Saturday, October 10, 2009

Mainstream admission the debate is not over

For years, those skeptical of the claims of global warming alarmists have been insisting we need to do more research before making sudden, drastic (and economy-killing) changes to our activities. So, it's nice to see the BBC, which has been reporting for years as though global warming were simply a fact, publish an article confirming there's credible evidence supporting skeptics of the theory of anthropogenic global warming, and definite room for debate. That article is here.

I'm convinced that though many of our friends in the "green" movement are true believers in doing their small bit in helping the environment, others have ulterior motives, and during the height of the great global warming swindle, they weren't shy about sharing them, as shared in this post:

Gore and other global warming activists seem very committed to global socialism, and the global warming scare is a perfect vehicle for the institution of socialist policies. How bold is that claim? Not very, if you listen to Christine Stewart, Canada's former environment minister: "Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world." On another occasion, she said, "No matter if the science is all phony, there is still collateral environmental benefits to global warming policies."

The BBC column is worth a read. Here's a part of it:
What is really interesting at the moment is what is happening to our oceans. They are the Earth's great heat stores.

According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated.

The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).

For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too.

But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.

These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years.

So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles.

Professor Easterbrook says: "The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling."

So what does it all mean? Climate change sceptics argue that this is evidence that they have been right all along.

They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part compared with nature.

But those scientists who are equally passionate about man's influence on global warming argue that their science is solid.

The UK Met Office's Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate predictions, says it incorporates solar variation and ocean cycles into its climate models, and that they are nothing new.

In fact, the centre says they are just two of the whole host of known factors that influence global temperatures - all of which are accounted for by its models.

In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling.

It wasn't long ago the same scientists working so hard to explain why global warming isn't happening the way they predicted were telling us human influences were the overwhelming factor in warming, and no cycles of nature could stop it. Their models and the predictions based on them were simply wrong, based on lies, assumptions and faulty data.

It is wise to find new, cleaner ways to generate power. Nobody wants to pollute the environment. However, we have time to do it. There is no need for "cap and trade" (cap and tax) legislation to drive up energy prices in the U.S. and further destroy our economy. We don't have to live in mud huts and stop raising any food animals. We can take a more sane approach to energy policy and environmental responsibility.

Most importantly, in science the debate is never over.

No comments: