Washington Post Allows Debate On Anthropogenic Global Warming(?)

The Washington Post goes to their Climate Panel and asks two questions:

What Doubt is There About the Science Behind Global Warming?

What doubt is there about the science behind global warming?

Let’s see a few of the answers from the Climate Alarmists, shall we? First up, Bjorn Lomborg

Looking at the big picture, there is very little doubt. The vast majority of climate scientists tell us that increases in carbon dioxide cause higher temperatures over time. We know that this will mean changes in rainfall, melting of snow and ice, a rise in sea level, and other impacts on plants, wildlife, and humans.

There is still meaningful and important work going on looking at the range of outcomes that we should expect–it is wrong to suggest that “all of the science is in”–but I think it is vital to emphasize the consensus on the most important scientific questions.

Whenever someone starts yammering on about consensus, the first thought through anyone’s mind should be “consensus is not science, so, your argument is basically invalid.” Anyhow, consensus is dying fast, scientists have destroyed the “hockey stick,” IPCC scientists are calling the IPCC BS, other scientits are speaking out and producing scientific reports, and even the BBC and NY Times admitting that there has been no warming in the last 10 years, something the UN and other models did not predict.

Donald F. Boesch

Scientific understanding of the biophysical process and consequences of global climate change will surely evolve as further discoveries are made and hypotheses are challenged. However, even a Skeptical Scientist would have to conclude without doubt that — based on evidence, not just theory — humans are raising the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, CO2 traps heat, and the planet is accumulating heat.

Except, there is that 10+ year issue of no warming. Shouldn’t there be warming?

Nonetheless, blatant disregard of the robustness of climate change science continues in some quarters. Last month, the Washington Post ran a half-page ad by a group that proclaims that nearly doubling atmospheric CO2levels would actually be beneficial because it would stimulate plant growth. Even major newspapers and broadcast networks run “global cooling” stories when the global mean temperature in one year was cooler than the year before. Other factors such as El Niño climate cycles, solar radiation and volcano emissions are still operable and will cause such variations among years, just as they have in the past. The fact remains that this decade will be, hands down, the hottest on record. The heat content of the Earth has continued to rise, with most of it stored in the ocean.

In other words, you skeptics need to shut the h*ll up, and understand that when temps are flat or go down, it is nature, and when they go up, it’s because you drove your family to the beach in your SUV, you b*stard!

OK, let’s check out the views from those who are skeptics……what? There aren’t any published? Wow, that is one heck of a debate! Shocking! I figured, when I checked the WP, there would be robust debate, rather than a bunch of alarmists yammering on. Fine. One more from Reid Detchon (BTW, every single one of the panelists seem to have some sort of money at stake for pushing these views)

“If we can’t predict the weather,” one might ask, “how can we predict the climate?”

Let me answer with another question: “If we can’t predict the waves, how do we predict the tides?”

That is a cute answer. However, the tides are relatively easy to predict, based on the position of the moon and other physical factors, tested again and again over a long time, using physical methods and direct observation, rather than assumptions fed into a computer from faulty data and biased opinions.

BTW, tonight is the debute of the film Not Evil, Just Wrong, at 8pm EST. Check out the trailer at the link.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

5 Responses to “Washington Post Allows Debate On Anthropogenic Global Warming(?)”

  1. John Ryan says:

    Teach the National Climate Data Center says that the warmest year was 2005. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2008/earth_temp.html
    Apparently you choose to ignore this, which would conflict with your “I see what I believe, and don’t believe what I see”
    2009 will probbaly be in the top 5 hottest years on record, but definitely in the top 10

  2. John Ryan says:

    And Teach even you should know that long term changes are MUCH easier to predict accurately than short term variations.

  3. Brett_McS says:

    The problem with “the scientific consensus on global warming” is not that “science is not based on consensus” but that there is no consensus.

    Science is all about consensus. The scientific consensus are the ideas which are used (assumed to be correct) every day in laboratories and institutions around the world, and without which no progress would occur.

    However, AGW is questioned by many serious scientists in the field. No way it rises to being a scientific consensus.

  4. Brett_McS says:

    I’m afraid James Hanson’s NASA has blotted its copybook too many times to be considered a trustworthy source – especially when it comes to “news”. They are only one of several sources of the ‘global temperature’ scale, and they insist on giving more weight to earth stations near growing cities than anyone else does. I wonder why that is?

  5. […] Washington Post Allows Debate On Anthropogenic Global Warming … […]

Bad Behavior has blocked 9378 access attempts in the last 7 days.