Monday, February 27, 2012

More Climate Change Skepticism


As you, my seven readers*, know, I am a bit of a skeptic when it comes to climate change, or global warming, or CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming), or whatever you want to call it. Here is an article that summarizes many of the reasons why I am a skeptic. The models just don't match reality. So how can I take these Chicken Littles seriously?

From the Mises Institute:
"The Skeptic's Case" by David M.W. Evans
http://mises.org/daily/5892/The-Skeptics-Case

The article goes through a lot of data and does a good job summarizing a number of aspects of the global warming issue. You're going to have to read the article, I can't really add to what the author says. The opening paragraph sums it up pretty well:

"We check the main predictions of the climate models against the best and latest data. Fortunately the climate models got all their major predictions wrong. Why? Every serious skeptical scientist has been consistently saying essentially the same thing for over 20 years, yet most people have never heard the message. Here it is, put simply enough for any lay reader willing to pay attention."

And then the article goes into the details.

Good conclusion at the end, too:

"The data presented here is impeccably sourced, very relevant, publicly available, and from our best instruments. Yet it never appears in the mainstream media — have you ever seen anything like any of the figures here in the mainstream media? That alone tells you that the 'debate' is about politics and power, and not about science or truth."

I agree with this paragraph, too. There will come a time of reckoning.

"This is an unusual political issue, because there is a right and a wrong answer, and everyone will know which it is eventually. People are going ahead and emitting CO2 anyway, so we are doing the experiment: either the world heats up by several degrees by 2050 or so, or it doesn't."


One nitpick: The author uses the word "dampen." The correct technical term, in a feedback system, is "damp." We are not trying to moisten our feedback equation.


* estimated