“A computer is like an Old Testament god, with a lot of rules and no mercy”

Thursday, March 4

More Global Warming: The Rebuttal

This next section is my reply:

I certainly do not discount global warming as a possibility, but the science just doesn't support it. If things were as bad as they claim, it would be increasing, not holding in temperature as it has for the last 10-15 years. Also, I feel these folks wouldn't be flitting around in jets as much as they do (1 trip averaging as much carbon emmissions as a family of 4 with 2 cars will during a whole year).

To me, the whole question of anthropogenic global warming is a scam of both monetary and political motivations (although, it may be impossible to separate these two under any circumstances).

Does mankind need to clean up their act? Absolutely. I am not for pollution, but rather responsible stewardship of the planet. But I deny that global warming is anything more than a temporary trend, and I certainly deny that mankind is ultimately responsible for it.

As you said, the earth has cyclical weather periods of both warming and cooling. Do we understand what causes these? No, not at all. The attempts by "pop-scientists" to explain the phenomena and to stir the public into a frenzy are shameful, and it is this I protest against. I point for example a similar attempt to the current global warming debacle in the 60's-70's, when scientists warned of an impending ice age. They can't have it both ways, but as the recent heavy snow storms in the north east showed, they certainly try.

I'm for responsible science, not half-truths and distorted evidence, which is what the AGW crowd so righteously display as "proof" that the world is warming and that it's all mankind's fault. The recent revelations of distorted global temperatures have thrown the whole arguement into the doubt. There have been allegations they not only have they (the scientific establishment studying GW) falsified global temperature readings, but now ice core readings and tree ring data. Any scientist who disagrees is branded a "blasphemer" and "heretic", and is generally rejected by their peers. This is not the scientific method. Unfortunately, proof for or against global warming is just not out there. The data has been too distorted at this point and what data is available is debatable by both sides.

These attempts to play into people's natural sense of guilt at destroying their environment in order to generate more money and political clout are maddening to me. If the science were sound at least, you wouldn't hear anything from me. As it stands, this is more like a cult than a scientific fact. Try arguing with AGW believers.

I firmly remain a skeptic concerning this issue, and will likely remain so until (and it will never happen) the scientific establishment quits working with a political agenda.