Monday, June 25, 2007

"Global Warming" out, "Climate Control" in.

What happened to “Global Warming” why is it all of a sudden referred to as “climate change”
Has anyone else other than me realized that the phrase “Global Warming” is quickly being replaced with “Climate Change?” Any ideas why?

Perhaps it is because of the record cold winters we have had around the globe the last couple of years. It kind of makes it hard for the religious environmentalists to sell the warming piece.
Also, the more people read about the subject the more they learn that we are in a time of increased solar activity, solar flares and a hotter sun. It doesn’t take much of an education to understand a warmer sun probably means a warmer Earth.

So, the term has been changed to the vague term of “Climate Change” which is also harder to refute because the climate has been changing in one direction or the other since the beginning of climate.

Also it appears that more and more scientists that once believed whole-heartedly in the “Global Warming” theory are now admitting that they were wrong.

Take one of Israel’s young top scientists Dr. Nir Shaviv, an Astrophysicist who has recently recanted his belief that man was warming up the earth. Shaviv recently wrote: "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye." Shaviv added , "Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming."

Australian Dr. David Evans is a mathematician and engineer who did the carbon accounting for the government of Australia. Evans spent six years building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions.

Well, guess what? He is now a global warming skeptic. Evans also made this claim: By 2000, the political system had responded to the strong scientific case that carbon emissions caused global warming by creating thousands of bureaucratic and science jobs aimed at more research and at curbing carbon emissions.

But after 2000, the evidence for carbon emissions gradually got weaker - better temperature data for the last century, more detailed ice core data, then laboratory evidence that cosmic rays precipitate low clouds.

He adds: Unfortunately, politics and science have become even more entangled. The science of global warming has become a partisan political issue, so positions become more entrenched. Politicians and the public prefer simple and less-nuanced messages. At the moment, the political climate strongly supports carbon emissions as the cause of global warming, to the point of sometimes rubbishing or silencing critics.

The more government gets involved with science the more Evans worries that it could effect the outcome of true results.

I worry that politics could seriously distort the science. Suppose that carbon taxes are widely enacted, but that the rate of global warming increase starts to decline by 2015. The political system might be under pressure to repay the taxes, so it might, in turn, put a lot of pressure on scientists to provide justifications for the taxes. Or, the political system might reject the taxes and blame science for misinforming it, which could be a terrible outcome for science - because the political system is powerful and not constrained by truth.

He is exactly right, science and government or other ruling authorities should never be mixed and remain separate for this very reason. Does anyone remember Galileo? He was thrown in jail by the Roman Inquisition for his science research which turned out to be right.

Anyways, this is exactly what I have been telling you about “Global Warming” or “Climate Change” the whole time. Global warming, or climate change, if you will, has indeed become a partisan political issue. In fact the whole environmental movement is an issue for the world's leftist anti-capitalists and socialists like Al Gore and company. And just why would that be?

Could it possibly be because these anti-capitalists and leftists see the religion of climate change as a way to bring down or harm powerful nations with economies based on capitalism and free enterprise?

Just something to think about.

1 comment:

JC said...

Tony, I wholeheartedly agree with you that when you mix politics with science, the truth gets muddled and it's hard to separate truth from agenda. So personally in figuring out the truth in the whole global warming debate, I look at the peer reviewed research and empirical evidence.

Take the notion that the sun is causing global warming. Sami Solanki at the Max Planck Insitute compared solar activity & temperatures over the past 1150 years and found temperatures closely correlate to solar activity. When sunspot activity was low during the Maunder Minimum in the 1600's or the Dalton Minimum in the 1800's, the earth went through 'small ice ages'. The sun has been unusually hot in the last century - solar output rose dramatically in the early 20th century accompanied by a sharp rise in global temperatures.

However, Solanki also found the correlation between solar activity and global temperatures ended around 1975. At that point, temperatures started rising while solar activity stayed level. This led him to conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."

This is confirmed by direct satellite measurements that find no rising trend since 1978, sunspot numbers which have leveled out since 1950, the Max Planck Institute reconstruction that shows irradience has been steady since 1950 and solar radio flux or flare activity which shows no rising trend over the past 30 years. Ironically, it's the sun's close correlation with Earth's temperature that proves it has little to do with the last 30 years of global warming.

This conclusion is backed up by other studies quantifying the amount of solar influence in recent global warming. Lean 1999 concludes "it is unlikely that Sun–climate relationships can account for much of the warming since 1970". Waple 1999 finds "little evidence to suggest that changes in irradiance are having a large impact on the current warming trend". Frolich 1998 concludes "solar radiative output trends contributed little of the 0.2°C increase in the global mean surface temperature in the past decade"

The sun has been the primary driver of Earth's climate in the past but solar variations are conspicuous in their absence over the last 30 years of long term global warming.