Replies

Bjørn Lomborg wrote an excellent book, full of documented fact.

His critics are in fact the very "scientists" criticized in Bjorn's work. His use of valid science (and math) to show global warming and other pet science concerns of the left to be unsubstantiated. With respect to global warming, the models used assume global warming and then attempt to pinpoint what will happen. True scientific models hypothesize what may be happening and try to show measurable events that can be used to validate the model. It will take many years to validate global warming. In the meantime, Bjorn shows that it won't be as big a deal as the critics make out.

With respect to global warming, the models used assume global warming and then attempt to pinpoint what will happen. True scientific models hypothesize what may be happening and try to show measurable events that can be used to validate the model. It will take many years to validate global warming.

Yep. They are already trying

"I think the scientific world has tried to step up to do the studies that are necessary to nail down this issue of global warming," said Warren Washington, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. "There are a lot of people intensely working on it."
The editors of the journal Science this month lauded researchers who trotted out study after study, including documentation of the impacts of climate change, as producing one of the top 10 scientific achievements of 2003. Ten of the warmest years logged since 1880 have occurred since 1991.
"The stream of studies suggesting global warming's impact on Earth and its inhabitants surged to a flood in 2003 with reports on melting ice, droughts, decreased plant productivity, and altered plant and animal behavior," the journal's editors noted.
For the past 50 years, humans have had the most dominant detectable influence on climate change, according to a Science paper co-written by Boulder researcher Kevin Trenberth. "There is no doubt that the composition of the atmosphere is changing because of human activities, and today greenhouse gases are the largest human influence on global climate," wrote Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
"Clearly, whatever is happening is human-induced," said Susan Solomon, a senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Aeronomy Laboratory in Boulder and co-author of a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The research team speculated that aerosols, tiny pollutants that change cloud physics and affect temperature, might be responsible.
"I honestly have to say the actual mechanism remains unknown," Solomon said.

Maybe I should send this on to Jay Bookman for his Cold hearts deny global warming column.

In addition, the stability of the climate is assumed, a ridiculous assumption that has to be indicative of a deliberate campaign of lying. The inconstancy of solar output -- the Sun being the Earth's sole source of heat -- has been known for a very long time.

During the medieval warming period sealevel rose such that some currently inland towns in England were ports via fiords. During the "Little Ice Age" which followed, the northern Atlantic froze to such an extent that polar bears crossed to Iceland from Greenland.

By comparison, the sealevel hasn't risen measurably since 1850. The global warming demagogues used to claim that the seas would rise many feet by 2100 AD. Now they claim a mere 7 inches (.07 inches per year on average), with most of the rise happening nearer the end of the period.

That ought to keep the gov't grants flowing for at least a generation.

And global warming is also gonna cause global cooling. Oh no!

IOW, heads they win, tails we lose.

Hanging's too good for 'em.