noiv said...
I agree, what the Independent published at Christmas targets symbolic effects, only. But who really expects science stuff in newspapers December 24th?
Whether, anthropogenic global warming is the root cause for the phenomena under observationWell, that's a contradiction. What you have to see and will convince you of Global Warming. Red rain? Ice free north pole?
But asking for the root, do you still think C02 does not heat up atmosphere?
Fri Dec 29, 10:12:00 AM CST
I decided that it would be good to put down my response in a more visible place than the comments section, and to clarify some of the things that global warmists have come to assume about skeptics like me.
We don't know what caused the Medieval Warming Period. We don't know what caused the Little Ice Age. To claim that we now know with certainty what has caused the approximately one degree Celsius increase in average temperature world-wide since the turn of the 20th century is preposterous. Especially when that certainty will lead to huge political and economic changes.
Before we go and bet the farm on a computer model of global climate, how about modeling past climate variations successfully; for example, the period of time covered by the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age.
Then before we go any further, how about a model that predicts global temperatures for the next 10-20 years?
Since your question was phrased as if I have "believed" for some time that CO2 does not heat up the atmosphere, let me help you out. I'm aware of the effects of greenhouse gases (water vapor, methane, and others as well as CO2) on Venus. Since the increase in average temperatures world-wide has only been about a single degree Celsius – and the cause of that is in hot dispute – I have no truck with the notion that we are anywhere near a "tipping point" that will cause temperatures to increase dramatically. And that's because nobody can tell me how much the increased CO2 has increased temperatures. I'd rather wait to impose draconian environmental measures until someone can tell me.
I agree with Michael Crichton that the so-called "precautionary principle" has the effect of supporting and maintaining the economic advantages of the West; as Crichton puts it, "It is a nice way of saying, 'We got ours and we don't want you to get yours, because you'll cause too much pollution.' "
The unbelievable faith that global warmists have in governments to "save us" from ourselves is one of the most startling things about this whole global warming business. Nobody seems to remember how thoroughly the Soviet Union was under the sway of central planners and how thoroughly its economy was destroyed thereby. Nobody seems to notice that the great oil wealth coupled with the determined socialism of Venezuela has not and will not relieve the poverty there...still over 50% of the population after decades of oil exploitation. Nobody seems to notice how our own government has handled things like the War on Drugs or the War on Poverty or even the War in Iraq. And now the global warmists want world-wide co-operation in the control of air pollutants? When there has never been anything even remotely resembling such a level of world-wide co-operation before? Who's zoomin' who, here? My guess (sorry, this is going to be crass) is that the global warmists would be happy just to have more opportunities to sue people.
I have no doubt that human activity has increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere. I have no doubt that temperatures have risen slightly in the past century. My belief is that the majority of the recorded temperature increase has come from land use, not CO2.
Finally, I'm with Lord Monckton, Viscount of Brenchley, on the whole shutting up of dissenters thing. That is, it is unconscionable of the global warmists – led by esteemed Congresscritters Snowe and Rockefeller – to suggest that research to debunk global warming theories should be halted. All that their whining suggests is that they're afraid that they'll lose political power if the research punches holes in their pet theories.
And, once more for the road, consensus is not science.
No comments:
Post a Comment