Later On

A blog written for those whose interests more or less match mine.

Still a consensus on global warming

with 2 comments

From Wired:

1000 years

A paper claiming to show that the scientific consensus on climate change is not in fact a consensus has been rejected by the journal Energy & Environment, reports blogger Richard Littlemore.

This clearly isn’t a case of believers circling the publication wagons against anyone who dares contradict them: the journal’s editor, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, is a climate change skeptic, and the journal is known for publishing work that denies a link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. (For a scathing indictment of Energy & Environment, see what the American Chemical Society had to say about them.)

So if Energy and Environment wouldn’t take it, the paper, authored by endocrinologist Klaus-Martin Schulte, really is hot air. One would expect that, having hyped the paper prior to its non-publication, the bloggers over at James Inhofe’s blog will be equally vocal about its rejection. We shall see.

This is the paper that a commenter to earlier posts relied on to say that there is not a scientific consensus on global warming. That the paper had been submitted was touted as evidence of its reliability.

Written by Leisureguy

22 September 2007 at 3:24 pm

Posted in Global warming

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. When talking about global warming, there are a few questions that must be dealt with.

    First, is climate warming? The answer, though not definitive yet, is probably yes. We can readily see some evidence of that happening.

    The Earth is a dynamic system, which means it is constantly in flux. Average temperatures are continually moving up or down. Equilibrium would mean that the system was dead. In spite of what Al Gore says, there never has been a time of equilibrium in the system, and that’s a good thing.

    Second, if temps are going up, what is the cause? Is it Man’s contribution of greenhouse gases? Conventional wisdom (as portrayed in most of the media, anyway) says ‘yes’. But the truth is that that is a hypothesis, not even a full-fledged theory yet, and certainly not an established scientific fact. Let me explain:

    Obviously we can’t put the Earth into a laboratory and experiment on it. Experiments must be done on climate models. Scientists formulate a hypothesis, plug their assumptions into the model, and then see if the model can predict reality.

    Even the best climate models don’t predict reality very well. Heck, the Old Farmer’s Almanac does a better job of predicting weather patterns and climate trends.

    So what’s going on? Is it worse than even the scientists have predicted?

    That’s one explanation offered by the manmade global warming enthusiasts, but a simpler, scientific, and less hysterical explanation is simply that one or more of the assumptions programmed into the model are incorrect. That just means the hypothesis is flawed. It does not prove or disprove the scientists opinions, or establish cause and effect. Garbage in, garbage out, as the saying goes.

    So how do we get from a flawed hypothesis to a sound scientific theory? The short answer is: we don’t. The hysteria is due to politics and propaganda.

    How do we get from politics and propaganda to an established scientific fact? Again, we don’t, obviously. What we get is more politics and perhaps public policy.

    Why? In two words: money and power.

    More taxes. Higher prices on energy (and everything that uses energy to make or transport). Control of energy sources. Sales of books, ‘carbon offsets’, and myriad ‘green’ merchandise.

    Does it bother the True Believer that Al Gore has 200 million dollars in the bank from selling carbon offsets, which do nothing to actually help the environment? That his prediction of a 10-foot rise in sea level is echoed by not one scientist anywhere? No, of course not. Some people want to be scared. Impending catastophe is supremely sexy.

    Does it bother the True Believer to learn that many of the scientists involved in the IPCC project sued to have their names removed from the report?

    Does it bother the True Believer that the grandfather of global warming politics is a man named Maurice Strong, a big UN muckety-muck who happens to be a eugenicist and de-populationist? No, of course not. Those same people craving catastrophe probably don’t understand the implications of those words.

    But politics and global evil aside, should we be concerned about climate change? The answer to that is an unqualified ‘maybe’. So wouldn’t it be nice to just let the scientists work without all the propaganda and hysteria?

    Despite the claims of ‘consensus’, the science is very, very far from being settled. Do you realize there are still scientists studying gravity? And you thought that had been ‘settled’ long ago, didn’t you?

    Bottom line: Don’t let anybody take your money or freedom based on a hypothesis. And real science is not done by a show of hands. Recognize the doomsayers, propagandists, and slanted journalists (and bloggers) for who they are and get on with life.

    But don’t necessarily abandon your ‘green’ practices. They’ll save you money in the long run and conservation is always a good thing.


    Ron Kling

    22 September 2007 at 7:28 pm

  2. I don’t recall Al Gore ever that the earth’s climate system was static and unchanging. In fact, his point is that the system is currently changing beyond all historical bounds.

    I don’t believe that the Old Farmer’s Almanac ever predicted the global warming we’re currently experiencing.

    If the Greenland ice cap completely melts, the sea level will be raised by 23 feet. It’s not likely that Greenland’s ice cap will completely melt by 2100, but the rate of melting of glaciers is already faster than previously predicted.

    Could you please provide a link to the lawsuits of these many scientists who sued to get their names off the IPCC report?

    Yes, I think everyone knows that scientists are still studying gravity. In fact, a number of interesting experiments are now underway.

    I know that Al Gore has purchased carbon offsets. I would be very interested in a link pointing to where he has sold any.



    22 September 2007 at 7:38 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: