Global Warming,not scientific fact
Global warming is a theory, not scientific factBy PETER WORTHINGTON
Last week — the day the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its gloom and doom report on greenhouse gases — Larry King Live had a bunch of experts hashing over what it all means.
Of six panelists, the one who made the most sense (I’m tempted to say made the only sense) was Richard Lindzen, a professor of “atmospsheric science” at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Lindzen looks a bit like how professors are depicted in cartoons — rimless glasses, a bushy beard and a bit unworldly. On TV, he is soft-spoken, courteous but fearless in challenging those who parrot conclusions no one can be certain about.
One woman, a TV meteorologist, insisted “the science is really solid” that man-made emissions cause the global warming that so agitates the IPCC and has Americans fretting about scrapping their SUVs.
Prof. Lindzen calmly replied he couldn’t dispute her assertion “because she never says what science she is talking about.” That’s one of the problems with the alleged danger of global warming, supposedly caused by excessive carbon dioxide being churned into the atmosphere by fossil fuels, cars and, judging from a recent report, the “emissions” from cattle.
Rarely mentioned is the global warming threat is not anchored in scientific fact or research, it is a hypothesis, a theory, that has yet to be proven.
Yet unlike most scientific theories, it is politically incorrect (and in cases politically prohibited) to question its validity or demand deeper research.
The IPCC report is based on writings of some 2,500 scientists (few of them climatologists, and many geneticists, environmentalists, etc.), and their findings are compressed into a “Summary for Policymakers” which is a political document, not a scientific one, compiled by UN spinmeisters.
This year’s report is the fourth since IPCC was founded in 1988. The 2001 report said it was “likely” global warming was man-made from carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, while this year’s report upgrades “likely” to “very likely.” And that seems to have even President George Bush retreating and promising to do something (one isn’t sure what), and commentators coming on side with global warming hysteria.
In Canada, Stephen Harper apparently feels his chance for a majority in the next election, hinge on his bending to the global warming/Kyoto gang, despite no evidence justifying the money it’s going to cost.
To dispassionate observers, the Kyoto protocols aimed at reducing emissions are an embarrassment to Canada, which already is 35% (and growing) over what it agreed to. Countries like India and China, horrible offenders, are excluded leading many to think Kyoto is more a wealth distributing ploy rather than an aid to the planet.
Talk of “consensus” in science is nonsense. Consensus is not truth, nor proof, it is compromise. In science, everything should be tested and becomes either true or false, or undecided.
Whether Earth is round or flat is not a matter of “consensus.” Ask Galileo. Consensus at Salem in 1692 was that witches took over childrens’ bodies.
Prof. Lindzen is a genuine scientist, ever probing and questioning. He cites scientists who’ve been fired, denied post on panels, or whose research has been rejected not for merit, but because they challenge the prevailing UN view that global warming is man-induced, and not a cyclical occurrence of nature. As for Canadians (and PM Harper), the Calgary-based website friendsofscience.org is more instructive than the IPCC.
In the 1970s, global cooling was the boogie man. In the late 1960s we were warned the world’s supply of oil was running out. Also the world could no longer supply enough food for rising populations. Hysteria and nonsense.
Complex science
Predicting climate change is more than computerized models — and far more complex than predicting the weather change — which is 50% wrong at best. Just witness no warning of the tornadoes that ambushed Florida last week.
Lastly, why the excessive fear of carbon dioxide, essential for agriculture and plant life? CO2 is not pollution. And it’s man-made pollution that threatens the environment, and planet. As for global warming, if indeed it is more than a cyclical event, surely more food will be produced and more people will have a more comfortable life.
//
Last week — the day the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its gloom and doom report on greenhouse gases — Larry King Live had a bunch of experts hashing over what it all means.
Of six panelists, the one who made the most sense (I’m tempted to say made the only sense) was Richard Lindzen, a professor of “atmospsheric science” at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Lindzen looks a bit like how professors are depicted in cartoons — rimless glasses, a bushy beard and a bit unworldly. On TV, he is soft-spoken, courteous but fearless in challenging those who parrot conclusions no one can be certain about.
One woman, a TV meteorologist, insisted “the science is really solid” that man-made emissions cause the global warming that so agitates the IPCC and has Americans fretting about scrapping their SUVs.
Prof. Lindzen calmly replied he couldn’t dispute her assertion “because she never says what science she is talking about.” That’s one of the problems with the alleged danger of global warming, supposedly caused by excessive carbon dioxide being churned into the atmosphere by fossil fuels, cars and, judging from a recent report, the “emissions” from cattle.
Rarely mentioned is the global warming threat is not anchored in scientific fact or research, it is a hypothesis, a theory, that has yet to be proven.
Yet unlike most scientific theories, it is politically incorrect (and in cases politically prohibited) to question its validity or demand deeper research.
The IPCC report is based on writings of some 2,500 scientists (few of them climatologists, and many geneticists, environmentalists, etc.), and their findings are compressed into a “Summary for Policymakers” which is a political document, not a scientific one, compiled by UN spinmeisters.
This year’s report is the fourth since IPCC was founded in 1988. The 2001 report said it was “likely” global warming was man-made from carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, while this year’s report upgrades “likely” to “very likely.” And that seems to have even President George Bush retreating and promising to do something (one isn’t sure what), and commentators coming on side with global warming hysteria.
In Canada, Stephen Harper apparently feels his chance for a majority in the next election, hinge on his bending to the global warming/Kyoto gang, despite no evidence justifying the money it’s going to cost.
To dispassionate observers, the Kyoto protocols aimed at reducing emissions are an embarrassment to Canada, which already is 35% (and growing) over what it agreed to. Countries like India and China, horrible offenders, are excluded leading many to think Kyoto is more a wealth distributing ploy rather than an aid to the planet.
Talk of “consensus” in science is nonsense. Consensus is not truth, nor proof, it is compromise. In science, everything should be tested and becomes either true or false, or undecided.
Whether Earth is round or flat is not a matter of “consensus.” Ask Galileo. Consensus at Salem in 1692 was that witches took over childrens’ bodies.
Prof. Lindzen is a genuine scientist, ever probing and questioning. He cites scientists who’ve been fired, denied post on panels, or whose research has been rejected not for merit, but because they challenge the prevailing UN view that global warming is man-induced, and not a cyclical occurrence of nature. As for Canadians (and PM Harper), the Calgary-based website friendsofscience.org is more instructive than the IPCC.
In the 1970s, global cooling was the boogie man. In the late 1960s we were warned the world’s supply of oil was running out. Also the world could no longer supply enough food for rising populations. Hysteria and nonsense.
Complex science
Predicting climate change is more than computerized models — and far more complex than predicting the weather change — which is 50% wrong at best. Just witness no warning of the tornadoes that ambushed Florida last week.
Lastly, why the excessive fear of carbon dioxide, essential for agriculture and plant life? CO2 is not pollution. And it’s man-made pollution that threatens the environment, and planet. As for global warming, if indeed it is more than a cyclical event, surely more food will be produced and more people will have a more comfortable life.
//
posted by Gerry Surtees at Monday, February 12, 2007
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home