Is It Time for Politicians to Leave Climate Science to the Scientists?
And allow them (the scientists) the time to thoroughly study the subject before being rushed (for the sake of funding) to faulty conclusions?
Aug 08, 2009
Green Science or Real Science? Hot Air or Cold Facts?
By Gordon J. Fulks, Ph.D.
Even before our record heatwave subsided this week, politicians and journalists were ramping up their all-purpose explanation: “Global Warming.” Warming it was; Global it was not. When Portland hit 106 on Tuesday, it was 61 in San Francisco, 70 in Santa Barbara, and 79 in Los Angeles. Frequently hot Pendleton was only 101, far from the record high for the Northwest of 119 set there in 1898.
Charlatans use every opportunity to promote climate hysteria, claiming that the global temperature is rising inexorably. And the best satellite data show that the earth as a whole has been gradually cooling for a decade.. Never mind that it is neither green nor science, just politics. Never mind that climate variations are perfectly natural and unstoppable. An army of propagandists say that man is the culprit, and carbon taxes are the solution.
If President Obama’s climate agenda passes, expect the problem to slowly fade because it never existed in the first place and few will tolerate escalating energy prices that dramatically lower our standard of living. Will those who have led this scam face a day of reckoning like Bernard Madoff? Unlikely.
Real science is based on real evidence that can be independently verified, not on testimonials from those funded by politicians. Real evidence of climate change is easy to find. Real evidence that man caused it via greenhouse gases is completely missing. Man does cause local warming through urbanization. This biases many terrestrial temperature records, providing fodder for alarmists.
The real causes of global climate change are variations in the earth’s orbit, in output from the sun, and in ocean surface temperatures.
Computer models touted by alarmists are instructed to be overly sensitive to greenhouse gases. Real sensitivity is small and its effects minimal. These computer games cannot reliably project climate.
Although Arctic sea ice extent has fractionally declined, global sea ice has shown no trend for 30 years. This comes from a new assessment by prominent physicists.
The problem with allowing politicians and journalists to hijack science is not only that they might sell us economic disasters like “Cap and Trade,” but that we miss what is really going on: the earth is cooling. In addition to the atmosphere cooling, our oceans, which contain the vast majority of mobile heat on earth, are also cooling. This is a stunning new development reported by the ARGO array of deep-sea diving buoys and completely at odds with computer models.
Our Sun has been unusually quiet, and physicists from the National Solar Observatory predict subdued solar cycles well into the future.
Gordon J. Fulks, Ph.D. holds a doctorate in physics from the University of Chicago, Laboratory for Astrophysics and Space Research.
http://www.icecap.us/
Politicians who support the idea of agw are for the most part left leaning. Action taken against global warming falls in line with their goals, so of course they promote it. But until we have a final answer, I think politics should remain far in the background.
The IPCC’s findings are summarized and presented by a group of political appoinitees who have a habit of omitting relevant information that conflicts with their agenda. Maurice Strong is one of Canada’s top liberals and global warming’s most avid activists. He is also founder of the UN’s Environment Program. I think he sums up the UN’s agenda nicely in this very politicized quote:
"Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?"
- Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme
"If President Obama’s climate agenda passes, expect the problem to slowly fade because it never existed in the first place" – I do not agree with this.
This whole scenario isn’t set to tax more Americans at all, this has long term agenda, its aimed toward rising economies about which American government can’t do anything.
I strongly think that politicians need to put the message across firmly, they need to make a difference by actually doing something not just sitting down and saying ‘lower your gas bills by using it less’. Politicians need to do something and as for scientists i cant see them doing much help, seeing as the latest to come out of their world was that ‘if you put a frog in the same place as a rabbit they talk’. I think both scientists and politicians need to help each other to get something done, because all i have seen is a little more wind farming going on, oh and extending heath row and building nuclear power plants.
Is it time for bloggers to actually…
either leave the conclusions to professional scientists peer-reviewers of the scientific literature
or stop thinking they are policy makers?
————–
Anyway, if you want blogging on the OpEd filled with false statements, let me just give you one of the numerous responses already published (the text is not from me)
Maybe it is time for the scientists to leave politics to the politicians.
I think it’s time for the deniers to leave science to the scientists.
First, you don’t measure global warming by comparing temperatures of individual cities, you need to measure the global average, which, with some peaks and valleys, has been steadily increasing. Second, you bring up the name of one scientist. Well here is a list of scientific organizations that have concluded that AGW is real.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Earth_sciences