« Progress for New Orleans | Main | Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™ »

A Little Morning Heresy

In my recent theological explorations, I've encountered a certain mentality among the more evangelically-minded -- their faith is so strong, so absolute, that nothing can shake it.

But their subject of faith isn't God, but the environment.

The agnostic in me gets its rankles up when I'm told that certain things are simply indisputable, beyond question, and cannot be argued with. That seems to be the attitude a lot of people have in regards to global warming.

Well, I'm not convinced by them no more than I am by the idiots who used to say that my muttered exclamations of exasperation of "for Christ's sake" or "god dammit" or "Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick" were an acknowledgment of my belief in a higher power. And just as I tended to arm myself with a few pointed questions that would attempt to poke holes in their iron-clad faith when they tried to shove it down my throat, I've been working up a couple of inquiries that -- I hope -- will give them pause.

Or, at least, get them to leave me alone.

1) We're told that the earth is growing warmer, and that the results will be catastrophic. 30 years ago or so, the big fear was global cooling and a new ice age. Even a difference of a couple of degrees can have horrific consequences.

What IS the "natural," "ideal" climate of the Earth? How do we decide what is the "right" temperature? And considering the sheer magnitude of the Earth's environment, how do we keep that "right" balance against the tendency of the Earth to warm and cool all on its own over the millenia?

2) It seems that every single climactic event is touted as evidence in favor of global warming. If we have a lot of hurricanes, that's proof. If we have few, that's proof. If we have a mild winter, that's proof. If we have a nasty winter, that's proof. Hotter and cooler summers are proof.

What sort of events would be considered evidence against global warming? What sorts of things would have to occur to challenge your belief in the theory?

This, to me, is what separates science from faith. Science is always ready to admit error, to put its beliefs to the test and revise, correct, or discard notions that prove unreliable. But faith does not -- it is by definition not based on proof but belief, and at its purest is utterly unshakable.

I'd be very curious to hear the answers to those questions. They cut through the back-and-forth arguments over numbers and how they're collected and what they mean, and get to the crux of the matter.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/26362.

Comments (32)

The cult of global warming ... (Below threshold)
Eric F:

The cult of global warming drives me crazy. Talking with the devout reminds me of Tom Cruise on Scientology.

It's all about the deification of Man. It's that Man has become so powerful, he can destroy whole worlds -- or save them.

That, and money -- a whole lot of precious money.

"Jumping Jesus on a pogo... (Below threshold)

"Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick"

BLASPHEMY!!!

It's supposed to be "Jesus jumped-up Christ on roller skates" -- !

Repent, sinner, for the end draweth nigh!

(Otherwise, extremely well put, Jay. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you.)

Science is always ready ... (Below threshold)
Gringo:

Science is always ready to admit error,

Counterpoint:
Sqrt(-1)

What IS the "natural,... (Below threshold)

What IS the "natural," "ideal" climate of the Earth? How do we decide what is the "right" temperature? And considering the sheer magnitude of the Earth's environment, how do we keep that "right" balance against the tendency of the Earth to warm and cool all on its own over the millenia?

I've been asking that for months myself on my blog - so far with no answer. The Medieval Climate Optimum? The Little Ice Age?

You can tell me there's change - I'll believe you. But if you insist on putting the supposed environmental thermostat to ONE temperature and using the technological base of the entire planet to keeping it at that one particular setting, you need to first tell me what that setting is, how we're supposed to get it there, and how we're going to keep it there despite fluctuations in solar output.

And while you're at it, you damn well better have a GOOD cost-benefits analysis to persuade me it would be a bright friggin' idea to do it in the first place.

I have never argued with th... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

I have never argued with the very small increase in the temperature of earth. I simply want to know for certain if it is cyclical or caused by chemicals we use. Now the global warming alarmists have made this issue, that may be serious, into a joke. An ineffectual word such as racist or bigot. Said so many times for the wrong reasons that it is meaningless to me. ww

Jay, here are my answers to... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Jay, here are my answers to your questions.

1) In the history of science, warmer periods included the term "optimum" in their name, such as the Holocene Climate Optimum and the Medieval Climate Optimum. Of course it's no longer politically correct to refer to these warmer than today periods as climate optimums, but its evident that science once considered climates warmer than today as optimum. Environmentalists in control of the IPCC have tried to make these warmer periods go away, at least from the research, but a new study published be Dr. Craig Loehle shows the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the 20th century. The data also shows a clear single for the Little Ice Age. Such temperature fluctuations without significant changes in atmospheric CO2 is the real inconvenient truth.

2) There are many 2006 and 2007 peer-reviewed studies that debunk various aspects of the IPCC's position on global warming, but the strongest evidence I have seen against CO2 caused global warming is the paper published by Christopher Monckton titled "Greenhouse warming? What greenhouse warming?" The response from the IPCC to the data contained in this paper is that the computer models are right and many years worth of radiosonde and satellite temperature measurements must be wrong. However, as Monckton points out, the radiosonde and satellite temperature data are inputs to the models, and thus, if the inputs are wrong it's near impossible for the models to be right.

Michael Crichton did not wr... (Below threshold)

Michael Crichton did not write the book on this - but he did write the essay:

Environmentalism as a Religion

An alternative for Jay's qu... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

An alternative for Jay's question 2 is the debunking of Al Gore's "consensus". For those who go with the flow this report now makes you a skeptic of human caused global warming.

What annoys me is the phras... (Below threshold)

What annoys me is the phrase "climate change," as though the climate has not ever changed and would not change if it weren't for us pesky humans. Those who complain about "climate change" bely their religious belief in a perfect, unchanging (timeless) utopia that can be achieved here on earth. Didn't Marx make the same promise?

This, to me, is what se... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

This, to me, is what separates science from faith. Science is always ready to admit error, to put its beliefs to the test and revise, correct, or discard notions that prove unreliable. But faith does not

Well let's have a open debate, where real scientists are heard from and not fired or silenced by political hacks placed inside the science agencies to interfere with the work of the scientists.

Until the arctic circle get... (Below threshold)
Mark:

Until the arctic circle gets too hot for cattle to graze, we're still within the the limits of natural variation.

As a college student circa the first Earth Day, I wrote a term paper on evidence for and against evolution. At that time, Lyell's uniformitarian hypothesis was still accepted as "gospel."

Turned out that there was more evidence against uniformity than for it. Such as the mammoths frozen in Siberian tundra - frozen so quickly and completely that the flesh was still edible in the 20th century.

But before the instantaneous temperature drop to below -150 F., the Siberian climate was sub-tropical. We know this because of the partially-chewed vegetation found in some of the animals' stomachs and mouths. The mammoths died and froze before they could swallow that last bite.

Falsifiability is supposed to distinguish science from religion. In the face of hard evidence to the contrary, scientists revise their theories; True Believers burn the heretics.

Environmentalists apparently still believe in uniformitarianism, against any evidence to the contrary.

Followers of the Church of ... (Below threshold)
Wethal:

Followers of the Church of Our Lady Gaia of Perpetual Guilt conflate "climate change" with "global warming." "Climate change" means just that: the climate changes. Hotter, cooler, hotter, etc. "Global warming" is just one kind of climate change.

Then they conflate "global warming" with "anthropogenic global warming" (global warming caused by human activity).

So if you believe in "climate change," you believe that global warming is caused by human activity. Which it probably is to a certain extent, as all life forms that emit C02 contribute in some way. Whether changing human activity would have any significant effect is the big issue.

And then there's also the global-warming-caused-by-kangaroo-farts. Don't know the scientific term for that.

Crickmore, that's hilarious... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Crickmore, that's hilarious that you use Hansen as a poster child for suppression of science.

In fact, in the year that Hansen claimed to have been pressured, he gave literally thousands of interviews - making one wonder when he found time to actually do his job. Perhaps the answer is that he wasn't.

Meanwhile, Hansen refused to share the code and methodology of the actual scientific work on the GISS temperature series. So when McIntyre and his colleagues wanted to audit that work, they had to reverse engineer the results. And in doing so, they found a coding error that caused all of the reported results for yearly summaries to be wrong starting in the late '90's - exaggerating the average temperature upwards. Only after the embarrassment of having this error exposed did Hansen begin to share his data and code.

So do not use Hansen as an example of scientific discussions. He's not.

Meanwhile, anyone who is skeptical of AGW is threatened with firing, such as the Oregon state climatologist.

Crickmore illustrates the essential hypocrisy of the AGW crowd.

The Thunder Run has linked ... (Below threshold)

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 12/21/2007 A short recon of what's out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

SPQR:"So do no... (Below threshold)
marc:

SPQR:

"So do not use Hansen as an example of scientific discussions. He's not."

Not to mention Crickmore's link is to Think Progress, which isn't exactly the most accurate source for anything to the political right of Stalin.

And BTW Crickmore, the U.S. Senate doesn't seem to be buying the "consensus" canard.

Crickmore: "Well let's have... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Crickmore: "Well let's have a open debate,.."

Uh, Algore said we should not be allowed to have that very thing.

In fact, he chastised reporters and media talking heads for even allowing anti-AGW voices to be heard.

He said there was no more debate. He said there should be no more debate. He said the debate was over.

And he is your God.

Did you miss this?

AlGore said it.I b... (Below threshold)

AlGore said it.

I believe it.

That settles it....

Hmmm. Where have I heard that theological model before?

Many of these 400 leading s... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Many of these 400 leading scientists come from some Canadian universities not known for their strength in sciences.. but I am still hoping that THEY the dissident scientists are right. The only serious competing theory NOW to CO2 emissions is the alteration of the sun's rays, which to me seems suspect, since the anthropogenic global warming scientists were predicting that higher temperatures would occur, as has happened long before the dissident scientists fashioned their theory (after the facts).

p.s. I am all for open deba... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

p.s. I am all for open debate...The problem is that we need to start doing something now, as a hedge that there is high probability of great irretrievable damage ocurring in the not too distant future if we don't. I believe the 'sun theorists' think climate will change circa 2020, becoming cooler. When they are proved wrong; when we have 100% as opposed to a 90% certainty it will be too late. And even without global warming...the side effects of our enormous consumption of burning fossil fuels such as coal are awful and we have known that since the 60's, plus, we are reaching peak oil very soon.

Many of these 400 ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Many of these 400 leading scientists come from some Canadian universities not known for their strength in sciences.

Sounds like sour grapes. The mantra has been that most scientists support the IPCC position, but with the debunking of that myth the tactic is now to question the quality of the scientists opposing the IPCC. If we look closely at the scientists supporting the IPCC position it's likely there credentials are no better.

The science of climate change needs to be done by scientists the way it was done before the IPCC existed. The only role governments should take in the scientific debate is to ensure research into all aspects of climate change are well funded. Scientists will go where the funding is and if the funding remains blind to the results of the research then scientist will form a consensus based on the quality of the research. When that consensus becomes evident, then governments can act on it, and if they are wise, they will tie any future treaties to actual measurements and on-going research.

The problem is that we need to start doing something now, as a hedge that there is high probability of great irretrievable damage occurring in the not too distant future if we don't.

You're making two assumptions in that statement. First that the IPCC's position is correct, which is becoming less and less likely the more we learn. Second, that action to reduce CO2 emissions would do more good than harm, and that's seems unlikely. For example, limiting CO2 has spurred the production of biofuels that even environmentalists are now starting to oppose because the energy gain is minimal at best and the damage caused by increasing crop production out weights any likely benefit of reducing CO2. One UN official has stated that using food stocks to produce bio fuels is a crime against humanity. Then theirs the economic drag and corruption carbon restrictions and trading cause as we are now seeing in the EU.

And even without global warming...the side effects of our enormous consumption of burning fossil fuels such as coal are awful and we have known that since the 60's, plus, we are reaching peak oil very soon.

Coal can be used to product electricity and it can be done cleanly, apart from CO2. If CO2 is not causing climate change then the U.S. can continue to use its most abundant domestic source of energy. As far as reaching the peak of oil production soon, it's a myth. Now that the price of oil is solidly above $50 a barrel it's profitable to produce oil from Canada's oil sands and oil shale in the U.S. Combined these two nearly untapped sources are greater than all the oil left in the middle east. Even so, we should fast track other sources of energy including nuclear, solar, wind, tidal, and dry rock geothermal. We should also advance all power saving technologies. I would like to see the day when the U.S. could be a net exporter of oil again.

"The problem is that we nee... (Below threshold)

"The problem is that we need to start doing something now, as a hedge that there is high probability of great irretrievable damage ocurring in the not too distant future if we don't."

Didn't someone on this blog post a list of country's carbon emissions reductions or increases that had Kyoto signatories increasing and non-signatories decreasing CO2?

My problem with "doing something now" is that what we're supposedly supposed to do are things that would wreck economies and would probably, logically, result in Bad Stuff all around, higher pollution and continued population growth. Not that I'm against population growth but other people seem to think it's a really bad thing and I'd think they'd want to do what actually worked to reduce it, which is economic and industrial development. Nothing else does, just that.

If "doing something now" means reducing pollution... who's against that?

If "doing something now" means converting aggressively to nuclear power, I'm on board with you.

I even like the idea of beaming energy down from space based platforms if it seems profitable. (I just want *our* military on station and no one else's.)

There's lots of things we can do now that will give us real benefits right away even if it turns out that AGW never would have hurt anything whatsoever. Win-win.

But do stuff that will have negative impact on real people "just in case?" Heck no. No, I'm not on with that and don't see why anyone should be or even put up with the mere suggestion that we should "just in case" agree to wreck our economy or have fewer children or anything else, or try to tell people in developing countries what they have to do or how they have to live without getting them *developed* first.

And I'm still really glad that no one dusted the poles with soot to fend off the looming ice age.

Aren't you?

Seems to me that there are ... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Seems to me that there are still hundreds if not thousands of scientists that still feel Co2 emissions are the problem...Even George Bush says he treats the problem "seriously",(by the way George nuclear is ridiculously expensive) At the Bali conference the US position moved, went from hard to soft obstruction..I agree that most counties who signed Kyoto didn't come close to reaching their targets..Canada a good example...They are going pell-mell to develop the tar sands which require massive amounts of fresh water..It all may be pie in the sky reducing even, by a little, carbon emissions..Changing lightbulbs isn't enough. China (you know how environmentally conscious they are)is expected to have thousands of dirty coal generating plants coming on line by 2020 and be xtimes (I've heard 5times the world's leading polluter, which is the US, now in 2007. Brazil said at Bali that it does not want an agreement that limits its ability to burn down its rain forest..75% of its total carbon emissions comes from this. The US the richest country in the world feels it can't afford to alter its life style. Sad to say, Maclorry and Synova your position will probably win by default.

Seems to me that t... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Seems to me that there are still hundreds if not thousands of scientists that still feel Co2 emissions are the problem.

If you read the link I gave above you would see that there are less then 300 scientists now on the record who explicitly support the IPCC's position. With the list of 400 who oppose the IPCC's position now on public record, the scientific consensus is that human generated CO2 is not causing global warming. That means the current warming is likely just another in a long line of natural climate cycles. A cooling period always follows a warming period, so cutting back on CO2 emissions is not only unnecessary, but exactly the wrong thing to do. We need the extra CO2 for whatever warmth it can provide and also for it's plant fertilizing effects.

At the Bali conference the US position moved, went from hard to soft obstruction.

When a hundred or more scientists showed up at Bali opposing the IPCC and citing many recent peer-reviewed studies that debunk the IPCC's report, U.S. negotiators realized that they only needed to delay implementation of any treaties for another 2 years. By then the IPCC's corrupt processes and junk science will be exposed for all to see. With Al Gore not running for president it's unlikely the U.S. will then willingly shackle its economy in 2009. None of the current presidential candidates are that stupid.

by the way George nuclear is ridiculously expensive

Not as expensive in the long run as sending trillions of dollars to Muslim states in the middle east. Energy independence should be a national priority. That means putting nuclear power on the fast track and government subsides going to the development of solar, wind, geothermal, and tidal energy production. If CO2 proves to be harmless to the environment, then clean burning coal powered generating plants should also be a priority. Biofuels made from food stocks should be outlawed.

The US the richest country in the world feels it can't afford to alter its life style.

We are willing, but for a real cause and where there's a good probability of success, neither of which the IPCC has proven. Regardless of the price of oil, the U.S. should move to energy independence, and do so quickly. That will have a much greater and better influence on the world than futilely cutting back on CO2 emissions and shackling our economy in the process.

This is the senate report t... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

This is the senate report that was written on behalf of the global warming is "the greatest hoax perpetuated on the Ameican people" Inhofe (R-OK). Infofe in that 2005 speech which erily quotes several times Dr Michael Crichton, a retired medical doctor and author. Inhofe's January 4, 2005 senate speech talking about religious faith = global warming theorists seems to mirror this thread...And as to his 400 'scientists' read this rebuttal but it is getting much attention than the Bali IPCC report from the blogs.

As for pleading their Global warming special interets, Infoe no surprise being a Republican from Oklohoma, as expected is hand and glove with big oil in terms of campaign donations etc
Mac Lorry this whole topic rates a closer look ..I would say a peer review of sun's spots, would be start if that is the best alternative theory to CO2 emissions.

From the link you provided ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

From the link you provided that purports to debunk the list of 400 scientists on public record opposing the IPCC position.

For instance, since when have economists, who are pervasive on this list, become scientists, and why should we care what they think about climate science?

This statement, like the rest of that piece, is naive at best. For example, Ross McKitrick is a professor of Economics at the University of Guelph. Dr. McKitrick published a peer-reviewed study that shows the IPCC's main surface climate data set is contaminated. The contamination can be shown to create a false warming trend of at least 50%. Dr. McKitrick is one of the IPCC's expert reviewers. The fools at Climate Progress apparently don't realize that the majority of scientists supporting the IPCC's position are not specifically climate scientists. If they applied their own standard to those scientists there would be few left supporting the IPCC's position.

In post 6 above I linked to what I consider the strongest evidence that the current warming period is not caused by CO2. Apart from that we crossed a tipping point in 2007 where there are more peer-reviewed studies debunking the IPCC's position than supporting the position. In 2008 the IPCC will try to defund such studies, but it's too late, the truth is out and by 2009 the IPCC will be in full retreat.

Here's an example of what's happening. Dr Vincent Gray, a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception, has written to Professor David Henderson, to support the latter's call for a review of the IPCC and its procedures. Dr. Gray says "I therefore consider that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only "reform" I could envisage, would be its abolition."

Scientists who want to salvage their professional caries are going to have to yield to and even support the scientific process. Those who continue to support the corrupt IPCC process are going to find themselves ostracized by the scientific community. Once that message is delivered you'll see the IPCC's strongest supporters abandoning it like rats jumping off a sinking ship.

Mac Lorry..You're obviously... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Mac Lorry..You're obviously reading alot of material on this. I really can't offer too much of the top of my head..John Kenneth Galbraith went to Guelph University but it was a small Vetinarian College then and known for it's provincial jail..Times have changed obviously..I'm trying not to be facetious but I know Guelph has very good philosophy department now .. I was more drawn to people like Harvard biologist George Wald, Nobel Prize who in 1971 told me these ecological trends were converging and he wasn't optomistic for the future.

I now live in the center of Brazil which continues to cut down its rainforsest at an alarming rate. The fear of global warming is about the only thing that prevents them from destroying the entire Amazon forest for lumber. If the fear of global warming is removed..the consequences will be awful. The federal government has absolutely no reforestation program.

It would seem independent of the sun's spots theory, the effects if any, would be very broad based and regular. Hasn't there been a study showing the regions where the greatest CO2 emissions, have more 'global warming'...ie. the USA, the least would probably be in central Africa? The differences surely could be measurable and independent of things like modifying ocean and air currents? and the Northern Hemishphere should be warming faster than the Southern hemisphere. I will try googling this later when I have a chance.

Steve, I asked my questions... (Below threshold)

Steve, I asked my questions to cut through the BS of "my expert can beat up your expert" and bring it down to a more fundamental level.

You can quit bragging about your expert's fight record at any time.

And Brazil's wholesale destruction of the Amazon jungle (I will NOT call it a "rain forest" -- those are found in temperate zones, NOT tropical -- the Pacific Northwest is a rain forest, the Amazon is a JUNGLE) is atrocious. Good thing that they're not covered by Kyoto, or they'd be in REAL trouble.

J.

As for the earth climate, ... (Below threshold)
radiofree8:

As for the earth climate, climate change is a choice! I am pro choice. And to the leftards and Gorebots, keep you hands off my planet!

Steve,Jay is right... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Steve,

Jay is right about this debate devolving into who has the best list of experts supporting their position. The proponents of the IPCC's position have used the "scientific consensus" claim to great effect in swaying public opinion. Opponients of the IPCC have been forced to counter the "scientific consensus" claim in order to move the debate into a fair and accurate scientific process, which is the published peer-reviewed study. No government entity (IPCC or Whitehorse) should be interfering with that proven process. The role of government is to fully fund research into all aspects of climate. The scientists themselves will sort this out given an unbiased process and excellent funding. Yes, we'll waste some money on poor or irrelevant research, but the cost of doing the wrong thing is so much higher that such waist is an acceptable cost of getting the facts right on climate.

It would seem independent of the sun's spots theory, the effects if any, would be very broad based and regular. Hasn't there been a study showing the regions where the greatest CO2 emissions, have more 'global warming'...ie. the USA, the least would probably be in central Africa? The differences surely could be measurable and independent of things like modifying ocean and air currents? and the Northern Hemishphere should be warming faster than the Southern hemisphere. I will try googling this later when I have a chance.

Your intuition is correct. Each cause of climate change has a signature. All we need do is determine what each signature looks like and compare it to actual measurements. To me that's the most convincing evidence available and I have already linked to that information in post 6 above. The link is to a paper by Christopher Monckton, who has pulled the data together from a number of scientific studies. Please give it a read.

I now live in the center of Brazil which continues to cut down its rainforsest at an alarming rate. The fear of global warming is about the only thing that prevents them from destroying the entire Amazon forest for lumber. If the fear of global warming is removed..the consequences will be awful. The federal government has absolutely no reforestation program.

Scaring the public, and thus, their governments into protecting the global environment has been the true motive of the IPCC from it's inception. While protecting forests and developing clean renewable energy are laudable goals that I and many conservatives fully support, it's foolish to base that protection on faulty science. Up until 2003, most of the evidence did support high levels of atmospheric CO2 being the cause of global warming, but that's no longer the case. Unfortunately, the IPCC acts like any other bureaucracy in that once it's set on a given course it tends to stay on that course apart from new facts.

It's true that if the IPCC were able to silence independent scientific inquire and push through tough legally binding carbon limits, that would greatly benefit the cause of environmental issues and clean energy production. But if the IPCC's position is wrong, no amount of human control will stop the climate from following it's natural course. It will then become obvious that the IPCC was wrong and all the agreements that flowed from it's supposed scientific consensus will fall apart. What's worse is that few will take any future scientific consensus about any environmental issue seriously. True environmental exploiters will point to the IPCC disaster to challenge all science against their exploitation.

To be successful in the long term, climate, environmental, and energy issues must be based on the best and current unbiased science. The IPCC is the wrong model to arrive at that unbiased science. In fact, the IPCC is an impediment for such science and it should be abolished.

Mac Lorry. Thanks, I quick... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Mac Lorry. Thanks, I quickly read the Monckton study which refutes the computer standard climate change tropsphere model. It does seem to indicate that there is something more subtle going on...The one to one correspondence between Co2 emissions and global warming is probably overstated...I always assumed this was the shorthand for a cocktail of greenhouse gases or shift in the deforestation and altering slowly the makeup of the water(freshwater and oceanic0 and feedback systems. We shall leave it for next time and more research..The Monckton report on quick perusal survey cited discounts the simple CO2 explantion, that's all... but assumes that anthropgenic human warming is still a contributing prime suspect, if not the prime supect, although not in the manner that is given, as in simply greater Co2 emissions. This is how most science works constantly going from a simple idea to the more complex explantion.

Steve,The Monckton... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Steve,

The Monckton paper refutes the computer models that much of the IPCC's claims rest on. I agree that the current warming period could still be caused by green house gasses if the science behind the computer models is bogus to the point of totally missing the signature of such warming. Given that several recent peer-reviewed studies call into question the accuracy of the only other major source of data supporting the IPCC's position, the surface temperature record, there's currently little scientific support for that position.

The solution is to abolish the IPCC and greatly increase funding of all scientific research into climate and make sure that the funding is blind to the results of the research. That process will develop a trustworthy scientific consensus in the shortest amount of time. Then and only then will it be prudent for governments to act.

What's the problem with cut... (Below threshold)
skh.pcola:

What's the problem with cutting down the Amazonian jungle, anyway? The trees and other flora grow back at an impressive rate. Further, cutting them down provides job and money to people who would otherwise be starving (or close to it).




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy