Happy Jake (http://happyjake.townhall.com) writes: Friday, February 02, 2007 7:40 AM

Basic Facts of Global Warming

Point 1: As has been mentioned by many, including Michael Crichton in the factual afterward of his novel "State of Fear", those who write articles saying anything critical of Global Warming theory are ostracized from the scientific community. AJR writes that 100% of scientists in peer-reviewed journals agree that Humans cause global warming. That's what happens when you only have one choice. Articles written that oppose the theory don't make it into the journals. Scientists are paid by people who want results. Most often, climatologists are paid by people who want a specific result. As such, they will do what they can to achieve it. Peer review journals come out of academia, and we all know just how middle-of-the-road and politically centered THEY are.

Point 2: As Burt says in his column, EVERYTHING is attributed to global warming (or racism or both, as was Hurricane Katrina). Even things like earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis (the one in 2004 had some eco-happies whining about global warming, if I recall correctly.) that have NOTHING to do with the climate. (That leap was also apparently made in "The Day After Tomorrow" which movie a number of politicians called an accurate assessment of what would happen because of Global Warming). The record-setting, extremely heavy 2005 Hurricane season (which included Katrina) was "due to global warming" and (and I'm not making this up) the unusually LOW number of tropical storms in 2006 was attributed to global warming (More desert in Africa made dust that seeded the clouds and made them lose their energy so they couldn't produce the big storms.) Burt is also not kidding when he says that hot weather AND cold weather are blamed on global warming. I've heard THAT one before, too.

Point 3. The best guess we have (and it is a guess) is that the Middle Ages included a long period where it was warmer, worldwide, than it is now (It might have been the 1400's, but I don't remember exactly. Maybe someone else does.) In any event, we have no accurate measurements for worldwide temperature before about the 1960s when we started putting up satellites and no measurements at all for even local temperatures before the last 150-200 years or so. We can make guesses based on tree rings and ice layers, but those are guesses and can be interpreted in several ways.

Point 4: The estimates keep getting lower, and the impending catastrophe keeps getting worse. 20 years ago, they were saying we would be under water right about now. They keep changing the story and what they change it to never seems to bear itself out.

Point 5: We aren't even sure that a one-degree rise in temperature over the next 100 years will have any real effect on anything. And even if it does, we don't know for sure that it will be a disaster. Theoretically it could open up vast areas of farmland in the three biggest countries (in land area) in the world, Russia, Canada and the US (Alaska, specifically).

Point 6: Any measures proposed by such things as Kyoto are woefully inadequate even by the eco-happy's own admission. If Kyoto were implemented as written, it would stave off the impending doom by 10 years. That's it. And that's because it's not intended to solve or even ameliorate global warming, but to hurt the US and its standing in the world. The biggest polluters are exempt from the treaty, and we're the only country that would have to put a severe damper on our economy to make it work. And crushing our economy won't yield any benefit whatsoever. None. 10 years isn't a benefit. It's a Band-Aid on a gunshot wound, with the bullet still lodged. So even if you accept the doom and gloom scenarios, the solutions put forth don't address the problem (presuming the problem is Global Warming and not the industrial dominance of the US.) Besides all of that, we saw just how well the "Oil-for-Food" treaty worked out. The US was the only ones who abided by it (not even the UN, who wrote the thing in the first place bothered to abide by it.)

If the problem doesn't exist, then shut up about it. If it does exist, then propose a solution that (A) will work and (B) won't cost more than it's worth and (C) will apply to everyone, not just those who are political targets

.

Moonbat Exterminator writes: Friday, February 02, 2007 8:44 AM

Happy Jake Great post filled with factual info. A couple of additional points:

1. Climate records have only been recorded for less than 200 years, which in the life cycle of a planet is less than the blink of an eye. To base the linear regression projections that global warming advocates make, based on a statistically insignificant sample is foolish.

2. Most of the global warming predictions are based on computer models, which are mainly based on correlation between independent factors like temperature and CO2 concentration. What's absent from these analyses is any demonstrated causality i.e. a.)the mechanism by which temp is affected by CO2 b.)complete breakdowns of all CO2 sources, and c.) how human produced CO2 is more harmful than that from other sources.

3. Right now where I live we are in the grip of an Arctic blast scheduled to get worse over the weekend (high temp Mon in single digits). 65 million years ago, the area was a subtropical swamp inhabited by dinosaurs, 100,000 yrs ago, it was under a glacier. How did human activity end the Ice Age?

Global warming pundits are doing the equivalent of trying to sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.