, “I think it’s clearly man-made,” while his opponent, Sarah Palin, said that she believes that the evidence shows that both human and cyclical changes account for climate change.

So, which one is the scientist, and which is the religious fanatic?

But before I get into the question of climate change orthodoxy, the exchange between the two caused me to reflect on my observations of pollution in Europe.  It seems to me that many in this country think that Europe must lead the way in cleaning the planet, and the the US is lagging hopelessly behind.

Hardly.

Over There

I witnessed a lot of industrial pollution going on over there – a lot more than one sees in America.  Here in the USA, you see a lot of tailpipe pollution – a problem that needs to be solved – but almost never do you see smokestack pollution – a problem that seemed to abound in France, Spain, and Italy.  Europe also abounds with automobiles that couldn’t pass American emissions standards (much less California standards).

Qualitatively, I also saw quite a bit more waste pollution – trash and graffiti – in Europe than in almost any American city, specifically in France and Italy.  Several stops reminded me of Brooklyn circa 1988.

Of course, Europe is pristine compared to developing areas in Africa and the Pacific.  And, don’t get me wrong – I love Europe.  It’s beautiful.  But it ain’t perfect.  And it should remind us, when questioning why we didn’t sign the Kyoto protocol, that we don’t need to sign an agreement in order to clean up the planet.  We just need to do it.  Apparently, we are.

Climate Change

I’ve posted about this many times on CWSS.  The key article is Global Warming, which summarizes the five key points that must be addressed before we can agree to take action to combat climate change.  In addition are several other supporting articles:

Are Sea Levels Really Rising? discusses the fact that although experts “agree” that sea levels are rising, in fact, they are not rising worldwide, and the data require “adjustment” in order to show a trend.  The raw data do not show a rising trend.

More on Sea Level Change explains how a longer view of sea level shows that the Earth has periodically experienced far more radical changes in sea level than the current 30 year “trend” and asks the question: what are we going to do the next time the Earth goes on a cooling binge?

Climate Change: it Just Gets Better points out that the IPCC (the agency responsible for much of the current science on climate change) does not make predictions nor takes into account many obvious scenarios when it presents the doomsday what-if dramas that have made it famous.

Global Warming (on Mars) posits that the increase in surface temperature on Mars could only be caused by some kind of interspatial leakage of carbon emissions from Earth to Mars, since clearly, climate change is always man-made.  The article then goes on to discuss the climate change orthodoxy which resists debate.

The Science is Settled (or Not) links to an outstanding article listing some of the key detractors to the climate change orthodoxy.

Science vs. Orthodoxy

And that gets to the topic of orthodoxy.  Don’t get me wrong.  I think it’s quite conceivable that the Earth is warming.  I think it’s even plausible that there’s a human component.  But I don’t think the science is settled.  Not by a long shot.  Science is never settled.

Recalling last night’s debate, Palin gave a much more reasoned scientific answer to the climate change question than did Biden.  Where she demonstrated rationality, Biden demonstrated a knee-jerk towards the politically correct viewpoint that climate change is simply due to human carbon emission.

Political correctness.

Orthodoxy.

I’m cringing already, because people I know are going to read this article and know that (1) I don’t automatically think that Sarah Palin is a raving lunatic, and (2) I’m totally unconvinced of the theory of man-made climate change.

That’s a very unpopular pair of views in my crowd.  A crowd that prides itself on openmindedness, while at the same time rejecting out of hand any dispute on the views they hold dear.  The Science is Settled.  Nothing To See Here, Please Move Along.  I’M NOT LISTENING LA LA LA LA LA.

Orthodoxy: how to turn any science into a religion.  For more information on how to use orthodoxy to turn the science of the day into a religion, see Leviticus.

Orthodoxy: Good enough for Moses.  Good enough for Al Gore.  Good enough for you.