The first is a report on the increasing number of peer-reviewed scientific articles showing the misguided notions (or outright false claims) of the many alarmists. Among them:
- New peer-reviewed study finds global warming over last century linked to natural causes.
- Belgian weather institute’s (RMI) August 2007 study dismisses decisive role of CO2 in warming.
- Solar Cycle a better explanation for data on surface warming.
- Anthropogenic climate models fail test against real clouds, which would reduce estimates of future warming by over 75 percent.
- Research into how the solar system regulates the earth’s climate...the variable output of the sun, the sun’s gravitational relationship between the earth (and the moon) and earth’s variable orbital relationship with the sun, regulate the earth’s climate.
- CO2’s impact on warming may be excessively exaggerated, so we're likely headed for a cooling.
- NASA temperature data error discovery has lead to 1934 -- not the previously hyped 1998 -- being declared the hottest in U.S. history since records began. (80% of man-made CO2 emissions occurred after 1940!)
- Further data corrections are needed to fix the urbanization of data.
- Greenland and the Arctic aren't behaving as global warming climate models predict!
- Former global warming scientists say the data has now made them global warming skeptics!
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."Don't be fooled by the guff of those who want to set us on a backwards trajectory. Otherwise, you'll find out all too soon the answer to a bad joke: What's green on the outside, but red to the core? Well...these guys. And don't forget these guys.
The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.
7 comments:
Sometimes you post something concrete and interesting, but its always followed by some sort of absurd connection forged out of nothing. Good point. Climate scientists are...Libertarian Nazis. Well reasoned, and thoroughly convincing.
Not climate scientists...most of whom disagree with the anthropogenic global warming thesis. It's the greenieweenies that want to push a socialist agenda and guilt us all there by saying we're committing ecocide unless we follow their utopian scheme. We've seen their failed policies and I refuse to go quietly into that dark night.
Now, do you want to make a comment to the substance of the post?
I find it, 'fascinating' in the non-judgmental sense of the word, of course- that John Edwards universal health care plan would require all people covered (all people?) to go to the doctor once a yr. Mandatory. From cradle to grave he says.... I assume in our Prius' and Hybrids.
Greenieweenie Nazis indeed.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070902/ap_on_el_pr/edwards_2
Here's the link to the article on Edwards. (Learn some HTML, Dave!)
What's frightening about his proposal:
1) What if you want a second opinion?
2) What consequences exist for refusing a particular treatment plan?
The Left is scared about corporate / pharmaceutical influence on treatment plans for patients. Just wait until they put the police power of the STATE to work on the "solution"!!!!
@ Chris
I agree that Edwards' proposal for universal health care is pretty awful. It seems to combine the worst aspects of the coercive power of government with the profit-driven health care industry.
I *still* think that your conspiracy theory about "greenieweenies" is asinine, Chris. I mean, just to be blunt. I think that's on par with referring to all conservatives as Fascists. It should be beneath you as someone who seems to want to be taken seriously.
In the event that the majority of climate scientists reject anthropogenesis as an explanation for global warming, I'll be fine with that. I'm trying not to bring preconceptions to this discussion - I'm reading on my own and researching on my own and making decisions about what I think is going on. The links you present look like interesting in a preliminary way - far, far from conclusive, but supportive of the idea that broad consensus does not yet exist, or that if it existed it is now unraveling. That's fine. I want *science*, not politics, to win arguments about science.
Even if global warming is not anthropogenic, however, I still don't want my grandchildren to live on a garbage heap drinking acid rain in a world where wilderness exists on vintage recordings from the Discovery Channel. If giving a damn about the environment, rather than being fine with just doing whatever is profitable in the short term, makes me a Nazi in your view, then I guess that's that. At this juncture, I take it as a compliment.
I honestly think that usually you present arguments in a relatively rigorous way, much as I delight in disagreeing with your arguments and their conclusions. On the issue of the environment, however, you seem to be just sort of spouting off angry nonsense. 'They're trying to guilt us into following their utopian scheme'. Ok. I've been active in the environmental movement for about ten years now. Sure, there is probably a small minority that might actually be doing this, just like a small minority of conservatives are probably actually Fascists. But as a sweeping generalization, this is just garbage. Not only is it disrespectful, divisive, and inaccurate, its also vapid.
If you want to be listened to by people who aren't also just spewing angry nonsense that agrees with you, you have a lot of work to do on this topic.
Doug,
I was being hyperbolic and sarcastic about the Green Nazi Party. I'm sorry it didn't come through clearly.
However, I do believe that there is considerable evidence for Kyoto and the like as a means of hampering US economic growth. Chirac spoke of Kyoto as "the first component of an authentic global governance." (opening remarks, COP-6, the Hague, 11/2000). Margaret Wallstrom, the EU's vp for communication said: "This is not a simple environmental issue...this is about international relations, this is about economy, about trying to level the playing field for big businesses throughout the world."
Global warming hysteria is not now, nor has it ever been, primarily about solving climatic conundra. Kyoto's protocol, by IPCC's own estimate, would only lessen the impact by less than one degree centigrade. What it would do is put the United States at a competitive disadvantage so that socialist-swamped European businesses could get back in the race. In the words of Marlo Lewis, Kyoto is "essentially a predatory trade strategy masquerading as an environmental treaty."
As an steward of the earth, I feel that it is necessary to use our resources to the best of our abilities. Capitalist strategies tend towards the most efficient use of materials. It has not always been kind to people, but where the wealth generated from free enterprise is adequately unrestricted by government, the life of the worker improves dramatically. I want people to have electricity, clean water, and access to modern sanitation. That is not going to happen by us all returning to the stone age. Check the records for yourself: the wealthiest countries are the least polluting countries. There's an initial ramp-up of production waste followed by effective controls. Why? Because clean environments cost money - and you have to generate the money first.
The USA produces the majority of the world's wealth because we have access to abundant energy. We are able to give generously because of our wealth (yes...only 5% of the world's population [Americans} shoulders over 25% of the UN's budget). We produce the least amount of pollution per unit of work produced because we have moved towards increasingly efficient energy schemes. It takes money to do that...and I don't want to see that money wasted in hare-brained, politically driven catastrophism. I'd much rather see it go to solving AIDS, hunger, and malaria!
Nice Ad Hominem attack.
Chris as I've said before: "it's the hit dog that yelps".
Fun post - as usual progressives prove they have no sense of humor and are often mean people.
Post a Comment