instagram pinterest linkedin facebook twitter goodreads facebook circle twitter circle linkedin circle instagram circle goodreads circle pinterest circle

Weldon Writes ... Almost a Blog

Global Warming, Global Cooling, or Global Con Game?

"As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval."

Hmmm ... a sentence from Al Gore's book? Wait, let's read on ...

"... when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing ... for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

What? Another ice age? I thought the doomsayers were predicting an increasingly arrid planet, massive coastal flooding, and utter devastation.

No, I'm not quoting from An Inconvenient Truth. This is from a Time article published on June 24, 1974, titled "Another Ice Age?" A similar article about the coming ice age was published in Newsweek on April 28, 1975.

Today's proponents of global warming claim that the meteorologists of the early '70s had it all wrong, misinterpreted the data. That begs the question: Thirty years from now, will meteorologists claim that their predecessors in the late '90s/early 2000s had it all wrong about global warming, and that in fact, the planet is heading into an ice age after all? Those pesky meteorologists have a hard time predicting the hurricane season each year--or even the weather patterns for next week.

Of course, the big question is, does any of this really matter? Even if we are headed toward either dire prediction, there is little mankind can do to avert global climatic changes. Any decisions made at the Climate Conference in Copenhagen later this month will have no impact on climatic change, in my opinion. Climate change cannot be legislated or taxed away.

Most people understand that the Earth goes through climatic cycles, and has done so long before the cavemen discovered fire, much less the SUV. Our planet has experienced ice ages and global warming periods many times in its past, long before the first smokestack was erected. If man became fully extinct tomorrow, the cycles would continue without us. There is no empirical evidence that we can do anything to prevent global climate change--it will happen despite us, as it has since the Earth formed.

Recently, about a decade's worth of e-mails was hacked from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the East Anglia University in the UK. While the act of hacking and publishing private e-mails is unethical, and someone will likely face criminal charges, the content of the e-mails leads one to believe the statistics supporting global warming are, at the very least, suspect--or, at worst, outright fraud. This past Sunday, the CRU admitted to trashing all the raw weather station data it had prior to 1980, and all data since 1980 has been "adjusted." In other words, there is no valid, verifiable data to support the CRU's claims.

Now, consider what some prominent scientists have said about global warming. (What? You thought there was a consensus in the scientific community that global warming is caused by mankind? Think again!)

Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."

Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world's foremost physicists, former President of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."

Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--states "there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies" used for global warming forecasts.

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--Head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkovo Observatory says "the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

Prof. Freeman Dyson--one of the world's most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are "full of fudge factors" and "do not begin to describe the real world."

Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--Director of the Danish National Space Centre, Vice-President of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, claims that changes in the sun's behavior could account for most of the warming attributed to man-made CO2.

So, what's my point? I don't trust the doomsayers; I think they are either looking for more grant money or have political agendas. I don't believe for a minute that man can do much to stop global warming, global cooling, or even the next hurricane--these are natural, cyclical events. I support green initiatives, believe we should develop alternative energy, and believe we should curb pollution. I do not, however, support socialistic government "solutions" involving energy mandates, higher taxation, and regulatory restrictions that are not welcome in our poor economy.

You know, I think I'll watch the evening news, see what the weather will be tomorrow. Or, I can wait until tomorrow and just experience it, whatever the weather may be. After all, I can't change it.
Post a comment