Thursday, November 1, 2007

Global Warming Concerns

I've pointed out before some of the reasons I am skeptical of the hype surrounding the global warming machine. I also pointed out that I am no scientist. I can't sit here and tell you all of my opinions and offer up my scientific proof as to why I have come to this conclusion or that. I've read lot's of material on the global warming debate, from both sides. As a result I see it as nothing more than a political machine generating lot's of cash and hysteria. In today's Wall Street Journal there was a very interesting article written by John R. Christy, where he voiced some concerns about the current hype surrounding the global warming crowd. Christy is director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He participated in the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that gained in notoriety from winning the Nobel Peace Prize along with Al Gore. That is the same U.N. panel I had referred to in an earlier entry (Al Gore & Andrew Weaver For Climate Change! ) where I joked about the fact that one of the men who participated in the panel bore my name, Andrew Weaver.

Christy's article in the Wall Street Journal made some very interesting, and I believe noteworthy points. Without reposting the entire article, here are a few of his observations on the topic of climate change. All of which I think we would all do well to consider, at the very least.

  • "I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time."
  • "It is my turn to cringe when I hear overstated-confidence from those who describe the projected evolution of global weather patterns over the next 100 years, especially when I consider how difficult it is to accurately predict that system's behavior over the next five days."
  • "I see jump-to-conclusions advocates and, unfortunately, some scientists who see in every weather anomaly the specter of a global-warming apocalypse. Explaining each successive phenomenon as a result of human action gives them comfort and an easy answer."
  • "One of the challenges in studying global climate is keeping a global perspective, especially when much of the research focuses on data gathered from spots around the globe. Often observations from one region get more attention than equally valid data from another."
  • "The recent CNN report "Planet in Peril," for instance, spent considerable time discussing shrinking Arctic sea ice cover. CNN did not note that winter sea ice around Antarctica last month set a record maximum (yes, maximum) for coverage since aerial measurements started."
  • "California and some Northeastern states have decided to force their residents to buy cars that average 43 miles-per-gallon within the next decade. Even if you applied this law to the entire world, the net effect would reduce projected warming by about 0.05 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, an amount so minuscule as to be undetectable. Global temperatures vary more than that from day to day."
These are just a few of the points he brought to light. I recommend reading the entire article for more insight. Also interesting is this Newsweek article published April 28, 1975 on global cooling. Yes, I said "global cooling".


Ed said...

Informative post, thanks. I think the global warming fraud is starting to unravel finally.

Andrew Weaver said...

Thanks for the comments. I dunno if it will ever be completely unraveled at this point, because it has become such a huge political machine. I would even go so far to say to some it's almost a religion and no amount of honest discussion is going to change their minds. It's sad, really.