Climate hysterics v heretics in an age of unreason

[stephanie]

hur Herman | August 04, 2008
IT has been a tough year for the high priests of global warming in the US. First, NASA had to correct its earlier claim that the hottest year on record in the contiguous US had been 1998, which seemed to prove that global warming was on the march. It was actually 1934. Then it turned out the world's oceans have been growing steadily cooler, not hotter, since 2003. Meanwhile, the winter of 2007 was the coldest in the US in decades, after Al Gore warned us that we were about to see the end of winter as we know it.

In a May issue of Nature, evidence about falling global temperatures forced German climatologists to conclude that the transformation of our planet into a permanent sauna is taking a decade-long hiatus, at least. Then this month came former greenhouse gas alarmist David Evans's article in The Australian, stating that since 1999 evidence has been accumulating that man-made carbon emissions can't be the cause of global warming. By now that evidence, Evans said, has become pretty conclusive.

Yet believers in man-made global warming demand more and more money to combat climate change and still more drastic changes in our economic output and lifestyle.

The reason is that precisely that they are believers, not scientists. No amount of empirical evidence will overturn what has become not a scientific theory but a form of religion.

read it all here.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...7-7583,00.html

[Dilloduck]

hur Herman | August 04, 2008
IT has been a tough year for the high priests of global warming in the US. First, NASA had to correct its earlier claim that the hottest year on record in the contiguous US had been 1998, which seemed to prove that global warming was on the march. It was actually 1934. Then it turned out the world's oceans have been growing steadily cooler, not hotter, since 2003. Meanwhile, the winter of 2007 was the coldest in the US in decades, after Al Gore warned us that we were about to see the end of winter as we know it.

In a May issue of Nature, evidence about falling global temperatures forced German climatologists to conclude that the transformation of our planet into a permanent sauna is taking a decade-long hiatus, at least. Then this month came former greenhouse gas alarmist David Evans's article in The Australian, stating that since 1999 evidence has been accumulating that man-made carbon emissions can't be the cause of global warming. By now that evidence, Evans said, has become pretty conclusive.

Yet believers in man-made global warming demand more and more money to combat climate change and still more drastic changes in our economic output and lifestyle.

The reason is that precisely that they are believers, not scientists. No amount of empirical evidence will overturn what has become not a scientific theory but a form of religion.

read it all here.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...7-7583,00.html

Absolutely. They are pompous enough to think they are saving a planet while consuming it like starving animals.
And what about this "making the world livable for our grandchildren" ? Several wars were fought and policies put in place to make the world safer for the grandchildren of that time. Well, here we are. Grown up grandchildren. What happened to all those promises? POOF---gone.

[diuretic]

I must keep an eye on the paper here. This bloke is a historian so the Letters to the Editor should be worth a read. He quotes Evans who is a computer scientist. Herman is speaking to a right wing denialist group. Evans is a member of a denialist group. Neither are scientists.

Yes, this one is going to be worth keeping an eye on. The problem the denialists face is that about 70% of our population accepts the scientific consensus that global climate change is a reality and it's necessary to deal with it. The debate is how we have to deal with it and when, not if. Smal wonder the Murdoch national rag feels required to keep publishing denialist essays.

[Psychoblues]

Put your bucks on the heretics without reason, doc. They, in their feeble minds, prevail. Don't you know?!?!!?!?!?!?!?

[Dilloduck]

I must keep an eye on the paper here. This bloke is a historian so the Letters to the Editor should be worth a read. He quotes Evans who is a computer scientist. Herman is speaking to a right wing denialist group. Evans is a member of a denialist group. Neither are scientists.

Yes, this one is going to be worth keeping an eye on. The problem the denialists face is that about 70% of our population accepts the scientific consensus that global climate change is a reality and it's necessary to deal with it. The debate is how we have to deal with it and when, not if. Smal wonder the Murdoch national rag feels required to keep publishing denialist essays.

70% of our clueless population believe information that scientist are putting out ? Hell--they don't even know what a thermometer is. Am I to be awe stricken by these numbers ?

[Hobbit]

Even if I didn't know that a growing number of climatologists are opposing the global warming scare, I don't buy arguments ad populum. Science isn't up for a vote.

[diuretic]

70% of our clueless population believe information that scientist are putting out ? Hell--they don't even know what a thermometer is. Am I to be awe stricken by these numbers ?

We can tell the difference between a thermometer and a barometer.

They're spelled differently

But, to be a bit serious. Because we're aware of the devastation that could be wreaked on the planet (the current topic here is the potential death of the Murray-Darling system due to political parochialism) I think we're moved into that phase where we realise something needs to be done. It's a bit like putting off going to the doctor because you have a dark mole on your skin and then finding out later you've got melanoma. We don't want things to get to the point where it's too late. Not much fun in "we told you so!" when we or our children/grandchildren/great-grandchildren are facing climate disaster.

[diuretic]

Even if I didn't know that a growing number of climatologists are opposing the global warming scare, I don't buy arguments ad populum. Science isn't up for a vote.

Yes, apparently the science is pointing out that global warming is a hazard.

[SpidermanTUba]

Meanwhile, the winter of 2007 was the coldest in the US in decades,

That's not even true. 2000 was colder, for both surface only and surface+ocean measurements. For surface+ocean measurements, 2001 was also colder.

[MtnBiker]

Record low maximum temperature set in Denver for August 16th...

The high temperature at Denver International Airport today was 58
degrees.

This 58 degree reading will replace the previous low maximum
temperature record for August 16th which was 63 degrees set 118
years ago in 1890.

http://www.wunderground.com/US/CO/040.html

[SpidermanTUba]

http://www.wunderground.com/US/CO/040.html

Wow, a record cold at a single location in space and time. Obvious proof the Earth isn't warming.

[manu1959]

anyone read the article on drudge that says we will be entering a mini ice age shortly....

[MtnBiker]

Wow, a record cold at a single location in space and time. Obvious proof the Earth isn't warming.

No claim of proof of one thing or the other, just more input to the discussion. And it was a record low maximum temperature, not a record cold temperature.

[manu1959]

anyone read the article on drudge that says we will be entering a mini ice age shortly....

http://translate.google.com/translat...F8&sl=es&tl=en

[red states rule]