| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Environment Forum » The Great Global Warming Race
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| 0BZN0 |
 Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 12:23 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
May 01, 2008
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,353844,00.html
QUOTE: "The attempted logic here is that even though the alarmists have
been wrong in the past - been there, done that - their failure somehow
sets them up for more certain future success."
QUOTE: For the next 10 years, while alarmists ram through their
misanthropic agenda, their time-buying story line will be "aren't we
lucky that Mother Nature has given us a temporary reprieve."
This will no doubt be followed 10 years later by "Whew, aren't we glad
we spent trillions to prevent catastrophic global warming?"
Can global warming's vested interests close the deal on greenhouse gas
regulation before the public wises up to their scam?
A new study indicates alarmist concern and a need to explain away the
lack of actual global warming. Researchers belonging to the U.N. IPCC,
reported in Nature (May 1) that after adjusting their climate model to
reflect actual sea surface temperatures of the last 50 years, "global
surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural
climate variations . temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic
warming."
You got that? IPCC researchers project no global warming over the next
decade because of Mother Nature. Although the result seems stunning in
that it came from IPCC scientists who have always been in the tank for
manmade global warming, it's not really surprising since the notion of
manmade climate change has never lived up to its billing.
When NASA's James Hansen sounded the alarm in Congress 20 years ago, he
predicted that rising concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide, or
CO2, would drive global temperatures higher by 0.34 degrees Celsius
during the 1990s. But surface temperatures increased during that decade
by only 0.11 degrees Celsius and lower atmosphere temperatures actually
decreased.
Global temperatures remain well below an El Nino-driven 1998 spike
despite ever-increasing atmospheric CO2. Global warming hysterics
purport that manmade emissions of CO2 are the primary driver of global
climate and that controlling emissions will favorably affect climate.
While this is obviously not so since it virtually supposes that without
human activity climate change would not occur, it nevertheless remains
their viewpoint.
The Nature study, however, reasserts Mother Nature in her rightful place
as our climate dominatrix. Although there is no evidence that manmade
CO2 emissions play any detectable role in climate change, the very idea
that Mother Nature may cool the planet despite humanity's furious output
of greenhouse gases should be even worse for the climate alarmists' way
of thinking.
It would mean that greenhouse gas emissions are actually beneficial,
since without them, Mother Nature's cooling could be quite damaging. The
last time the Earth significantly cooled was during the 14th to 19th
centuries - a period known as the Little Ice Age.
Among other things during that period, the Vikings were forced to
withdraw from a freezing Greenland and cooler Northern Hemisphere
temperatures were responsible for, and or contributed to, numerous
famines and much-related social upheaval. So will the Nature study dump
climate alarmism into the ash can of history? Doubtful.
Just this week, Al Gore drummed up $683 million for an investment fund
that aims to profit from government-subsidized global warming-related
technologies. A few weeks ago, Gore launched a $300 million global
warming ad campaign. Do you think he's at all interested in returning
that money to investors and contributors? Or that he and the IPCC are
interested in returning their Nobel Peace Prizes?
The federal government has been doling out more than $5 billion annually
for research into climate change and alternative energy. A generation
ago, there were only a handful of climatologists around the world; now
there are legions of taxpayer-funded climatologists, scientists and
public health professionals from many disciplines also hooked up to the
climate gravy train.
What about the private-sector profiteers? Will the carbon footprint
industry give up its CO2-offset ATM? Will companies that have been
lobbying to receive trillions of dollars of free carbon credits from
Congress - including Alcoa, Dow Chemical, and Dupont - stop pushing for
all that free money?
How many outspoken politicians and celebrities will be willing to
acknowledge that they have made fools of themselves? I suppose that
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Google founders Sergey Brin and
Larry Page, Madonna and others could at least jet on back to their
hypocritical Green lifestyles with a clear conscience of sorts.
Finally, there's the environmental movement that is now just a November
presidential election away from its dream of turning the United States
into a centrally planned Green state where under the guise of saving the
planet, the Green elites would get to pick and choose who gets to use
how much energy and at what cost.
The bottom line of global warming - and that is why so many are behind
it - is that its many vested interests are on the verge of a financial
and political bonanza, something that scientific facts and climatic
realities are likely only to spoil.
So when global temperature doesn't behave as predicted, excuses and
explanations must be found to prevent the almost-mature golden goose
from being roasted for dinner. The spin on the Nature study provided by
its authors to The New York Times is that, "We're learning that
[natural] climate variability is important and can mask the effects of
human-induced global change. In the end this gives more confidence in
the long-term projections."
The attempted logic here is that even though the alarmists have been
wrong in the past - been there, done that - their failure somehow sets
them up for more certain future success. We look past this logical
fallacy at our own peril. I can't wait for their Orwellian pronouncement
that global cooling is the new global warming.
For the next 10 years, while alarmists ram through their misanthropic
agenda, their time-buying story line will be "aren't we lucky that
Mother Nature has given us a temporary reprieve."
This will no doubt be followed 10 years later by "Whew, aren't we glad
we spent trillions to prevent catastrophic global warming?"
Meanwhile, for trained observers, it will simply be a matter of
realizing that the global warming apocalypse never materialized because
it was simply never going to happen anyway.
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"Every year they recalibrate their computer model and put in the
observed temperature. So, as they go along, the curve that trails behind
is perfect. It's like predicting the morning's weather at six-o'clock in
the evening.." Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus Geology,
Western Washington University |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue May 13, 2008 8:18 pm
|
|
