moonbattery.gif


« SFU to Remove Crosses From Coat of Arms | Main | Sour Grapes For Racist Moonbats in Michigan Discrimination Ban »


December 30, 2006

Climate Change Consensus Does Not Exist

One of the many disturbing aspects of global warming hysteria is the way moonbats who use it to promote their ominous political agenda insist on a consensus that simply does not exist. A recent survey of more than 12,000 environmental scientists and practitioners by the National Registry of Environmental Professionals shows that despite the hysteria and considerable pressure to conform to the "correct" view, many scientists are choosing skepticism over the safety of the herd.

The survey found that:

  • 34% disagree that global warming is a serious problem;
  • 41% disagree that warming trends "can be, in large part, attributed to human activity";
  • 71% disagree that human activity has significantly contributed to hurricanes;
  • 33% disagree that the US government is not doing enough about global warming;
  • 47% disagree that international agreements such as the preposterous Kyoto Protocol provide a useful framework for addressing global climate change.

The number of scientists who take the whole issue seriously can be attributed to the intense pressure that has been applied over the past few years. Liberals with a potentially disastrous political agenda have managed to manufacture a climate in which casting doubt on global warming moonbattery is a faux pas on a scale with using the forbidden N-word. Skeptics put their funding and even their careers at risk.

Nonetheless, the spirit of Galileo still lives. Just as he once insisted "E pur si muove!" ("And yet it moves!"), many of today's scientists are saying, "And yet it's bunk!"

Al Gore may produce a lot of hot air, but not enough to cause the Earth to warm by more than 1.2–1.7°C over the next century, which isn't significant given the planet's normal temperature fluctuations. Previous interglacial periods reached an average of 3°C warmer than current temperatures, and as you can see, the planet survived.

The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been sheepishly toning down its inflated numbers. Its worst-case temperature predictions are down more than 20% from what they were 5 years ago. It is now estimating that the sea level will go up by one foot over the next 100 years. It has already gone up by 370 feet since the last ice age ended 10,000 years ago, and we're not living on rafts yet.

But if the facts aren't on their side, the moonbat media can always run a picture of a cuddly polar bear in distress.

timecover.jpg

On a tip from Bergbikr.

Posted by Van Helsing at December 30, 2006 11:18 AM

Comments

Consensus does not prove science. In fact, consensus is the enemy of science. Reality is not determined by popular vote. If it did, a group of scientists could determine that 3 x 3 = 10.

Scientists are supposed to be skeptics. If there is any scientific consensus on Global Warming, it's probably that Global Warming is a great tool to get "research" grants from gullible politicians.

Posted by: V the K at December 30, 2006 5:00 PM

V, you definitely da man.

I was just about to post the same comment earlier today, but had to leave before I could do so.

My rejoinder to those citing a "consensus": is there a consensus that gravitational attractional varies as the inverse square of distance?

Of course not. Dispositive data are available. The contrary position is untenable. Conversely, if mutually exclusive positions are held, dispositive data obviously are not to hand, i.e., no one knows for sure (or, to put it more crudely, people are swapping wild-ass guesses, every one as good as any other).

That would summarize my take on global warming.

It's particularly curious that global warming enthusiasts focus on variations in CO2 partial pressure, when CO2 comprises ca. 0.05% of the atmosphere by partial pressure. What about solar absorption by water vapor, or variations in solar intensity, both much larger terms than CO2 partial pressure? No political mileage to made there? Day One of any treatment of perturbation theory emphasizes the need to treat terms in order of decreasing size. Only incompetent scientists ignore the large terms and focus on small terms first.

And how exactly do the worthies expounding on global warming explain the Ice Ages?

Posted by: Jay Guevara at December 30, 2006 6:29 PM

The climate change caused by human CO2 will be solved if all the true believers will just stop exhaling.

Posted by: Retired at December 30, 2006 10:25 PM

I graduated from college with a degree in environmental management. I've studied it all, and I had a teacher who gave us both sides of the issues. He pretty much made clear to us that global warming was bunk. That survery is interesting because I've seen surveys that said a two thirds majority disagreed that humans were causing the earth to warm. That survey was taken among climate specialist scientists only (those most involved with climate research). They reject the global warming hypothesis altogether. It's a sham; it isn't happening.

Posted by: Chris at December 31, 2006 4:11 PM

New areas of research involving solar cycles and cosmic rays will likely prove that CO2 level increases are an effect rather than a cause of global warming.

While manmade CO2 likely has some effect it is almost too small to measure. Once the current solar cycle ends the Earth will likely begin cooling again - some are predicting conditions similar to those in the 1600 and 1700s. If that happens it will be disasterous. The cooling is supposed to begin by 2050.

Posted by: General Jack D. Ripper at December 31, 2006 8:16 PM

It is even worse than this post suggests. Orthodoxy is also practiced in Physics,cosmology,chemistry and Medicine. I suggest if you want to read a really good book on the corruption of the scientific method by the forces of politics, economics and social engineering read James P Hogan's Kicking The Sacred Cow it will open your eyes wide. Here is a hint what if the Theory Of Relativity is wrong? Or the Big Bang Theory is so much bunk? Read the book.

Posted by: Oldcrow at December 31, 2006 11:00 PM

Here's a thought. Consider the Time headline: "Be worried. Be very worried." Why might a commercial news organization want to keep people worried? Could it be because when people are worried, they seek more of that commodity known as "news?" Hence, the valued of "news" increases, and those who are in the business of selling news make more money.

Global Warming may turn out to be the biggest scam since killer bees or Y2K.

Posted by: V the K at January 1, 2007 9:55 AM

Global Warming may turn out to be the biggest scam since killer bees or Y2K.

Oh, we've got other ones warming up (no pun intended) in the bullpen. Avian flu would take off, if only leftists could figure out how to blame it on corporations and George Bush. (Lack of preparedness is a start, but it's pretty weak tea compared to accusations of causing something.)

Let's see...nuclear winter? Nah, tried that, and it's so dated now (not to mention debunked). AIDS going to kill everyone? Nah, too easy to avoid - don't queer off, don't shoot up, and you're home and dry. Besides, we've got protease inhibitors now. Alar? Nah, never caught on in the first place. Choosing as a spokesman someone as homely as the improbably-named Meryl Streep was probably a mistake, and she's so done now anyway. Cell phones causing brain cancer? Nah, cell phones are too popular. The chicks will never give them up, and they're the key to whipping up hysteria, as the etymology of the word suggests. Power lines cause cancer? Nah, how would we play our stereos? Shark summer? Puh-leeze.

Comrades, we need to put on our thinking caps! Killer athlete's foot? Asteroid strikes? Terminal halitosis? Cancer-causing underarm deodorants (Berkeley's long been opposed to these)?

Maybe a contest, and we give a t-shirt to the winner. "We're doomed because _____."

Hmmm. Must think, must think...

Posted by: Jay Guevara at January 1, 2007 11:10 AM