Search This Blog

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

People who argue this way are not scientists, but lawyers with a bad case

Jonathan David Carson on the 'American Thinker' site: Excuses for Lack of Global Warming

"What Happened to Global Warming?" asks Science, the flagship publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), in its October 2, 2009, issue, before immediately answering, "Scientists Say Just Wait a Bit." By a "bit," AAAS means a "few years."

The "blogosphere," it seems, "has been having a field day with global-warming's apparent decade-long stagnation." The world is supposed to sign a global warming agreement in a few years less than a bit, in Copenhagen in December, to be exact, but "What's the point, bloggers ask?"

So global warming skeptics are "bloggers." ...


"Climate researchers" do not deign to answer back in the blogosphere, according to AAAS, preferring instead to reply "in their preferred venue, the peer-reviewed literature": "The pause in warming is real enough, but it's just temporary, they are argue from their analyses. A natural swing in climate to the cool side has been holding greenhouse warming back, and such swings don't last forever."

After pretending that global warming skeptics are bloggers, not scientists, and that their home is the blogosphere, not the peer-reviewed literature, AAAS attributes the more-than-decade-long failure of the globe to warm to a "natural swing in climate." In other words, when the climate warms, it is as a result of anthropogenic causes, but when it cools or fails to warm, it is as a result of natural causes. Increases of temperature are human-caused. Decreases are nature-caused.

Skeptics have been saying for decades that the warming from about 1978 to 1998, which was after all only 0.40C, was probably due to natural causes; now AAAS says that the flat or downward trend since 1998 is due to natural causes, which had nothing to do with the rise between 1978 and 1998. They told us that the temperature of the earth would continue to rise, and when it did not, they said, see, our critics were wrong.

People who argue this way are not scientists, but lawyers with a bad case.


kh123 said...

Is it any wonder why they hold up an ancient lungfish dipped in gold and worship it with gov't grants and taxpayer dollars?...

Well, given economic times, they probably dipped it in bronze, or - failing that - chocolate.

But you know, when you have spokesmen like Al Gore ("Polar bears are on the increase, but they're still endangered, aren't they?") and the reincarnation of Julius Streicher - Bill Maher ("60% of Americans still don't believe in alchemy... I mean, macro evolution. They're just plain dumb! Achtung!!"), and when these mouthpieces get angry because folks just aren't converting en masse to their obvious truths (even after their multi-million dollar docudrama efforts and continued moneybag speaking engagements)...

Well, given all that, it is difficult to imagine why folks wouldn't want to stand in line and cuddle up with these politically correct hedgehogs. Where's Chairman Mao when you need government enforced enlightenment?