I saw an article on global warming from The Australian that was interesting from a number of perspectives. The article features an interview with an Australian scientist as well as some thought provoking philosophical comments on skepticism, empiricism, and the difficulty intellectual movements have digesting challenges to their orthodoxy. Here is the link:
The scientist says the data show that, over the last 10 years, global cooling has been happening and that this poses serious problems for the theory of increasing greenhouse gases causing increasing global temperature. Because greenhouse gases have increased over the past 10 years, global temperatures should have increased rather than declined. Additionally, there is discussion of data (only recently available from a new satellite -- the NASA Aqua satellite -- data that was impossible to obtain before this new satellite) that indicates that a negative feedback mechanism is observed in the climate rather than the expected positive feedback. This is EXTREMELY significant, because it suggests the climate is a self-regulating system rather than a chaotic system that can be easily disturbed from equilibrium to a significantly different set-point and a significantly different climate. Basically, positive feedback leads one to the expectation that increased temperatures will cause more increased temperatures will cause more increased temperatures will cause more increased temperatures . . . ad nauseum, like the positive feedback in bad old electrical sound systems. On the other hand, negative feedback responds to increased values by doing something to slow the increase of these same values, negatively compensating against the increase.
Very, very, very interesting article. The end of the article has some interesting observations on the fate of the global warming zealots should the global warming ceiling fall down upon their heads. Additionally, there are interesting observations on intellectual movements confronting inconvenient truths -- they don't seem to like to acknowledge them and prefer to sweep them under the rug. Sound familiar in the global warming debates of today?
That means I'm leaving my 4x4 idling in the driveway all day long and am firing up the gas grill- you know, to do my part for the environment
btw: I now have 8-10" of snow outside that wasn't there 2 days ago. Global warming, my foot.
__________________
Obamanfreude - 1. taking pleasure from the misfortunes of an Obama supporter as he or she is adversely affected by the policies of their Dear Leader.
The more I think about it, the more interesting this article becomes. I didn't mention that the article does mention that the observed global cooling could be associated with diminished solar activity. I mulled this over a bit and at first thought this might diminish the message "more greenhouse gases, less global heat, thus theory is wrong." In fact, the information is entirely consistent with the message, in that the whole point is not that greenhouse gases do not have an effect, but rather that they do not have a dominating effect, that other factors more significantly drive the climate -- like the solar output for example. If the sun dials back its radiation, that is likely to have more impact than greenhouse gases.
I am humble and admit that on just about any given topic I can be wrong. I admit the jury is still out on "human caused global warming," but I have my serious doubts, I'm a steadfast skeptic. When the jury comes in, however, when this question is resolved, I would very much like to see an accounting. To be specific, if "human caused global warming" is ultimately shown to be just as foolish as the idea that oral consumption of radium is healthful, I would like to see a vigorous holding to account of those who most aggresively campaigned for public policy changes based on curtailing greenhouse gas emissions. I think political careers should collapse and businesses should fail as a result of this ill-considered, knee-jerk reaction, pseudo-science based witch doctoring. I hope our media has a field day taking people to task. Somehow, however, I don't think it will happen.
I like this part about the Canadian show and Michael Duffy...
Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.
When the jury comes in, however, when this question is resolved, I would very much like to see an accounting. To be specific, if "human caused global warming" is ultimately shown to be just as foolish as the idea that oral consumption of radium is healthful, I would like to see a vigorous holding to account of those who most aggresively campaigned for public policy changes based on curtailing greenhouse gas emissions. I think political careers should collapse and businesses should fail as a result of this ill-considered, knee-jerk reaction, pseudo-science based witch doctoring. I hope our media has a field day taking people to task. Somehow, however, I don't think it will happen.
Very good. I agree 100%. Al Gore should be made penniless for saying the debate is over and pushing for HUGE taxpayer funded ways of dealing with the issue, not the least of which is guilting the third world poor into not even having electricity!
If there was a way to accurately track those who are making a stink about "global warming"...I would venture a guess thatby and large, they are thesame folkswho were terrified at midnight 1999. (Y2K) In fact, I would'nt be supprised if it's not the same group that predicted (In the 70"s) that the world would run out of oil in twenty years.
Since the Earth is self-regulating, and we are experiencing a decline in solar activity, maybe the increased co2 is a reaction to less heat coming in. The Earth is trying to keep itself warm. All our carbon offsetting and decreased emissions, yadda, yadda, yadda, is contrary to what the Earth needs. That would be a typical result of liberal policies, when you think about it. Find a problem, try to solve it, but instead, make it worse and keep it going.
I guess just maybe that nut job Dr. Roy Spencer has others that believe in his work.
__________________
John Adams “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”
Ronald Reagan: 'Everybody that is for abortion has already been born'
"I never said I was worth it. I only said I wouldn't do it for less " William F. Buckley Jr.
Global warming is just another way to scare up votes and a reason to raise taxes. Thanks for the article
There you go... I heard on the radio this morning that one of the pages in the Democrat Party playbook is to impose a tax on anyone whose house exceeds 2,400 square feet. Seems they want to force those of us who actually have paid our mortgages out of our houses...
Global Warming stopped decade ago
