Blog powered by Typepad

« Let's hear it for the SEALs - and 'Oprah'! | Main | I just choked on my cheer! »

Tuesday, 14 April 2009


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

For me, your sixth item is what got me started. Reading about the vicious attacks on those who disagreed with the AGW view, the mainstream media's one-sided advocacy for it, together with our government's throwing $billions at it made me smell a rat. That's when I began reading the literature... books, articles, and research papers... and discovered "the rest of the story".

I believe it's factual to say that climate science is in its infancy. Yet we're told to confidently accept that an unprovable AGW hypothesis (at least within our lifetime) as modeled by climate researchers, is cause to undergo draconian changes in our lifestyles, is cause to rush to judgement that mankind is producing a climate catastrophe, and is cause to force us to pay $trillions to fight it. Because the debate is over. Because the science is settled. Because it's time for action. Because contrary research has no credibility. Because skeptical scientists are either kooks, rambling old men, or holocaust deniers.

I have learned that our governmental leaders do not want to hear of any warming caused by Mother Nature, that environmental groups throw $millions into scary, vocal advocacy for immediate steps to prevent use of fossil fuels, that AGW scientists castigate their brethren who disagree with them, and that media bias propagandizes us with the AGW orthodoxy.

What's truly sad is that most of our citizenry are ignorant of the facts. They will only realize what's happening when it's too late... when they discover that we rely on the availability of inexpensive energy for nearly every aspect of our lives... and when the government forces expensive alternatives upon us.

And it's sad that the people's advocates against changes demanded by the orthodoxy are constantly vilified at every step.


Fifth, it seems obvious to me, even with the scientific black holes that litter my knowledge, that if there is one humungous thing that simply must effect our climate above and beyond all others, it is the sun.

Way back in the mists of anouther century I took the required Meteorology and Climatology course.

We got to read the original research, I'm not sure if it was an accurate translation of poorly written Russian, or the work of a translater who wrote better Russian than English. But the main point was very clear that temperature and climate is controlled by the net absorption of solar energy. The biggest thing effecting this was the current activity of the sun, the next biggest was watermark (clouds). It amy be hard on the collective ego to the human race but man made effects were minimal.

But if I ever have to look at a net solar absorption isobar again it will be too soon.

"net solar absorption isobar"

Nah, Hank, stick to a Hershey!

It is interesting how much more controversial Global Warming is in the political arena than the scientific arena. Climatologists and astronomers had figured out that Venus is much hotter than Earth, and much hotter than what it would be if it were just based on the relative distances of the two planets from the sun. They also figured out that the high CO2 levels in Venus' atmosphere was the cause.

When such analysis was applied to rising levels of CO2 on Earth in later years, corporate interests threw up a lot of smoke, mirrors, and ideological distractions to blind people to something that is obvious from the scientific standpoint.

Now those same interests are having trouble disputing Global Warming itself, since we can see it happening at the poles. So, they have switched the talking points and are saying that human based activities are not the cause of the climate changes we see.

So many on the right will follow the talking points without seeing the contradictory nature of them.

The entire thing would be comical if the future consequences for the planet weren't so devastating.

Hank: In the past, human impacts were minimal. But, human population and industrialization have exploded. The world has changed.

Jeff: A lot of the people writing the articles denying the fact of human caused climate change in the mainstream press are literally paid hacks. The American Enterprise Institute even got caught offering to bribe a scientist into writing a review article to attack reputable climate science on behalf of its corporate donors. Just because you are sincere doesn't mean that the people providing you with information are.

Good man, 'LibHomo', and welcome to D&N. I say "good" because it is such a rarity to be opposed by a 'warmer' in a such a reasonable and ironic manner - and I enjoy irony, so much more effective than abuse. Let me take you rpoints in order.

I would not agree with your contention that controversy on this topic is greater in the political than the scientific arenas. Rather the reverse, with the pols spotting a chance to ride the wave of (what they think is) popularity, and slap on extra taxes at the same time - watch next week's budget! I see nothing but agreement in political circles, but the sheer volume of fury and spite in the scientific world leaves me gaping - ask Bjorn Lomberg!

Your second observation concerning Venus interests me but I can't help wondering if those scientists had previously "worked out" that CO2 casued warming on earth therfore ... etc.

Alas, the activities of CO2 are not at all "obvious" except to the committed. There seems to be a great lack of knowledge all round on exactly what happens at the molecular level in the inter-actions between CO2 and air and water - not least because the equations concerned are dynamic and intrinsically 'chaotic'.

You let yourself down with mention of "corporate interests". Bjorn Lomberg had no corporate interest when he stepped out of line, indeed, he lost his job as a result. Freeman Dyson has no corporate interests - and so on, and on.

I'm not sure what problems you mean at the poles. Sea ice, for example, appears to be increasing rather than decreasing, but even when decreasing it provides no proof of AGW - the amount of ice in both areas has increased and decreased over zillions of years.

Finally, "A lot of the people writing the articles denying the fact of human caused climate change in the mainstream press are literally paid hacks" might be true but then exactly teh same could be said of those scribblers promoting AGW.

'LibHomo', having just finished my comment above and I stumbled on this. I haven't evenread it yet but it looks as though it might be of interest to you:

The comments to this entry are closed.