Global warming alarmists out in coldGo read the whole article. It highlights 10 myths and then gives you the facts. Sure it is from an Australian perspective, but that's part of its charm.
IT'S snowing in April. Ice is spreading in Antarctica. The Great Barrier Reef is as healthy as ever.
And that's just the news of the past week. Truly, it never rains but it pours - and all over our global warming alarmists.
Time's up for this absurd scaremongering. The fears are being contradicted by the facts, and more so by the week.
Doubt it? Then here's a test.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Australian Contrarian
Here's a newspaper article in the Herald Sun that questions global warming:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I meant to comment on this a day or two ago, but I got sidetracked (saw something shiny). I am one of those people that tries to be open minded on global warming, but I find myself defending it. I have had many discussions about this with my family on our family web site which doesn't exist anymore. My aunts and others don't agree with global warming and I have argued to some extent with them about it. It becomes a very sore subject.
I read the points that should convince me, but all I can think of is the reports that more Arctic ice shelf has fallen off . I am not arguing the point, I just find myself confused. Are there that many scientist that are so greedy that they would help sell a hoax? I don't know, but I did see a lot of reason that business would try to diminish if not totally discredit the evidence. But as I have said before, I am not a scientist or able to go there and check it out myself, so all I have is my memories and local evidence, and I do not know if its natural cycles (that could be the earth adjusting to the amount of carbon in the air) or if it is really man made.
That brings out the whole arrogance thing. Yes, we are small creatures, but when you add us all together; we have got to be a major impact on this planet. If as Carlon says; the earth will get rid of us.. wouldn't you like to know how to get along with the earth and have a home for the next generation? I see arrogance from the other perspective... You have the religious right saying; it doesn't matter, God will take care of it. Only God can destroy the Earth. And, you have the George Carlon attitude, or you have the global warming people who think man is warming the planet and should do something to take care of it. Who is more arrogant? I can't make any difference and I will wait and see or die before I see.
There is a basis for worry about global warming. Green house gases really do trap heat and act as a greenhouse.
The other fact is that the majority of scientists honestly will tell you that they worry about "global warming".
But...
(1) The IPCC's warnings about global warming are based on computer models. I've built models and I know how tricky it is to validate them (i.e. show that they correctly represent things). I've been watching IPCC's "predictions" for 30 years and they keep changing because they are still learning things. Worse, their ability to handle clouds and water vapour are very poor and they don't include anything about variable sun irradiance. So I don't trust the models. (Read Apollo's Arrow by David Orrell, he is a mathematician who worked on climate models and his book will explain the problems in the models.)2) Most scientists agree because they aren't specialists in climate and they simply trust "the science", but in the case of climate there are two kinds of science. I think they are right to trust the paleoclimatologists and the data they develop. But the climate modelers are a different kind of "scientist" that hasn't earned their stripes yet (in my view).
3) There is a lot of economic pressure on scientists to join the "global warming" bandwagen. All scientists need grants to fund their work and pay their students. Funding agencies want a "big bang" for the buck and working on something sexy like "understanding global warming" sounds really good to a funding agency. Asking for money to question the current orthodoxy of global warming is met with rejection. So the pressure on climate scientists to be "politically correct" and go along with the global warming hysteria is very high.
So... bottom line: There is definitely a rise in greenhouse gases. Does that mean a runaway heat death for the earth? That's not so clear to me. I am all for funding more research but I want funding for both the modellers and for those who are critical of the models and those who are contrarians.
I would like to see a real debate about alternatives. Stopping carbon emissions would lower greenhouse gases, but it throws a real wrench into the economy. I want to see alternatives seriously investigated before getting onto the bandwagen. I don't think the alternatives have been investigated. I'm all for funding alternative energy (solar, wind, tide, geothermal). I want to see the argument for new generation nuclear technology. I want to see scientists come up with more energy efficient designs. Low on my list would be "bring the economy to a screeching halt".
Too often the people yelling the loudest about cutting greenhouse gases are the children of the elite/rich. They think nothing of selling snake oil. When I was younger, the mantra of these elite/rich was "tune in/turn on/drop out" and like the Pied Piper they took something like 10% of the middle and lower classes off into the fantasy land idea of "going back to the land" or living as a hippie in big cities. It destroyed a lot of lives. But when these "leaders" discovered it was time to move on, they got their rich parents to take them into the family business or pay for schooling/training and they became the yuppies and they left their "followers" to fend for themselves.
I see the global warming crowd as similar Pied Pipers. They have a big idea that sounds like it is right (yes greenhouse gases tends to warm the atmosphere). They are so convinced that they see a problem, they want to gut the economy to cut greenhouse gases. This will lower standards of living, but they know they have enough wealth to protect themselves from the real hardships this would incur. I don't trust them because they are prescribing a medicine that they aren't willing to really take for themselves.
Worse, I see them as people who are so taken with apocalyptic visions that they want us to suffer for our "sins". They really don't want want to find a vision where we save ourselves from the problem. They want us to wear sackcloth and ashes to atone for our carbon "profligacy". I don't trust religious fanatics.
Post a Comment