Previously I have discussed how the true heirs of the Nazi are green fundamentalists, proponents of organic farming and eco-extremists who share both philosophy and policies with fascists.
Apart from Bjorn Lomborg, the number one hate figure for eco-extremists is Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
Despite being called a "denier", Professor Lindzen agrees with "the consensus" about climate change. "The consensus" is not the devastating "end of the world" predictions you hear from greens, it is these four statements only:
1. Global temperature has risen by about 1 degree F, 0.65 degrees C since the late 19th century.
2. Atmospheric CO2 levels have risen by about 30% since the late 19th century.
3. Man is responsible for most of the increase in CO2.
4. CO2 contributes to a warming atmosphere.
Everything else is not "consensus" it is speculation and hypothesis.
Take the supposed increase in floods, storms, climate extremes etc. In fact there is no convincing evidence that any contemporary weather events are worse (or better) because of man made climate change.
In 2005, hurricane Katrina was, almost universally, blamed on "global warming." But, as Professor Lindzen pointed out in 2006. Global warming should cause less intense hurricanes:
If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.
So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested--a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences--as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union--formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation.
And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited."
Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.
Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.From The Wall Street Journal.
{ 0 komentar... Views All / Send Comment! }
Posting Komentar