Written by RSN
The year 2008 marked the tenth consecutive year of no global warming. This is not widely reported or known. In fact the Earth has been cooling for the last 6 years.
A profound analysis of the global warming issues including huge political issues was written and presented in August this year by Dr. Richard Lindzen, climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). (http://tinyurl.com/6lcelj). He asks two very important questions:
Too often we witness climate alarmism being promoted while solid science is ignored, misrepresented, or downplayed. This makes great fodder for scary movies, scary news articles, and scary documentaries, but it is still bad science.
We also note that the nearly $5 billion/year being spent on global warming research is buying a lot of name-calling, ad hominem attacks, and all around nastiness by many of the indentured recipients of that money.
Such behavior certainly is not scientific. In fact it inhibits the progress of science, and the intelligent formulations of science and energy policies. If half the participants are ignored by the science journals, insulted with ad hominem attacks by the promoters, and ignored and dismissed by the media, then the simple and rational scientific processes are stopped.
Lindzen describes the origins of global warming alarm, the political agenda of the alarmists, their intimidation tactics, and the reasons for their success. Also, in painstaking detail, he debunks their key scientific claims and counterclaims. This Lindzen paper, although quite lengthy, is must reading for all decision makers, energy policy makers, and their staffs. Of course it would also help if the entire US population and the media read it as well, to help them understand the unscientific political processes taking place right before their eyes.
Writer Kinsolving reports more of the bad news (http://tinyurl.com/8xnox9). As Dr. David Gee at the University of Uppsala Sweden asks "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?"---Geologist Dr. David Gee, chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress, has authored 130-plus peer-reviewed papers, and currently is at Uppsala University of Sweden. As if this weren't bad enough, the list of credentialed skeptics is growing by leaps and bounds.
Kinsolving provides a number of other important quotations from the scientists who don't accept the dogma of man-made global warming:
The Petition Project
There are many more scientists and engineers who do not accept the fuzzy "science" of global warming. More than 31,000 of them are now listed on the Petition Project, including more than 9000 Ph.D.s (http://tinyurl.com/5o5dxl). These 31,000 scientists, engineers, and medical professionals sign a simple statement which says:
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan, in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that the human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
This is not an unreasonable appeal by very well educated people asking our government not to fall for the steady stream of a continuing hoax. Solid evidence is needed. If we don't get the science right, we won't get the policy right.
The irrepressible Christopher Booker has noted the large changes in the global warming events during 2008 (http://tinyurl.com/8p7d83).
A nation which abolishes its fossil energy sources (coal. oil, and natural gas), nuclear energy, hydro energy, as these political forces are pushing, will lose all of the energy needed for our industries, homes, and infrastructure such as hospitals, office buildings, schools, and hotels. A powerful nation such as ours cannot sustain its energy needs on sunbeams and gentle breezes, as many of the warmers propose. That pathway to the future is dangerous and instead is a pathway to economic suicide