Refuting The Age global warming "proof"Here are some reasons why I am skeptical
Global
Warming Watch was kind enough to provide a link to a graphic published by
The
Age. I'd like to take a few moments to
respond to the specific questions raised by the
graphic.
1. Global warming is a natural thing. Interesting bit here, they freely acknowledge the criticism but they don't dispute it. Instead they refer you to a the UN sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The scary part here is that there has been dissent in all the reports issued by the IPCC, and the 2001 "final report" was doctored by the politicos before release. Copies of both versions of the report exist on the internet, I encourage you to read for yourselves. Since the value of the report is consensus, shouldn't the press at least mention the nay sayers? Again, natural cycles aren't disputed by the graphic. Last night in Flagstaff it was 27 degrees F, yet today it will be 58. Is that 30 degree change in temperature because of global warming or just because of the natural cycle of day and night? 2. The Hockey Stick is Wrong Well, that is an interesting claim, especially since the debate still goes on. One of the criticisms that hasn't been addressed is that the statistical methods used produces "hockey sticks" when the raw data doesn't support it. There is also the question of how much other factors influence the measurements, which the original "hockey stick" analysis specifically excludes. This also raises one of my favorite issues, the "hockey stick" analysis only covers about a thousand years. The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.. Even if we confine ourselves to only the last billion years, that is still only .0001% of the time. Take a yardstick, assume that somewhere around 20 inches there is a nick. What does that tell you about the space between 12 and 14 inches? What about between 27 and 36 inches? How about other yardsticks still at the store? Just as a bit of a side note (and certainly one of the reasons I'm paying close attention), two of the original critics of the "hockey stick" were put on an unofficial blacklist and six editors of Climate Research (the journal that published the criticism) were made to resign. That was when I started paying attention to the politics behind the global warming claims. 3. Satellite data shows a different trend That should be amended to say that satellite and balloon data shows a different trend. Here is a classic example of how different interpretations can arise from how you measure. Even the graphic admits that the results are cherry picked. Bit of a puzzle there since we are talking global warming. There are theories in abundance, but there aren't facts. The numbers have to be "goosed" to fit existing models. At the very least the models have to be revised, if not replaced entirely. 4. Computer models aren't good enough Here is a central argument, I find it interesting that it got buried at number four. That is an old advertising trick by the way. The value of a model is how well it replicates current conditions and predicts the future. Let me repeat that because it is very important to understand. The value of a model is how well it replicates current conditions and predicts the future. Take the models, not the data, but just the models. Feed in all the data up to 1955. Now, how well does it predict the actual conditions we had in 1959? 1962? 1967? Feed in all the data up to 1971. Now, how well does it predict the weather we had in 1980? 1995? 2001? This is absolutely critical, because if the best weather and climate models available today can't predict the weather as it happened, then there is no possible way those models can predict future weather and climate. It is a guess. It may be an informed guess, but it is a guess. 5 Emissions predictions are wrongly calculated I quote. "But scientists agree that the economic assumptions need further discussion." Okay, so where does that put us? First, we need the debate. If we're really going to make a good choice for ourselves and the planet, we need to know the consequences. It's not enough to say that global warming happens because of increased carbon caused by human activity, we need to be sure EXACTLY that is the case. If the global warming argument is correct, then we need to find practical ways to cope. If the global warming argument is not correct, then we need to move on to the next bit. Science and rationality are the only guides we dare accept here. Fear-mongering has no part in the debate. Posted: Mon - April 24, 2006 at 04:58 AM
|
Pagan Vigil
Pagan philosopher, libertarian, and part-time trouble maker, NeoWayland watches for threats to individual freedom or personal responsiblity. There's more to life than just black and white, using only extremes just increases the problems. My Thinking Blogger Nominees
Recent
Comments Search
Categories
Guest
Articles Interested in Pagan•Vigil hosting your articles? I'm always looking for tantalizing content that makes people think. Look here for details. E Pleb Neesta AdSense
Pagan Vigil assumes no responsibility for the advertisement content provided by Google, which is neither selected nor endorsed by NeoWayland.
NeoLinks
The News Right Now Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
Reason Magazine - Hit & Run Sunni Maravillosa and the Conspirators
Hammer of Truth Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of... Lady Liberty's Constitution Clearing House Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
no authority Center for a Stateless Society
Tammy Bruce.com Latino Issues: A Conservative Blog
The Nation
RealClimate
Papers, Please!
Letter from Hardscrabble Creek
You Are Not Alone A Big Idea from Eject! Eject! Eject! Fully Informed Jury Association World's Smallest Political Quiz Animated Introduction to the Philosophy of Liberty Institute for Liberty and Democracy
World of Ends 60 Second Refutation of Socialism, While Sitting at the Beach from Coyote Blog
World Religions - Religious Forums Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Who links to me? NeoBlogs
Books
Listmania - Liberty Basics
Legal
All Guest Articles are © copyright by their respective authors for the date given and subject to the specific restrictions and permissions as stated in that article entry. Guest Article restrictions and permissions are specific to each article and may not be applied to another Guest Article.
Views and opinions expressed in Guest Articles do not necessarily reflect those of NeoWayland. Content from other sources is quoted under the fair use laws of the United States with clear reference to the source material. Unless otherwise noted, all other content at :
www.paganvigil.com Additional Redirect/Frame pages may be found at these web addresses:
members.aol.com/ If your web browser does not show one of these addresses, then this page being used without permission of the author. The views expressed by NeoWayland are his own and do not represent any other enity. NeoWayland freely accepts individual and sole responsibility for his words and actions. XML/RSS Feeds
Statistics
|