More Global Warming...
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human,
Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
Hmmmm...
Well, all this global warming talk has long sounded a bit 'Chicken Little-ish' to me. You can check out the entire article at National Geographic by clicking the title-link. If you have trouble getting the page to open (I did... heavy traffic), I've archived it here in the Library.
Interestingly enough, Abdussamatov's theory is curiously in step with Roy Spencer's explanation of the Greenhouse Effect as detailed in my previous post.
But one thing is certain: When scientists get together and say they've come to a 'consensus' on the science surrounding Global Warming, they have pretty much tossed out fact science... when Consensus' are reached, some measure of compromise has been made. Science on the other hand is fact-based, with no room for compromise-- it's either demonstratable fact or it is not.
Theory is not science; science formulates and PROPOSES theory, but until said theory is proven beyond any reasonable doubt it cannot be considered fact, and is therefore NOT science.
But then that's my take.
I'm still looking for the Crichton quote...
Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.
In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.
Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.
"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.
Hmmmm...
Well, all this global warming talk has long sounded a bit 'Chicken Little-ish' to me. You can check out the entire article at National Geographic by clicking the title-link. If you have trouble getting the page to open (I did... heavy traffic), I've archived it here in the Library.
Interestingly enough, Abdussamatov's theory is curiously in step with Roy Spencer's explanation of the Greenhouse Effect as detailed in my previous post.
But one thing is certain: When scientists get together and say they've come to a 'consensus' on the science surrounding Global Warming, they have pretty much tossed out fact science... when Consensus' are reached, some measure of compromise has been made. Science on the other hand is fact-based, with no room for compromise-- it's either demonstratable fact or it is not.
Theory is not science; science formulates and PROPOSES theory, but until said theory is proven beyond any reasonable doubt it cannot be considered fact, and is therefore NOT science.
But then that's my take.
I'm still looking for the Crichton quote...
from the mind of... Eric | 2:31 PM
9 Comments:
As Rush pointed out. Science is not a vote. Just because there is a consensus among politically correct scientists, doesn't mean it is fact.
Excellent post, EL.
Golly...I get so dad-gum tired of hearing the shmucks go on and on about it.
Then again...you know how much I trust modern "science", anyway!
Obviously our consumption of fossel fuels in America is now causing global warming on Mars. Enough is enough already. When will we learn? America is not only at fault for the world's woes but now our solar system's woes as well.
This is the big difference between science and religion. A religion has all its answers. There's no new morals or parable being discovered in the bible. Science on the other hand is constantly being rewritten, because scientific knowledge can be challenged, rebutted and disproved. In the seventies no one knew much about global climate because there were no computers powerful enough to model a global climate. Today that is not the case.
Humanity certainly is to the stage where our actions can have global consequences. Look at kudzu in the south, or the depletion of ocean life after a brill net has come through, or examine the way we have girded the world with band of asphalt. To deny that man can change the world is to deny reality.
And just two decades ago all the evidence pointed to 'the coming Ice Age'...
Global Warming is every bit as much a religion as Christianity.
Today we have computers that can model undersea topography. We can look at how cold water moving from the berring strait mixes with currents in the indian and pacific oceans. How those currents swirl together and pull more cold water from the sea bed to the surface. How that water cools the air above. How that cold air mass moves across the rocky mountains and over the great plains. Then travels across the atlantic pulling humidity from the gulf stream and then back to the arctic circle.
In the seventies there were not computers that could model such current flows. Heck we didn't even have all of the planet mapped thoroughly. Two decades ago climatologists were just beginning to understand how oceans and jet streams interacted.
Scientific knowledge grows and old answers are thrown away or modified based upon new knowledge. Who knows maybe in a few years we'll discover that minute currents in the mesosphere swirl greenhouse gasses into outer space, and we'll all be able to relax.
Right now though it looks like half of Florida might be under water in 200 years. Should we ignore such predictions? Should we search for ways to avoid such a future? Should we instead choose to listen to solo voices saying "nothing is wrong."
In a decade a majority of scientists may come back with an aw-shucks grin and say "you know that feller going on about mars. He may have been right." Well then you can look smug.
However in the meantime, I'll agitate for the use of new energy sources that removes power from a lot of repressive middle-eastern countries. I'll promote government expenditure on cleaning up the environment.
Pushing for the development and use of new sources of energy is only prudent. No arguments from me on that score.
You won't, however, find me buying into the hysteria surrounding global warming. Science, or rather the conclusions of scientific research, are not based solely on facts gleaned from their parent research. Conclusions, and the resulting hysteria swirling about this current debate on Global Warming, is based largely on personal universal belief systems. Every decision we make is tainted, however greatly or slightly, by what we personally believe about God, Life, the Universe, and Everything.
The current hysteria is unwarranted and serves no greater good other than to spur us all to develop and employ new energy sources. All this 'chicken little' folderol is distracting, and not at all helpful to the greater need of cleaner fuels and energy independence.
Does anyone believe Chavez chose to hold protest rally's in S.America simply to protest 'Satan's' appearance in Brazil? If America becomes energy independent Chavez will have to ship his crude further abroad to sell it... He'll lose American dollars. And considering Europe and the U.S. pretty much lead the world economies, should the U.S. and Europe succeed in becoming energy independent the world would soon follow. Oil will still have value, but that 'Cartel' of oil-producing nations known as OPEC would lose their strangle-hold on their current oil-junkies/customers.
"Science, or rather the conclusions of scientific research, are not based solely on facts gleaned from their parent research. Conclusions, and the resulting hysteria swirling about this current debate on Global Warming, is based largely on personal universal belief systems."
Explain this statement. Give examples of where unfounded personal belief trumps logical thought.
And since most scientists when polled describe themselves as religious [LINK] If scientific results are skewed they would be tilted towards a deistic view of reality.
"...describe themselves as religious..." !?
That doesn't mean anything! Moonies describe themselves as religious! So do Jehovah's Witnesses! As do Hindus, New Agers, and Wiccans! I have little doubt that Ruth Rimm describes herself as religious, so religious in fact she wrote her own bible! Your assumption, therefore, that 'results' would be skewed toward a 'deistic' view is logically myopic and largely unfounded.
Post a Comment
<< Home