Wednesday, September 12, 2007


I'd like to refer you to two recent articles that blunt the cutting edge of the global warming craze. This sort of input, of course, does nothing for Al Gore's bottom line. But Al isn't apparently interested in a lot of studies that disagree with his worst-case scenarios.

Like just about everyone, I'm no scientist. So we have to rely to a large extent on what scientists have to say when it comes to global climate change. However, when it is apparent that scientists also have agendas, then the ice is a bit thinner, trustwise. And everyone has agendas. So moving cautiously in this area necessarily involves being highly suspicious of outrageous claims and hyperbole. Which is much of what we get from many global warming proponents.

In 2001, Bjorn Lonborg wrote The Skeptical Environmentalist, a more positive, data-driven evaluation of the global warming situation. He's back with another book,entitled Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming.
Lonborg admits that human activity is contributing to global warming. He just isn't ready to sign on with the over-the-top solutions being promoted by Al and friends. Jonathan Adler has the story here.

I don't know what Earthtimes is, but it has a similar "cool it" article which sheds a bit more acidrain on the globalwarmingmaniacs. In this article, someone actually did a survey of peer-reviewed literature on the subject of GW in order to assess just who and how many are saying what about it. A bit surpringly, over 500 scientists have published articles refuting in some way some aspects of the global warming menagerie of scary stories. One of the authors of the study:
"We have had a Greenhouse Theory with no evidence
to support it-except a moderate warming turned into
a scare by computer models whose results have never
been verified with real-world events," said co-author
"On the other hand, we have compelling evidence of a
real-world climate cycle averaging 1470 years (plus or
minus 500) running through the last million years of
history. The climate cycle has above all been moderate,
and the trees, bears, birds, and humans have
quietly adapted."

My guess is, twenty or thirty years down the lane, we'll look back on
these "Computer models" and marvel at how crude they were. "And
to think we were poised to act radically on these studies!" But I'm no

HT to Theodore

No comments: