Why is it that “Scientists” talk about global warming, but those who challenge those scientists, regardless of their scientific credentials, are called “Skeptics” … at least until way after the spill.
There is a front page piece Sunday in The Florida Times-Union that almost sounds promising for those of us who are not on the global warming bandwagon. While most have shifted to the euphemism “Climate Change”, which is a squishy as it gets, there are still plenty of people on the far left who are convinced that Florida will be mostly under water in my lifetime, which I hope to be 40 or so more years.
But in the article, which is a wire piece from McClatchy news service and not written locally, the author falls quickly into the lazy recitation of the Al Gore point of view with very little critical thinking.
The headline “Skeptics Point To Cooler Earth To Argue Global Warming” has some promise. I’ve always been skeptical about global warming, and recently I’ve read a lot about analysis of the actual data that only reinforces my belief that they sky is not falling, or warming.
Throughout the first two thirds or so of the article the author keeps talking about the “scientists” who still support the global warming theory in the face of the evidence that the climate has actually cooled over the past decade. They say it’s a temporary condition, and that global warming will be back with a vengeance any time now. Just you wait, Florida and New York City will be under water yet.
Those who dare to present evidence to the contrary are dismissed as “skeptics”, and the reader has to make it to the final few paragraphs before the author admits that some of those who are not on the AGW bandwagon are actually reputable scientists publishing scholarly works in reputable journals. This debate is far from over, unless you only read the first few paragraphs of most articles on the topic published by the mainstream media.
At Oshkosh, Burt Rutan twice made a presentation of his analysis of the data that some choose to ignore when they make their case for AGW. Rutan is not a climatologist, but he is someone who has fully embraced alternative energy technology. His desert home maintains a temperature of 84 degrees in the summer with no air conditioning, and he can go completely off the grid as soon as it becomes economically viable. Rutan, an engineer and test pilot, is someone who has spent his life analyzing complex data on which his life literally depended.
His conslusion? CO2 is not a pollutant, that the earth is in a longer-than-normal warm period between ice ages, and that there is absolutely no reason for the U.S. Government to pursue the Cap and Trade legislation currently working its way through congress. He says it should all be scrapped.
It’s far to detailed for me to try to reproduce here. You can download his entire PowerPoint presentation, complete with his presentation notes, here.
Now, if I’m going to believe someone’s PowerPoint presentation, do I believe Al Gore, who turned his into an Academy Award Winning movie and allowed him to (fraudulently, IMO) win the Nobel Peace Prize, even though he’s not a scientist of any kind, or that if an engineer and test pilot who has managed to keep himself alive analyzing data. For me, that’s an easy choice. Gore stands to make millions of dollars promoting global warming as a crisis. Rutan looked at the data and reached different conclusions, with no financial dog in the hunt.
The more the data points to an earth that does not hang in the balance, the louder the AGW crowd shouts “Crisis” and wants to ram through legislation supporting their cause, and their bank accounts.
I urge you to at least look at Rutan’s PPT. If you’re still not willing to at least consider another point of view, then I kind of feel sorry for you. Science is about considering possibilities, and then trying to prove or disprove those possibilities. The “Climate Change” euphemism is a cop-out, and if “Anthropomorphic Global Warming” was still the issue, the AGW crowd would have never let that terminology go. Now, it’s about making money, lots of money, trading carbon credits and collecting taxes on energy.
Just like back in the Watergate era … follow the money.