The Problem With Global Warming: It's Bad For Science

Al Gore may have to give that Oscar back.  2 years ago he said we have 10 years to solve the problem of Global Warming before the oceans come crashing in on the East Coast.

We know that an Inconvenient Truth was alarmist, but just how wrong is the global warming establishment, and what happens if they're wrong?

Thousands of scientists, a majority of the world's governments, newspapers, and average citizen's are warning about the danger of global warming.  In some circles, you're compared to a Nazi for claiming the issue isn't settled (global warming deniers are supposed to be like Holocaust deniers).  Barack Obama, John McCain, and Hillary Clinton are all in the tank for global warming. They say it's coming, it's real, and something has to be done about it.

But what if it's not true?  What if the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on global warming turns out to be horribly wasted?  Well, that moment may have come.  The theory behind global warming (now called man-made climate change) is that man-made gases lead to a feedback loop that greatly accelerates the global temperature.  If true, the temperature will rise slowly now, and faster in later decades.  But it has to keep rising for this theory to work.

If it doesn't, the catastrophic impacts Gore and his ilk use to demand worldwide change (which always seems to be focused on the US shuttering its economy) don't happen.  Tiny bits of warming aren't a big deal.  You need the catastrophe to change.

So why is it that the world temperature has cooled in the last 12 months?   The data isn't perfect, but it should be raising big alarms in the global warming media. If it cools off, then greenhouse gases caused by humans don't have the affect they say it does.  The whole thing could be wrong.

And this is where it gets dangerous.  A lot of people put a lot of faith in the belief that global warming is real.  If it isn't, then the world's biggest game of crying wolf has just embarrassed the "scientific community " and their vaunted consensus.  What good are they, if they're all wrong?

Real scientists, who understand scientific theory, wouldn't have a problem.  Science is a constantly evolving field.  As we learn more, we change our views.  Even Einstein and Newton were wrong in some respects, but those errors were built on and corrected.  When scientists lose their objectivity, and are revealed as shallow partisans grasping for research dollars with little respect for the truth, science and its reputation suffers.

This year, if it continues to cool, may  be the turning point.  The data is still too recent to tell, but it doesn't look good for those who swear that temperatures are rising, and will begin to rise faster.  The general public now believes in climate change, and the press won't be repeating this information.  They need it to get warmer.  And just like Dan Rather and those silly fake documents, the need to protect one's reputation will do greater harm then admitting mistakes.

I believe Global Warming is a hoax.  I think if it was getting warmer, it had little to do with man. 

At the same time, I want clean air and water.  I want less pollutants in the air.  Shouldn't be all be working together on the best ways to provide clean energy, without getting sidetracked on Al Gore's fantasies of relevancy?

From a commenter Joe G at Anthony's site:

While AGW theory demands that atmospheric temperatures at both poles will rise first and most at surface level, and temperatures in the lower-troposphere will rise 3-4 times as much as surface levels because that sector of the atmosphere is where theory requires the inordinate capture of reflected radiation by GHGs, such measured temperatures uniformly fail to comply with theory. Now the Alarmists are confronted with the uncomfortable facts that temperatures in the Antarctic have been cooling overall for years, that lower-tropospheric measures are static when they should have been rising steadily, and surface temperatures have remained static (and dropping recently more steeply than any temperature has ever changed up or down before) in the last decade, while CO2 levels rise, and cannot explain such observations within their own theory.