a healthy dose of skepticism
In some quarters “global warming” is getting the skeptical reception it deserves. No, not from politicians and actors; those who make their money by being popular have no trepidation about the science. But some of the scientists do.
Up on Drudge is a report about a conference of local meteorologists who gathered in Cleveland to discuss the science behind what activists have labeled “global warming”.
Four excerpts from four different weathermen:
“We have maybe 100 years of data on a rock that’s 6 billion years old . . . Mother Nature tends to even herself out, and the fact is, the Earth is cyclical.”
“I have a file an inch thick from 30 years ago that says the planet was cooling.”
“I’m not sure which is more arrogant for humans: to say we caused it or to say we’re going to fix it.”
“There was also a significant spike in world temperatures during the 1400s — and that was well before the Industrial Revolution . . .We haven’t studied it long enough to know what causes global warming.”
I’ve not reached a conclusion on “global warming.” Quite frankly, I don’t trust the numbers pushers on either side of the debate. And I especially resent the “debate is settled” crowd. This is science. It is never settled.
So until I’ve had the opportunity to analyze the data myself, this jury of one is still out.
February 16th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Thats what bothers me so much about this. Whatever is happening, the issue has become so politicized that I don’t trust the people who should be figuring this out to do so.
February 16th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
I’m glad these weathermen are voicing their concerns. However, their arguments…at least the ones you printed…are crap.
“We have maybe 100 years of data on a rock that’s 6 billion years old . . . Mother Nature tends to even herself out, and the fact is, the Earth is cyclical.â€
No, we have centuries worth of data taken from ice cores in Antarctica. As for Mother Nature evening “herself” out, the problem is, that the normal corrective procedures taken by nature do not apply when the Humans are counteracting it.
“I have a file an inch thick from 30 years ago that says the planet was cooling.â€
Wow, an entire inch? If you printed all the peer-reviewed articles on Global Warming, and put them in a file, it would take up a couple dozen filing cabinets.
“I’m not sure which is more arrogant for humans: to say we caused it or to say we’re going to fix it.â€
Why is it arrogant to think that we can have an effect on the environment? We may not be able to “fix” it, but if we can significantly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, we can at least reduce our impact.
“There was also a significant spike in world temperatures during the 1400s — and that was well before the Industrial Revolution . . .We haven’t studied it long enough to know what causes global warming.â€
There are many factors involved in the climate cycle. One of them is the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere. Just because something can happen naturally, doesn’t mean that humans can’t accelerate that process. Grass dies naturally every year, poor some used motor oil on it, and you accelerate the process.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Ahh Sean, the most significant thing about the Medieval Warming Period is not that there was one, but that its existence was removed after the initial UN global warming report when the second report was delivered in 1996. In between that time there is documentation that a high level individual recognized the “need to hide” the Medieval Warming Period. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml
So I’m with Bob–I don’t trust anybody on the subject either. If we do end up with a climate disaster I’ll blame the scientists. In the end the problem is scientists doing politics instead of scientists doing science.