Monday, September 1, 2008

Global Warming or Global Cooling?

Though difficult, one can still cull authoritative information which scientifically contests politically correct viewpoints regarding global warming. And with costly global warming-friendly legislation such as cap-and-trade threatening us all, we should do our best to stay informed.

In my June 9th post, I reported on the May 2008 submission of a petition to Congress and the President by 31,000 scientists representing the Oregon Institute of Science & Medicine which debunked doomsday global warming scenarios (such as those advanced by Gore and his political allies) and which warned against ill-conceived legislative fixes.

Now these latest tidbits from the scientific community:

1. Canadian climatologist T. Ball warns that "if we are facing a [global climate] crisis at all, it is that we are preparing for warming when we should be preparing for cooling."

2. Australian scientist Peter Harris asserts that "the Earth is nearing the end of the typical interglacial cycle and is due for a sudden cooling climate change." He goes on to say that "based upon careful analysis we can say that there is a 94% probability of imminent global cooling and the beginning of the coming ice age." He notes that climate is currently unstable and that "most of the natural climate processes we are witnessing now are interdependent and occur at the end of each interglacial period, ultimately causing sudden long-term cooling."

3. Noting that over the last 500,000 years there is a 100% correlation between gravitational cycles to the beginning and ending of global warming cycles, in his book, Global Warming - Global Cooling, Natural Causes Found, the culmination of 19 years of research, meteorologist D. Dilley writes that "by 2023 global climate temperatures will become similar to colder temperatures in the

4. The Russian Academy of Sciences warns that "Earth is now at the peak of one of its passing warm spells which started in the 17th century when there was no industrial influence on the climate and no such thing as the hothouse effect." In a companion story, Oleg Sorakan of the Academy notes that "carbon dioxide is not to blame for global change," and goes on to say that "solar activity is many times more powerful than the energy produced by the whole of humankind."

5. Victor Herrera, a Mexican geophysicist, reports that global warming prognostications "are incorrect because they are based solely upon mathematical models and present results from scenarios that do not include solar activity." He concludes that "in 2 years or so there will be the beginnings of a little ice age that will last 60-80 years" and that "the immediate consequences of this will be drought."

6. UK astrophysicist P. Corbyn asserts that "there is no evidence that CO2 has ever driven or ever will drive world temperatures and climate change. Worrying about CO2 is irrelevant." And where have we heard that before?

7. A recent U.S. Senate committee report highlighted Russian physicists' collective projection that "global temperatures will cool--not warm--within the next decade."

So, despite the politicization of the subject, and the beltway's general acceptance of global warming as an incontrovertible fact of life, what is actually occurring in our global climate is still hotly contested among rank and file scientists.

On such a weighty subject, transparent and responsible scientific discussion of the subject at the national level should be demanded. A "climate change commission" comprised of scientists--not political hacks--who represent a variety of scientific viewpoints and perspectives on the subject of climate change should be immediately convened to develop a coherent body of data and recommendations for the consideration of both Congress and the President. Our government's attempting to legislate without the benefit of intelligent, apolitical scientific discussion is both shortsighted and insane. The damage to the country caused by the lethal mix of politics with science could be incalculable.