Global Warming Debate Lacks Science

When discussing a topic as important as global warming, one would think the facts from climate scientists would be reviewed. Sadly, in the rush to globalize the orthodoxy of global warming, the scientists appear to be the last ones anybody wants to hear from.

First, the science is clear about the sun’s role in the changing nature of our planet’s climate. Decreases in the sun’s activity have been proven to cause global cooling. The mini-ice age that hit Europe in the 17th century has even been correlated with a decrease in solar activity. And guess what? Scientists are now predicting a downturn in the sun’s activity in the near future.

Second, if there were truly a warming trend, shouldn’t it be warmer in the tropical regions? Well, one would think, but recent measurements don’t show this to be the case either (Christy et al). Furthermore, the UK MET office has figures that show there has been no warming trend during this century in spite of all the hype. Any “warming” trend, at best, occurred prior to the 1940’s when CO2 emissions were small, not when our industrial revolution was in full bloom.

But let’s get back to the scientists… The scientist responsible for the first consensus paper was recently challenged, but the magazine Science refused to print the letter. The challenge was that Oreskes’ (2004) survey of 928 peer-reviewed papers demonstrated a 75% consensus by climate change scientists was false. The independent review of the literature by the challenger showed only 13% of climate change researchers were in agreement with the cause of the changes. This shouting down of anyone who dissents is queer in the world of science and my guess is, it’s coming back to bite us.

Lastly, I recognize the popularity of offering castrophic events, like the Asian Tsunami, or the Hurricane Katrina as evidence of global change. However, to those interested in fact, theories untested have never offered a sound basis for policy decisions. So in our haste to create global warming policies to address this widely accepted but unproven theory, what will most likely be the result? Our economies will further suffer due to the restrictions placed on our industries. But just watch what these misguided policies do to the poorest less industrialized countries in the name of saving our planet, it's going to kill their economies...and their people will follow.

Comments