Wherein I indulge my hobbyist's interest in tropical weather and contrarian views about Global Warming and other matters well out of my control.
By: TampaWeatherBuff, 2:46 PM GMT on October 18, 2009
To those who believe that the "science" of global warming is established fact, and the data points to a clear and irrefutable correlation between CO2 and global temperatures, I recommend the following contrary view, appearing in today's American Thinker, by Girma Orssengo, MASc, Ph.D, entitled "CO2 driven Global Warming not supported by the data."
As a student of political philosophy by training and a computer scientist by trade, I'm no expert in climatology. But neither is Al Gore, whom I esteem as a mountebank, fraud and political opportunist of the first water. And I know enough statistics from dealing with large quantities of real-time data in software I have built to know that there are many viable interpretations of data. The idea that Al Gore's is somehow above dispute is pure nonsense.
I also know as a matter of political fact that the "hard left" has been adopting environmentalism as the new friendly face of otherwise totally discredited command-and-control social and economic policies since the 1980's. The current President and Congress represents for them a kind of high point in their power and influence, and the pending cap-and-trade legislation is by any fair reading more about command-and-control than it is about climatology. Under the cover of "reducing" the horrible "pollutant" (which we all exhale) they are in fact crippling free markets in an attempt to exert political control over industry. Advocates of the emerging American thugocracy love their manufactured crises.
Chief regulatory "czar" Cass Sunstein, in a moment of candor among friends, admits the true "redistribution" (political!) goals of climate change legislation:
A prominent theme throughout Sunstein's 39-page paper, entitled "Climate Change Justice," maintains U.S. wealth should be redistributed to poorer nations. He uses terms such as "distributive justice" several times. The paper was written with fellow attorney Eric A. Posner.
"It is even possible that desirable redistribution is more likely to occur through climate change policy than otherwise, or to be accomplished more effectively through climate policy than through direct foreign aid," wrote Sunstein.
He posited: "We agree that if the United States does spend a great deal on emissions reductions as part of an international agreement, and if the agreement does give particular help to disadvantaged people, considerations of distributive justice support its action, even if better redistributive mechanisms are imaginable.
"If the United States agrees to participate in a climate change agreement on terms that are not in the nation's interest, but that help the world as a whole, there would be no reason for complaint, certainly if such participation is more helpful to poor nations than conventional foreign-aid alternatives," he wrote.
Sunstein maintains: "If we care about social welfare, we should approve of a situation in which a wealthy nation is willing to engage in a degree of self-sacrifice when the world benefits more than that nation loses."
Girma Orssengo does a very nice job of dissecting the case for a correlation between CO2 and temperature fluctuations clinically, and I'd like to see folks with atmospheric physics expertise here at Wunderground address his argument.
Here's the conclusion:
Science is about the data. Science is not about consensus or authority.
The linear global warming of the last century was similar to that of two centuries ago. The oscillating warming by 0.67 deg C from 1976 to 1998 is as natural as the oscillating cooling by similar amount from 1878 to 1911. From Figure 4, there is no shift in mean global temperature anomaly in the last century as a result of CO2 emission. None.
CO2 driven global warming is not supported by the data.
Even if we agree that the globe is in a warming trend (which is itself disputable since 1998 anyway), there can be no doubt that the logic behind cap-and-trade and our overall political dialog about climate change revolves almost exclusively around the supposed correlation between CO2 and temperatures.
It's time for scientists, not politicians, to settle this point, before the politicians do something really stupid and self-destructive. Which they will unless the myth of unanimity and immanent destruction is exposed as mainly a political doctrine.
Your mileage, of course, may vary, but that's my opinion at this time.
The views of the author are his/her own and do not necessarily represent the position of The Weather Company or its parent, IBM.