Notes From A Proud Global Warming Skeptic – Part 11
[posted by Justin Levine]
Climate Debate Daily – A great site that tracks the “consensus” over the issue of global warming. Recommended for bookmarking if you have any interest in the debate.
As the site itself states –
Many sites on the Internet, including some of those listed at the far left of the page, take firm views for or against the threat of anthropogenic global warming. As a matter of editorial policy, Climate Debate Daily maintains a studied neutrality, allowing each side to present its most powerful and persuasive case. Our object is to allow readers to form their own judgments based on the best available information.
Fair enough. Present both sides and let the chips fall where they may. That is all I have ever asked for, and the one thing that those suffering from Gore-basms have consistently refused to provide. When you lay the arguments side by side, I am confident that most will come to recognize the level of fraudulent discourse that has been foisted on the public by a throughly corrupt scientific community.
To quote Dr. Richard Lindzen:
“The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations.”
That is just a small tidbit that you find linked to over at Climate Debate Daily. Perhaps now a real debate can finally commence.
Here is my fave header from the site….”Global Warming? Bjørn Lomborg scoffs. Air pollution is the big problem in the Third World. A billion people have no electricity and must burn wood and dung”
The wood and dung burners from the developing world are going to save us by putting enough particulates in the air to reflect enough sunlight out of the atmosphere to mediate the effects of all those coal fired power plants that China is firing up every minute of every day. Go dung!
EdWood (c2268a) — 2/13/2008 @ 7:07 amAl Gore is a snake oil salesman he is lying about the whole thing and trying to sell us a product tha is hazerdous to our soventry
krazy kagu (711c87) — 2/13/2008 @ 8:10 amIf we do enter into a “little ice age” as solar data suggests, similar to the Maunder Minimum, can we call it the “Gore Minimum?”
Merovign (4744a2) — 2/13/2008 @ 10:17 amThe little ice age idea is discussed at
EdWood (c2268a) — 2/13/2008 @ 12:36 pmhttp://www.skepticalscience.com where basically the scientists quoted there say that they can’t predict when solar output via sunspots is going to increase or decrease. The only odd thing at this site is that there is a prediction that increased solar output will (implied)greatly increase current warming trends but that decreased solar output will not appreciably slow current warming trends. Not sure how that is supposed to work. I thought sunspot output didn’t have a large affect one way or another on global temperatures (admittedly that from Robert Ehrlich).
Hmm. EdWood, I’ll admit to not being a climate scientist, but I thought there was a generally-accepted correlation between sunspots and climatic trends: Wikipedia entry on the Maunder minimum.
JSinAZ (4a9d9c) — 2/13/2008 @ 5:09 pmI have noticed that the media now calls it “human induced gobal warming” as a given.
Alta Bob (4daddd) — 2/13/2008 @ 8:24 pmJSinAZ,
EdWood (c2268a) — 2/14/2008 @ 9:47 amThere is a correlation between sunspot activity and global climactic change, but it’s all a matter of degree. With any phenomenon outside a lab (and some inside) there are multiple causes. The real trick is to parse out WHICH causes are more important. The Global Warming chapter in Ehrlich’s book (8 Preposterous Propositions) says that the data suggests that sunspots are a cause of global climactic change but not a particularly important one. Ehrlich by the by is in the “let’s wait and see” camp on whether we should be worried about global climactic change. Or was when he wrote the book.