For a long time now I have heard people talk about global warming as some ominous event that’s looming in our near future. As political agendas usually do, this seemed partly plausible at first. When all of these people and the media are talking about something that seems possible, the general opinion of the population tends to shift toward the commonly professed belief, whether or not it’s true.
This is an old political tactic that has shown its power in several situations (the world is flat, WMD in Iraq, etc.). In order to figure out what’s really going on, we appeal to the people who know what they’re doing. The people that know the most about global warming, something involving earth science, are (surprise!) scientists. This goes back to my post about Ph.D.’s knowing what they’re doing because they are well-educated in a specific field and have an intense passion for their work.
Well it just so happens that a group of Ph.D.’s studied the alleged historical data on global warming as well as the current empirical data and concluded not only that the global warming theory has no merit, but that we are probably headed for a period of notable cooling. There’s nothing like a bunch of science to upset the average politician’s day.
Thusly, I am not worrying about global warming any time soon.
Behold the sources:
Question then — clearly there are Ph.D’s on both sides of the debate, so how does pointing out that some dissenters have Ph.D’s validate alternative theories? You know, even some of these people who support so-called “Intelligent” Design have Ph.D’s. Condoleeza Rice also has a Ph.D, yet people questioned and continue to question her credibility all the time.
Admittedly, I haven’t studied global warming at much depth, but it does appear the scientific consensus supports it (of course consensus does not necessarily imply truth).
Time to panic about the dangers of Global Cooling!
A good point, Huey. It’d be interesting to see some data from scientists on the other side, especially ones that can explain the discrepancies between the original “massaged” data cited and refuted by the Norwegian guys.
It is sad that info as maligned and unproven as that of the global warming theory is force-fed to millions in our schools as the only possible truth to the issue. It is high time for a balanced look at the issue so that future generations do not base their opinions on pure speculation and propaganda.
I wish the global warming would make it down here to the Southeast. December 6 and the high temp won’t make it out of the 30s here in the balmy state of Tennessee. Snow cover for North America is the most extensive for early December as it has been in a few years (since 97 anyway). And, guess what? All of that ice that melted around the North Pole seems to have quickly refrozen after the SUN disappeared from the picture during the long arctic night. Well, seems like global warming might just possibly be “solar” warming after all.
Crowman
global warming or not, it doesn’t matter. What can be ultimately gathered from the debate is that our inventive and possibly intelligent species has the wherewithal to modify our behavior.
To diversify our energy resources, to conserve (that is save) are the exact definitions garnered from business models as advice for investing wisely.
So don’t worry about global warming. Just exprapolate good policy decisions fom the info.
Your family may have no heart disease, your cholestoral is fine, You should still eat right and exercise.
[...] my post about global warming or, rather, the lack thereof has new evidence behind [...]
It’s getting pretty hard to dispute global warming at this point. But, if you’re going to argue against it, I’d start with better sources.
- Source 1: A 10 year old position paper authored by CFACT, a pro-energy lobbying group funded by ExxonMobil.
- Source 2: An article from 21st Century Science and Technology, a magazine that promotes pseudoscience and is funded by Lyndon LaRouche.
- Source 3: Another article written by Zbigniew Jaworowski, also the author of Source 2.
I suppose this is a “group” of Ph.D’s, but it’s a small one… and their findings appear to be outside the mainstream scientific community.
I don’t agree that there is no such thing as global warming, but I do think the proposed “solution” to the anthropogenic global warming “problem” is bunk. In that vein, I thought you might appreciate this: http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2006/07/a_skeptics_prim.html
Erin: Great article.
I should clarify. I don’t mean to deny that there is such a thing as global climate change or that it is impossible for global temperatures to fluctuate, I simply deny the sensationalist end-of-world scenarios pushed into the popular media. The “if we don’t reduce emissions by x% before 2015, we’re all doomed!” crowd.
Given that, it’s perfectly reasonable for me to take an environmentally friendly stance and to assert that big industrials should indeed cut emissions levels for everyone’s sake. I just don’t think the world will implode by 2017 if it isn’t done.