Are You a Global Warming Skeptic? Part II

[Pendragon_6]

March 17, 2006

Categories: Global Warming and Climate Change
Scientific American


The airing of doubts about global warming that I solicited last week has been remarkable: 169 blog comments (albeit with some repeats) and a number of private emails (including one from a college suitemate and engineering classmate I haven't seen in 18 years).

I started the whole discussion because I felt communication on an important scientific issue had broken down, and I figure the best way to make sure we've reconnected the wires is to try and summarize what everyone has been saying. That way, you can correct me if I've misunderstood, misclassified, or just plain missed something. Later, I can take a stab at analyzing the comments and answering some of the requests for further reading, and I hope the discussion will continue from there.

The two most common arguments were:

Climate has varied naturally long before humans ever arrived on the scene, so it seems likely that the present trends are simply a continuation of that.

The prediction of global warming is just another instance of doomsaying, which has proved so wrong in the past.



In Full
Scientific American (http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=are_you_a_global_warming_skeptic_p art_ii&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1&ref=rss)

[DoctorDoom]

The issue is not the reality of climate changes, which have been going on for millions of years. It is the alleged contribution of human activity to climate change, and the draconian measures that the GW freaks are irrationally, emotionally demanding to achieve an unproven and unprovable reduction in the rate of change.

Ecowackos, being typical liberals, are long on screeching about problems (and inventing problems when none exist) but extremely short on providing solutions to the real or invented problems.

"The world is warming up! We have to do SOMETHING!"
"Do what?"
"Well ... er ... ah ... uh ..."
"I thought so."

[sunsettommy]

The issue is not the reality of climate changes, which have been going on for millions of years. It is the alleged contribution of human activity to climate change, and the draconian measures that the GW freaks are irrationally, emotionally demanding to achieve an unproven and unprovable reduction in the rate of change.

Ecowackos, being typical liberals, are long on screeching about problems (and inventing problems when none exist) but extremely short on providing solutions to the real or invented problems.

"The world is warming up! We have to do SOMETHING!"
"Do what?"
"Well ... er ... ah ... uh ..."
"I thought so."

Just the very fact that the Kyoto treaty was drooled over by a lot of Global Warming (via the CO2 a TRACE greenhouse gas) supporters,is indicative of how shabby their understanding of science is.

Then coupled with the super quick acceptance of the "Hockey Stick" paper into the 2001 IPCC report.A paper that was prominently promoted to prove of a rapid rise in worldwide temperature.A paper that was barely peer reviewed at all gets such a promotion beyond its value.

A paper that later was shown to be filled with errors,distortions and just plain improper use of statistical analysis of numbers.A paper that even a few Global warmering supporters disregard as sober science.A paper that is so bad that even Nature later admitted it was bad.The very place the crappy paper was published.

The IPCC is itself a political organization who appoints the scientists and also provides funding for the research.Hardly a bias free setting.It is after all a part of the United Nations.An agency that is hostile to capitalist nations and especially to America.

So when they fail to make a clear reasoned reply to what DoctorDoom asked.It is because they do not know.

I am always amazed at the silliness of first deciding 20 years ago that CO2 is the cause of all the warming and then try to find the proof of the cause.

[ThomasMore]

Scientific American has presented a lot of political argument disguised as science journalism.

I am (perhaps naively) hopeful that this writer is at least trying to open the door to more honest discussion.

[DoctorDoom]

I am always amazed at the silliness of first deciding 20 years ago that CO2 is the cause of all the warming and then try to find the proof of the cause.The "scientific method" of junk science: draw the curve and then plot the data.

[sunsettommy]

Scientific American has presented a lot of political argument disguised as science journalism.

I am (perhaps naively) hopeful that this writer is at least trying to open the door to more honest discussion.

The same magazine who was so hostile and unfair to Bjorn Borg.

Later after Bjorn Borg was vidicated the magazine just go away and try their usual crap elsewhere.

I was a subscriber of that magazine and bought books.The books are good but the magazine was of an eletist attitude.So I dropped it and went to Reason Magazine for subscription a more reasonable reading.

[sunsettommy]

The "scientific method" of junk science: draw the curve and then plot the data.

Oh you mean the thousand and one models?


:hahaha: