« Labour Think Tank Calls for Dismantling British Civilization | Main | Nickelodeon Indoctrinates Children with Hard-Left Propaganda »
November 1, 2007
IPCC Scientist Rejects Nobel Prize, Global Warming Hoax
The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded not only to Al Gore, but also to the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This panel consists mainly of moonbatty political hacks, but also includes a few scientists, many of whom are enraged to have their good names attached to the global warming hoax.
Possibly even more enraging is the Peace Prize itself, which is not an honor but a disgrace. Laureates include a corrupt terrorist, a communist dictator, and even Jimmy Carter, who was granted the award explicitly for his seditious campaign to undermine his own country during wartime.
IPCC member John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, isn't standing for it. He renounces the prize, and the insidious hoax it was meant to reinforce.
Christy notes that although recent measurements suggest a trend toward modest warming (∼2.5°F per century, which is insignificant), it has not been shown that human activity has anything to do with it.
As for the climatic doom the Goracle prophesies, climatologist can't reliably predict the weather next week; only the politically motivated pretend they can foresee it 50 years out. Christy puts it this way:
Mother Nature simply operates at a level of complexity that is, at this point, beyond the mastery of mere mortals (such as scientists) and the tools available to us. As my high-school physics teacher admonished us in those we-shall-conquer-the-world-with-a-slide-rule days, "Begin all of your scientific pronouncements with 'At our present level of ignorance, we think we know…'"
I haven't seen that type of climate humility lately. Rather 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.
Others of us scratch our heads and try to understand the real causes behind what we see. We discount the possibility that everything is caused by human actions, because everything we've seen the climate do has happened before. Sea levels rise and fall continually. The Arctic ice cap has shrunk before. One millennium there are hippos swimming in the Thames, and a geological blink later there is an ice bridge linking Asia and North America.
Evidence has been selected to dupe fools into believing there's a crisis. Christy gives an example:
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.
As Christy observes, plans by authoritarian moonbats to impose ever higher fuel efficiency standards will have no noticeable effect on the weather. Changing to nuclear power theoretically might. But moonbats don't like nuclear power.
While puppet masters like Gore lead the gullible around by the nose for their own selfish purposes, real crises are going unaddressed. Christy concludes:
My experience as a missionary teacher in Africa opened my eyes to this simple fact: Without access to energy, life is brutal and short. The uncertain impacts of global warming far in the future must be weighed against disasters at our doorsteps today. Bjorn Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus 2004, a cost-benefit analysis of health issues by leading economists (including three Nobelists), calculated that spending on health issues such as micronutrients for children, HIV/AIDS and water purification has benefits 50 to 200 times those of attempting to marginally limit "global warming."
Given the scientific uncertainty and our relative impotence regarding climate change, the moral imperative here seems clear to me.
Gore is right about one thing. The global warming hoax really is a moral issue. It's morally imperative to reject it for the good of society.
On a tip from Varla.
Posted by Van Helsing at November 1, 2007 9:57 AM
Good on the good professor, but one correction to make. He works at the University of Alabama, Huntsville. This started out as a satellite campus of the University of Alabama, but has since become an autonomous campus in its own right. (Just wanting to give credit where credit was due.)
Posted by: Uchuck the Tuchuck at November 1, 2007 12:33 PM
Uchuck, thanks, correction made.
Posted by: Van Helsing at November 1, 2007 1:06 PM
Posted by: Poptech at November 2, 2007 11:41 AM