Global Warming revisited
Last time I wrote about global warming, I said this:
I won’t claim the climate isn’t changing. That much is obvious. But I have yet to see anyone show that we’re causing it. What’s more, I have yet to see anyone show that the climate would stop changing if we (magically) completely eliminated pollution tomorrow – and there’s certainly practically no evidence that we can actually reverse it.
As it turns out, I was wrong; the climate isn’t really changing.
I suspect some of you are staring at your screen with your jaw on the floor. Allow me to elaborate. You know the CRU? The group which was at the forefront of the pro-Anthropogenic-Global-Warming movement? The group whose e-mails were leaked, displaying their scientific misconduct to the world?
Their director, Phil Jones, has temporarily resigned from his position while the whole thing is investigated. What’s more, he has publicly admitted that not only is global warming not caused by man, but nothing significant is happening!
But don’t take my word for it. In his interview with the BBC, he admits that since 1995 there has been no statistically significant planetary warming. He goes on to quibble over “almost significant” and “over longer periods of time”, in an effort to still support his pro-AGW stance, but then he says this:
Of course, if the [Medieval Warming Period] was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented.
Forbes.com points out that “A Nature study last year showed water temperatures in the Indonesia area were the same in medieval times as they are today.”
In other words, there is, in fact, evidence that the MWP was just as warm as we see things today, which means our current warmth is not unprecedented.
Why does this all this matter? Well, people who think global warming is man-made always point to greenhouse gases as the cause. Since 1995, we’ve increased our yearly GHG production by 26%; however, this has had no effect on planetary temperatures.
So if greenhouse gases don’t actually affect the planet’s temperature, and if there have been similar warm periods in the past, then what evidence remains to support AGW?
Jones also states something else:
It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view.
The director of the Climate Research Unit believes the debate is not over. How then can Gibbs, the White House press secretary, make the statement he made back in December?
… on the order of several *thousand* scientists have come, uh, to the conclusion that, uh, climate change is happening. Uh, I don’t think that’s, uh, anything that is quite frankly, among most people, in dispute anymore.
Even the CRU didn’t really know whether climate change is happening, or whether it’s man-caused. (If they were sure, there would have been no reason to engage in all the scientific misconduct they did.)
I, for one, am uncomfortable making policies based on such controversial opinions.
There are plenty of reasons to reduce pollution, so it’s complete and utter nonsense to base any pollution-reducing measures on whether global warming is happening (or even on whether it’s our fault). (Here I’m referring to the Copenhagen conference, whose stated goal is, according to Gibbs, to “stop and reverse climate change”.)Share on Facebook