southchild

Uh oh. Here’s another article from a meteorologist named Robert Cohen challenging the notion that there is a scientific “consensus” on human-induced global warming. Someone call the UN inquisitors and get this guy on the blacklist. From “Scientific `consensus’ on global warming doesn’t exist”

The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change summary, released Feb. 2, states that it is “very likely” that changes in climate are due to human influence. More recent comments in various media outlets have focused on a scientific consensus which supports the panel’s conclusions. Those who question this consensus have been compared to Holocaust deniers, and some have been threatened with job dismissal. This is no longer science, but scientific socialism. I do not agree with all of the IPCC conclusions and know through peer discussions that the idea of a consensus in the meteorological community is false.

Cohen also presents some pesky little facts that many global warmers like to pretend don’t exist. Notice how he presents the facts without excoriating those who may disagree. It would be a welcome and refreshing change if the advocates of global warming tried this approach. His conclusion, which includes the oft-mentioned Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age, demonstrates that there are excellent and valid reasons to be suspicious of the global warming prognostications. Anyone who ignores these facts yet continues to wield so-called “consensus” like a club is not worthy of serious scientific consideration.

Temperature has fluctuated significantly in the past, with shorter-term cooling and warming trends of about 1,500 years superimposed on long-term cycles of ice ages and glacial melting. The 1,500-year cycle includes the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age, which together extended from about 900 to 1850 A.D. During the former, literature and archaeology provide evidence that the Vikings found grapes in Newfoundland, naming their new settlement Vinland. The Little Ice Age was associated with major diseases which were rampant, due at least partially to the cold weather. As the Arctic ice edge advanced, Inuit hunters in kayaks were observed as far south as Scotland around 1700.

Clearly, these changes were not due to human influence. It has yet to be determined whether we are in a warming period which is part of the normal climate cycle.

Is it worth destroying our economy and lifestyle based on an unproven theory which does not correlate with historical observations?

This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 6th, 2007 at 11:23 am and is filed under General, global warming cult, politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.