A week ago I penned a piece at the old Minority Report blog called More censorship from the left. This time its global warming! In which I take issue with people saying the GW debate is over and asked this question:
There Is No 'Consensus' On Global Warming, there can’t be, science either IS or ISN’T, Period!
In which part of the scientific method does it say “get a consensus of other researchers to agree with you then present said information as fact”?
What is the “scientific method”? The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:
- Observe some aspect of the universe.
- Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
- Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
- Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
- Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.
Today I wanted to update the piece with some new data I’ve collected to backup my claim!
According to NREP The National Registry of Environmental Professionals Global climate change survey, a substantial number of environmental scientists disagree with the assertion that human activity is either overwhelmingly causing or imminently causing substantial global warming.
The survey taken by The National Registry of Environmental Professionals who purports to be nonpartisan, asked 793 environmental scientists and environmental practitioners about human effects on climate change.
The results like my, uncredentialed common sense conclusions, contradict the new mantra taken up by the alarmist groups - "the debate is over" and that a consensus of scientists agree humans are causing a dramatic and harmful change in the Earth's climate.
The survey asked a variety of questions that can be viewed in its entirety here. the conclusions I’m most concerned with are as follows:
- 34 percent of environmental scientists and practitioners disagree that global warming is a serious problem facing the planet.
- 41 percent disagree that the planet's recent warmth "can be, in large part, attributed to human activity."
- 71 percent disagree that recent hurricane activity is significantly attributable to human activity.
- 33 percent disagree that the U.S. government is not doing enough to address global warming.
- 47 percent disagree that international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol provide a solid framework for combating global climate change.
Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute has said:
“These results are absolutely amazing! It just shows you how phony the alleged scientific consensus is that we hear so much about.”
And
"The asserted consensus that global warming is a planetary emergency and that all right-thinking people believe we need to limit our energy use has been exposed, once again, as unsubstantiated myth,"
This bring me to a news story I picked up the other day on CNSNews.com called 'Scientist' Group's Funding Comes with Liberal 'Strings Attached' which criticizes the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), who describes itself as an "alliance" of over 200,000 citizens and scientists, of being a political group and of participating in the same tactics of accepting donations from special interest groups they have been accusing others of doing.
According to James Dellinger, executive director of Greenwatch - a project of the Capital Research Center - the UCS has a long financial association with elements that have a "partisan view of science."
David Martosko, executive director of ActivistCash.com - a division of the Center for Consumer Freedom - agrees. He told Cybercast News Service the UCS would be "more aptly named the Union of Pro-Regulation, Anti-Business Scientists."
University of Virginia environmental scientist Fred Singer, labeled a "climate contrarian" by the UCS, told Cybercast News Service that the union had "zero credibility as a scientific organization" and was more akin to "pressure groups like Greenpeace."
The UCS receives substantial donations from liberal-leaning foundations, and a number of the donations are earmarked for specific studies, used to promote positions on issues including the environment, disarmament and criticism of missile defense initiatives.
Some of the donations the UCS has received are:
- 2000 - a $25,000 Carnegie Corporation of New York grant for "dissemination of a report on National Missile Defense."
- 2002 - a $1 million Pew Memorial Trust grant "to support efforts to increase the nation's commitment to energy efficiency and renewable energy as a cornerstone of a balanced and environmentally sound energy policy."
- 2003 - a $500,000 Energy Foundation grant over two years "to continue to support a national renewable portfolio standard education and outreach effort."
- 2004 - a $50,000 Energy foundation grant "to design and implement the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative carbon market in the Northeast."
- 2004 - a $100,000 Energy foundation grant "to study the impacts of climate change on California using the latest climate modeling."
- 2004 - a $600,000 Energy foundation grant over two years "to promote renewable energy policy at the federal and state levels, with a focus on the Midwest, the Northeast, and California."
In a study published in 2005, the George C. Marshall Institute(GMI) explored funding for global warming studies and reported that the UCS was among the top five recipients of grants dispersed for climate studies.
The debate rages on at least for people who prefer to take a more reasoned and levelheaded approach. I am willing to concede the earth has warmed 1 degree over the past 100 years… I’m also willing to concede there is pollution in the air that we as a forward thinking responsible society should keep to minimum… But taking an alarmist standpoint like so many of these fanatic doom-pushers that treat climate change like some crazy fanatical religion, is not the way to get the job done!
I wonder what the people of Anchorage Alaska, today are saying to these alarmist views?
Anchorage has been hit with more than 74 inches of snow this season, and according to the city, it's reaching a crisis level, with snow removal on the streets becoming a big problem.
The roads are looking smaller these days around town, as two-lane roads are quickly becoming one. The city can plow the roads, but where it can remove the snow to another location is a problem.
It is a long, tiring day for Joyce Elliston.
"I've lived in Alaska since 1967 and I don't remember ever having this much snow before," Elliston said.
It's everywhere, covering her cars and her house. Digging out from 74 inches of snow is slow going for everyone. "It's just a small street and with the added snow, I don't know where we're going to put it all," said Elliston.
So I’ll leave you with another question:
The Kyoto proponents say the expected 1- to 2-degree rise in temperature by 2100 would be cut by just 0.04 degrees. Major polluters such as China, India and Russia remain exempt. So I’m not even sure that 0.04 is accurate??? But giving them the benefit of the doubt - Is 0.04 degrees, costing trillions of dollars, really worth it? I don't think so!!!
Someone else recommend it so we can get our first actual Recommended Blog.