Global Warming

We’ve all read enough about global warming to all be expert on the subject. It appears that instead of some experts shrill alarmist theory that our modern ways of living are causing a drastic change in our environment, that there indeed is no agreement that we can attribute any cause to changes in our atmosphere. If you would believe Al Gore and his ilk, we polluters would retreat back into the caves our forbears came from. (No, I do not plan to see his movie, I see enough fiction on TV or read about political fiction in the liberal media) That the earth has heated and cooled for millenniums should be no secret to anyone who has studied history and geography. One expert scientist from the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado argues that we are in a state of global warming because he can’t think of anything else. Hardly a compelling argument. Some glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century after advancing several centuries before that. Some glaciers in parts of the world retreat while some others advance. Hurricanes and storms are predicted to become stronger. Carbon dioxide levels have risen in recent years and should have increased warming by a greater intensity than it has. Is the warming caused by increasing carbon dioxide or by natural fluctuation? Those on one side try to submit proof that our current civilization especially that of the United States is the direct and only cause of a predicted global warming. “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate” was the smoking gun for Kyoto. “The changes observed over the last several decades are likely due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability.” This statement from the National Academy of Sciences declared it had found “clear evidence of human influences on the climate system.

Many of these scientific articles do not have abstracts supporting the endorsement of consensus of their global warming views. Models submitted imply that greenhouse gases should impact atmospheric temperatures more than surface temperatures, yet satellite data showed no warming in the atmosphere since 1979.

It appears that nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding science. Claims of consensus of agreement of what appears to be causing global warming relieves policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait and switch scam. Frankly, all dialogue and consensus appears to be more political than moral. By attempting to use perpetual repetition to mount a moral campaign, appears to be more political than consensus reached by scientific methods.

This country has made large advances in controlling unhealthy emissions. We admittedly have a long way to go. If other emerging countries such as China and India would do the same as the U.S., which they aren’t, I doubt even then the Gore Liberals would stop finding ways to pin the cause of global warming on the Bush Republicans. Everyone who buys into the Gore theories should sell their oceanfront houses and retreat inland. I’m counting on this inland movement because I own some stock in an undeveloped land company way inland from any ocean. And no. I know the dangers of living on an oceanfront, an earthquake fault, a tornado alley, live below sea level or live in a paved over desert. We most usually live where we want to live and most of us accept the liabilities. Our financial risks should not be born by our taxpayer funded government.

While I have read extensively about scientific and non scientific views of global warning trends, much of the information for this article comes from Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT in an article in today’s WSJ.

I do not dispute the validity of global warming. I dispute many of the theories and do not believe there is any totally acceptable consensus of causes.