Global Warming Revisited – Inconvenient Truth or Swindle

Some of you may remember a previous post on global warming. In recent weeks I’ve seen an enhanced interest in climate change and have experienced some additional arguments against the much trumpeted predicted catastrophic weather changes. Let me rephrase that… the weather changes could possibly be true, but the cause of these changes are far from proven. In fact there are many that have proven the popular view as false.

A KSL News article is what originally sparked my attention again. Then one of my favorite authors penned an article which was not really enlightening, but well thought out and expressed. The entire article is a good read (seriously… go read it), but a few highlights are below.

All the computer models are wrong. They have not only failed to predict the future, they can’t even predict that past.

That is, when you run their software with the data from, say, the 1970s or 1980s, and project what should happen in the 1990s or 2000s, they project results that have absolutely nothing to do with the known climate data for those decades.

In other words, the models don’t work. The only way to make them “work” is to take the known results and then fiddle with the software until it finally produces them. That’s not how honest science is done.

Is it true? I didn’t search for verification of the above, but I have found verification of the following quote with an article based on NASA findings.

Science isn’t done by consensus. It’s done by rigorous testing. When a hypothesis — or a computer model — fails to correspond to the actual real-world data, you throw it out.

That’s what the real climate scientists are doing. They have found, in recent years, a very close correspondence between global climate and variations in the amount of radiation the Earth receives from the Sun.

The light and heat we get varies depending on the distance and position of the Earth and the amount of radiation the Sun puts out. The Earth’s distance and position seem to determine the big cycles — the Ice Ages — and the Sun’s variations seem to determine the smaller climate cycles.

Probably the most compelling information I have seen lately is a video which I learned about from the Purim Blog, of which my brother is a contributor.

I very highly recommend the video (also available on YouTube). It’s very well done and is in direct response to Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”.

Some might argue that we should protect against global warming even if it’s not really caused by humans. I would be completely fine with that argument if it didn’t come as an hindrance to business and the American economy.

A co-worker commented, “I think it’s very arrogant of the human race to think we can have any effect on the global weather patterns of the Earth.” I would have to agree.

You may also like...

6 Responses

  1. Ryan Byrd says:

    Are you dissin’ Vice President Al Gore?!?

  2. Reluctant says:

    I’m not criticizing Gore… just criticizing his views. I have nothing against him personally. I’ve never met him.

  3. Dave W. says:

    Dan, I only got half-way through the video before it cut me off. But I have two questions (if these were answered in the second half of the video, let me know):

    1) If humans aren’t causing global warming, what is the motivation behind the widespread assertion that we do? Are these geeks just looking for their 15 minutes of fame? Are they getting a kick out of scaring everyone? The money is certainly more in the camp of business-as-usual regarding the environment than in raising the specter of having to spend trillions of dollars cleaning things up, so we can’t say they’re looking to profit from it (although Al Gore has made a killing). I can’t think of a single reasonable explanation for scientists backing the position if there is no solid scientific basis for it. If the evidence on the video is as irrefutable as it’s couched, then why would thousands of self-respecting scientists back the “human-cause” theory? It’s a big jump from “Margaret Thatcher thought it was a good way to keep striking miners out of her hair” to “it really appealed to the environmental movement” to “thousands of not-as-smart-as-us scientists back the theory for no apparent reason.”

    2) Where are these dissenting voices when the world meets together regarding global warming? It seems that if there were a significant contingent of dissenters, it would be more newsworthy than a video on YouTube. If there are that many serious scientists who agree with the dozen cited on the video, how are the liberals quashing them all? Or are these the only ones smart enough to believe it?

  4. Dave W. says:

    By the way, cleaning up the environment isn’t as big a hinderance to business and the American economy as is hundreds of thousands of workers suffering from respiratory problems, cancers, and other health problems brought about by pollution. I don’t see any reason NOT to clean up the environment. In fact, that goal will probably create more jobs than the costs to modernize and clean up will force out. E.g., if a factory has to lay off a dozen people because it’s being forced to spend money on modernizing, those laid off can get a job with the new company designing, building and installing filtration systems. I don’t think the American economy is that fragile when it comes to regulatory changes of this sort.

  5. Reluctant says:

    Dave, you are correct in that the video does address your concerns in the later portion. And it does make cases explaining your concerns. I suggest you viewing the video again (of course skipping the first portion). They make the case much better than I could. I will make quick summary comments:

    1) The same reason almost all American’s do anything. Money. There is a huge amount of money being pored into Global Warming research. Everyone wants a cut. Scientist don’t get this type of funding unless there is a crisis which will affect everyone.

    2) There are plenty of dissenters, but it’s become unpopular to do so. Many have just given up. Others are being forced through all kinds of pressures (social, political and other) to not be too vocal.

    Another article that I failed to link to in my posting indicates that there is simultaneous warming on Mars. Thus indicating something is warming our part of the solar system. Not just our planet. Interesting.

  6. Dave W. says:

    Dan, I’m not saying the “Sun-caused” theory isn’t true–the video was very compelling (much like all such videos will be if they are well-made). But, because I know nothing about climatology, etc., I have to rely on the opinions and evidence expressed by “experts.” Until I know for myself, I’ll stick with the more widely-held views of scientists. I realize this exposes me to the possibility of being wrong, much like the phrenologists were.

    The first reason you give above assumes that the thousands of scientists backing the human-cause theory are willing to prostitute their credentials for funding. I don’t believe this. If I were they, I wouldn’t back bad science just for funding, and I don’t think there are that many who would.

    The second reason you give doesn’t hold water for me either. I don’t think popularity has much to do with a scientist’s willingness to vocalize his theories. In fact, I would think a scientist with good evidence behind him would be MORE vocal in the face of opposition because he feels his data will vindicate him and make a bigger name for himself.

    In my experience, the best reward for a scientist is his name, reputation, and the solidity of his theories. Both the reasons given expressly contradict this.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.