[antimedia] antimedia: Global what?....

[Email subscription to blog articles]

Posted by antimedia:
Global what?....
http://www.antimedia.us/posts/1176165220.shtml


   ....One of the most eminent scientists in meteorology [1]has some
   problems with the present claims of global warming advocates.

     Judging from the media in recent months, the debate over global
     warming is now over. There has been a net warming of the earth over
     the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are
     contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost
     certainly true. What of it? Recently many people have said that the
     earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement
     has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence
     that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to
     catastrophe. What most commentatorsâand many scientistsâseem to
     miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate
     is that it changes.

   Contrary to those who claim the debate is over, it is far from it.

     There is no evidence, for instance, that extreme weather events are
     increasing in any systematic way, according to scientists at the
     U.S. National Hurricane Center, the World Meteorological
     Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
     (which released the second part of this year's report earlier this
     month). Indeed, meteorological theory holds that, outside the
     tropics, weather in a warming world should be less variable, which
     might be a good thing.

   Of course evidence isn't what matters to Gore acolytes.

     Many of the most alarming studies rely on long-range predictions
     using inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those
     that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now.
     Interpretations of these studies rarely consider that the impact of
     carbon on temperature goes downânot upâthe more carbon accumulates
     in the atmosphere. Even if emissions were the sole cause of the
     recent temperature riseâa dubious propositionâfuture increases
     wouldn't be as steep as the climb in emissions.

   There is ample reason to be cautious in making changes as well.

     Moreover, actions taken thus far to reduce emissions have already
     had negative consequences without improving our ability to adapt to
     climate change. An emphasis on ethanol, for instance, has led to
     angry protests against corn-price increases in Mexico, and forest
     clearing and habitat destruction in Southeast Asia. Carbon caps are
     likely to lead to increased prices, as well as corruption
     associated with permit trading. (Enron was a leading lobbyist for
     Kyoto because it had hoped to capitalize on emissions trading.) The
     alleged solutions have more potential for catastrophe than the
     putative problem. The conclusion of the late climate scientist
     Roger RevelleâAl Gore's supposed mentorâis worth pondering: the
     evidence for global warming thus far doesn't warrant any action
     unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with
     climate.

   Those are precisely the grounds upon which the global warming religion
   is founded.
   The article closes with this sad disclaimer.

     Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the
     Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been
     funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding
     from any energy companies.

   The "debate" has been so poisoned that eminent scientists must claim
   no affliation with any "evil" entities to even have their work
   considered to be impartial. (Hat tip to [2]Austin Bay.)

References

   1. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/
   2. http://austinbay.net/blog/?p=1742