"Propagandists for global warming were very excited last September when Arctic ice-cover, at 3 million square kilometres, hit a record low. They have been strangely silent, though, about the latest data (see the Cryosphere Today website) which shows that, after the northern hemisphere's coldest winter for 26 years, ice-cover is now 14 million sq km, a million more than this time last year."
Christopher Booker in The Daily Telegraph.
Link»
4 comments:
there you go again, as ronnie reagan used to say. I am not a doomsday prophet (I don't know how to qualify) but picking and choosing between facts can easily reinforce any theory. At a lecture by a geographer specializing on China he stated that one of the gravest concerns (besides water supplies) is the fact that in the last 10 years Chinas total area labelled desert has risen from about 15 to 25%. What I'm trying to say is that isolating one incident from the overall view is magnificent in its irrelevance. You have to look to the big picture, which still says that human behaviour is the reason for the deteriorations in our climate.
To pick a single example...
How come, if there is a greenhouse effect (we are not talking climate change now, but the specific Al Gore theory) that temperatures in the troposphere does not increase faster than ground temperatures?
According to all laws of physics - that should be impossible.
(But it is an argument for the solar activity theory.)
I don't have the answer to these questions, I doubt if anyone has the answer. And I am not very concerned with details, I am listening to the IPCC reports main facts.
1"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal"
2"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations."
My rationale for beleiving these facts are that these scientist worked and developed these theories without compensation, hence their self-interest must have played a minimal role. Whereas many of the scientist that you choose to listen to, the doubters, like Fred Singer, are quasi-scientists that find the results that their funder, for example Exxon, wants them to find. By the way, before this particular fraud denied human interference in climate change he denied the effects of second-hand smoking, while of course, he was funded by Philip Morris. And I have reason to beleive that the Fred Singer-case is not an isolated incident. His scientific credibility should be close to zero, hadn't he been to standardbearer for the big companies in their fight to de-legitimize certain facts that the common man hold as true.
To pick a single example... How come, if there is a greenhouse effect (we are not talking climate change now, but the specific Al Gore theory) that temperatures in the troposphere does not increase faster than ground temperatures? According to all laws of physics - that should be impossible. (But it is an argument for the solar activity theory.)
Post a Comment