Site search
sponsored by
Home
News
ENLARGE
By Ed Iverson
I just can't resist one more whack at the global warming hornet's nest. This column is dedicated to the faithful readers of this column who have raised objections to my earlier observations about global warming. I rarely respond to reader's reaction, but tucked in among the scurrilous attacks, one can sometimes find solemn objections.
Objection one: Climate change deniers ignore the scientific evidence. A variation of this objection is that unbelievers are ignorant of science, something of which I have been repeatedly accused. It is of little importance that I spent a significant portion of my adult life teaching science. What is important is that real scientists with impeccable credentials are hounded and persecuted for being "climate change deniers."
I just can't resist one more whack at the global warming hornet's nest. This column is dedicated to the faithful readers of this column who have raised objections to my earlier observations about global warming. I rarely respond to reader's reaction, but tucked in among the scurrilous attacks, one can sometimes find solemn objections.
Objection one: Climate change deniers ignore the scientific evidence. A variation of this objection is that unbelievers are ignorant of science, something of which I have been repeatedly accused. It is of little importance that I spent a significant portion of my adult life teaching science. What is important is that real scientists with impeccable credentials are hounded and persecuted for being "climate change deniers."
These are not scientists who took seven years getting a degree in scientific basket weaving at Buffalo Breath Polytechnic. These are climatologists from prestigious universities who are systematically marginalized because they are looking at the scientific evidence without the benefit of a political or fundraising agenda.
According to the UK Telegraph, Dr. Timothy Ball (retired climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg) has received five deaths threats by e-mail since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change. One of the e-mails warned that if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.
Dr. Richard Lindzen (professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology) recently appeared on the "The Great Global Warming Swindle." He complained that "scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided and themselves labeled as industry stooges."
According to the UK Telegraph, Dr. Timothy Ball (retired climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg) has received five deaths threats by e-mail since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change. One of the e-mails warned that if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.
Dr. Richard Lindzen (professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology) recently appeared on the "The Great Global Warming Swindle." He complained that "scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided and themselves labeled as industry stooges."
British Public Television Channel 4 sponsored this documentary. According to Channel 4, the program features "an impressive roll-call of experts," including nine professors who are experts in climatology, oceanography, meteorology, biogeography and paleoclimatology. Several of the participating scientists claimed the theory of man-made global warming had become a "religion," forcing alternative explanations to be ignored.
Objection two: We know the Earth has experienced significant fluctuations in temperature before the industrial revolution. But the real issue is the RATE of change. This objection goes on to argue that never before has the Earth undergone such rapid climate change. The problem with this objection is it doesn't line up with the scientific evidence.
Evidence abounds for abrupt warming periods during past temperature fluctuations. This is most likely the result of an ice-albedo feedback. Ice has a higher albedo (or reflectivity) than vegetation, soil or water. Therefore, when ice is present, less solar radiation is absorbed by the surface, temperatures decrease, and the ice will persist. What happens once there in an increase in solar activity and the ice begins to melt? This uncovers more land or water, meaning more solar radiation will be absorbed by the surface. This in turn, raises temperatures more, causing even more ice to melt.
Objection two: We know the Earth has experienced significant fluctuations in temperature before the industrial revolution. But the real issue is the RATE of change. This objection goes on to argue that never before has the Earth undergone such rapid climate change. The problem with this objection is it doesn't line up with the scientific evidence.
Evidence abounds for abrupt warming periods during past temperature fluctuations. This is most likely the result of an ice-albedo feedback. Ice has a higher albedo (or reflectivity) than vegetation, soil or water. Therefore, when ice is present, less solar radiation is absorbed by the surface, temperatures decrease, and the ice will persist. What happens once there in an increase in solar activity and the ice begins to melt? This uncovers more land or water, meaning more solar radiation will be absorbed by the surface. This in turn, raises temperatures more, causing even more ice to melt.
As a naturally occurring cooling period ends, global warming naturally occurs faster and faster. About the only thing that seems to change faster are the various doomsday scenarios that are designed to promote increased governmental regulations and correspondingly higher taxes. By now, everyone should know about the "global cooling" alarm that was widely promoted by self-promoting politicians and their willing minions in the academy a mere 30 years ago.
Objection three: Climate change deniers are so divisive. A corollary of this objection is that we have too much fun dismissing the alarms. To this accusation, I plead guilty. Pompous windbags need to have some of the air let out or they will explode, creating a big mess. This objection is actually the one that is cited most frequently. I suspect that it is the most "serious" objection. That is because global warming and its attendant threads really do amount to a religion for many people ... and religion is no joking matter. The save-the-Earth types of people rallying behind the global warming swindle are deadly serious. They really cannot abide an alternative religion. It is too divisive.
Objection three: Climate change deniers are so divisive. A corollary of this objection is that we have too much fun dismissing the alarms. To this accusation, I plead guilty. Pompous windbags need to have some of the air let out or they will explode, creating a big mess. This objection is actually the one that is cited most frequently. I suspect that it is the most "serious" objection. That is because global warming and its attendant threads really do amount to a religion for many people ... and religion is no joking matter. The save-the-Earth types of people rallying behind the global warming swindle are deadly serious. They really cannot abide an alternative religion. It is too divisive.
