Monday, February 12, 2007

More Inconvenience...

...about the global warming hysteria promoted by most so-called 'mainstream' journalists and more than a few headline-hunting politicians is contained with a recent study conducted by Dr. Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Center.

According to Dr. Svensmark, global heat is actually more dependent on cosmic rays and cloudiness than on 'human-caused' CO2 emissions. In the article, former New Scientist magazine editor Nigel Calder explains that,

He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier.

Now all of this may or may not be true. It certainly seems from the reported cooling of Antarctica, (which was predicted by Dr. Svensmark and his team in their report), that they may be on to something. But to me this is merely more reason to keep an open mind until the real scientific method (test until the data produces a defensible theory) and not the method preferred by Mr. Gore and most reporters (choose a theory and manipulate the data to fit)- has played out and the facts are really in. At this point, the idea of human-caused global warming is no more credible than the idea of a new ice age the very same media was pushing so relentlessly thirty years ago.

Too many reporters and politicians have made up their mind regarding something they have absolutely no expertise in. Ellen Goodman of the Boston Globe wrote on February 9, 2007 that "Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future." This is ridiculous. Ms. Goodman, just what expertise do you have in this area? And what right have you to try to force your opinion - and it is only opinion- on those of us who have not yet made up our minds? Ms. Goodman is merely another in a long list of media blowhards who spout rhetoric before they think.

A politician who does understand is Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus, who said in an interview on Monday February 12, 2007 that "Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor."

Mr. Klaus went on to say why so few politicians echo his views "Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice." He also spoke of former US Vice-President Al Gore when asked by the reporter (who comes off as both ignorant and agenda-driven,)"Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?

President Klaus responded, "I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't" However, it was his final answer that really showed his understanding and the lack of the same on the part of his interviewer. Continuing his answer to the reporter on whether humans are ruining the planet, he said:

I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa.• It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature - by eliminating private ownership and similar things - much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago.• That's why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you're unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say.

In conclusion, let us continue to look at the evidence produced by all teams. But the attempts to silence those who produce theories that do not fit the human-caused global warming scenario is frightening. And the ignorance and one-sidedness on the part of the national and international media is equally scary. Ultimately, it behooves all of us to get it right, whatever results are produced.

No comments: