A few days ago I questioned the accuracy of the climate models being used as the basis for most of the alarm about global warming. Today I found a letter to the editor of the local paper that very closely echos my point of view. The writer appears to have a similar background to mine, but if our paths have ever crossed I don't remember it. I'm taking the liberty of republishing his letter here because I couldn't find a link to it at NWFDailyNews.com:

During the past 20 years, computer models have improved short-term weather forecasting in many ways. However, weather and climate models have also been misused by people who do not fully understand how computer models work.

As a developer and user of scientific computer models, I was always aware that my modeling results were limited in validity and accuracy by the detail, accuracy and validity of the modeling software and the input data I used. Realistically, I could have obtained almost any result I desired if I made appropriate assumptions in my modeling program design and/or my input data.

Examples of misuses of weather/climate computer models are the annual forecasts of numbers and severity of hurricanes, and the ongoing issue of global climate change.

Critical weather and climate factors such as the unpredictable dynamic physics of cloud formation, variations in atmospheric gases and variations of ocean currents are not well documented or understood. Such natural phenomena are important determinants of weather and climate. This should be recognized as a serious problem with these long-term forecast models.

Even when well-known statistical techniques are used to increase the level of confidence in any modeling, the end results are still impacted by the validity and accuracy of the programming science and assumptions, parametric data accuracy, and any data omissions.

How accruate are long-term climate forecasts when models such as those just described are used? Accurate enough to believe widely accepted disaster scenarios derived from some global-warming modeling forecasts? I don't think so. Also, don't bother with those annual hurricane forecasts for the same reasons.

JOE COBB, Valparaiso FL

---

Today I was listening to CBS News on the radio while hauling a load of trash to the dump (somehow that seems appropriate). They reported that some expert (didn't catch the name) had issued a new warning of dire consequences to come from global warming. He estimates that the world will face severe food shortages within about a hundred years. Whoa! I think I'll run to the market tomorrow and stock up.

He also said that people who are "most vulnerable and least able to adapt" to the adverse effects of global warming will suffer the most. Where do they find these experts? The weak will suffer more than the strong? The poor will suffer more than the wealthy? They should hold a conference to discuss and expand on this guy's thinking.  I'll suggest another twist on his logic:  A person standing in the path of a speeding bullet is more likely to be hurt by the bullet than a person not standing in its path.

I've noticed that there are about three articles per week on global warming in the news feeds that I track on the internet. They seem to follow a particular format. Each article contains at least two elements: a new warning of its consequences and a declaration that the debate of its causes is over. I'm sure there is an organization somewhere that is tasked to pump the articles out.

Glowarm dissenters can take comfort in the fact that the people staffing that organization don't appear to be all that bright.

---

This CBS News article is about 10 days old now but I didn't have time to complete this post when the article was first published. From the article:

Two private advocacy groups told a congressional hearing Tuesday that climate scientists at seven government agencies say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the threat of global warming.

What? Someone's superiors insisting that their employees' actions should actually be bound by agency policy?

It amuses me when I see some indignant reporter trying to suggest that government employees shouldn't be controlled by their supervisors. Imagine the chaos that would result if all government employees were given carte blanche to pursue their own interests. It would be the same chaos that would result in a private organization run in that manner.

Reporters are certainly free to criticize the Bush Administration's policy on global warming, but to try to make a story out of the Administration's efforts to administer its policy is just plain silly.

The Democratic chairman of the House panel examining the government's response to climate change said Tuesday there is evidence that senior Bush administration officials sought repeatedly "to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming."

How is it 'misleading the public' to inject doubt into the science of global warming? There is plenty of doubt and uncertainty in the science of global warming. The public should be encouraged to question what the alarmists are telling them.

About the only aspect of global warming that most scientists agree on is that the earth is warming -- but some are beginning to question that. Some say that we might enter a little ice age within about twenty years. There is a lot of disagreement about whether human activity is a significant contributor to warming and, if it is, whether we can do anything that will significantly slow the warming. There is tremendous disagreement on the rate of warming and its effects. Some argue that the effects might even be a net positive for humans.

---

Right now the Midwest and Northeast could use some of Gore's hot air. Even in Florida I'm sitting by a fire looking at 29 degrees and frost outside. But it's been said that global warming works in mysterious ways.

It should be clear now why Gore and his cohorts held the big climate conference in Bali instead of, say, Buffalo. He caught a lot of criticism for the amount of carbon the conference generated, but can you imagine how much the participants' enthusiasm might have been dimmed by sub-zero temperatures. If not, consider the negative image of parka-clad television reporters standing in knee-deep snow.

There has been a lot of ink this past summer about how the arctic ice is melting more than usual. One fear is that the melting sea ice is threatening the polar bears. But I don't see any concern for the seals. It seems to me that the seals would be happy to see fewer polar bears lurking around their habitat.

The glowarm alarmists are pressing forward with their efforts to impose economy threatening restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions despite substantial evidence that the global warming trend ended in 1998. It's interesting to note that the glowarmers are trying to change the name of their movement (religion?) from "global warming" to "climate change." Perhaps they are aware of the recent cooling trend but don't want to acknowledge it directly.

---

I started to lose confidence in government when, about fifty years ago, it came up with its scheme to "save daylight" by cranking the clock ahead by an hour. A wise old man said that was like cutting off one end of a blanket and sewing it onto the other end to make the blanket longer.
_______________

I saw this advertisement on a web page:

"I Got Scammed 27 Times -- Avoid Work At Home Online Scams! I Will Show You The ones That Work."

Just the person you need to help you avoid scams, right?
_______________

US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has strongly criticized China's government for seeking to contain the riots in Tibet. I wonder what Pelosi's position would be if the Hispanics in California started rioting violently and demanding independence from the US. The Tibetans may have a stronger case for independence than the California Hispanics, but why should a member of our government be splitting this hair?
_______________

The debate over the science and evidence of global warming may not be over, as Al Gore likes to insist it is, but it seems to me that it has become irrelevant. Those who expect to profit immensely from government (taxpayer) grants and subsidies seem to be driving the runaway train now.

---

It irritates me that the global warming alarmists are always trying to deceive those who aren't paying close attention to what they are saying. A recent article includes a graph that shows that the planet's surface temperature has risen more than one degree Fahrenheit in 140 years. The graph is reproduced below. It gives the surface temperature in degrees Fahrenheit versus the year it was measured.

That's a very dramatic ramp-up in the temperature, right? Have you already forgotten that the actual temperature increase is just over one degree? Well, it's hard to get people stoked over a one degree rise unless you spice it up a bit. This is like examining the texture of your skin using a microscope.

Now look at the chart below, which shows the exact same data.

Global average temperatures didn't range from zero to 100 degrees over the displayed timeframe, but many of us are quite familiar with this range of highs and lows. The temperature rise doesn't look so dramatic from this perspective.

A more deceptive aspect of this though is the implication that the reported temperature data were measured accurately and consistently enough to confidently detect a difference of 1.3 degrees. The measuring stations have changed in number and location over the reported timeframe. The stations' measurements have been shown to be sensitive to their surroundings and their surroundings have not remained constant.

I don't know about you but a 1.3 degree rise over 140 years doesn't seem that alarming to me.

---

If you're interested in considering a thoughtful scientific viewpoint on the global warming issue watch the four-part presentation below. The presenter is Professor Bob Carter from James Cook University in Australia. The total length is about 36 minutes.

---

The AP and NASA report that more than 2 trillion tons of land ice in Greenland, Antarctica and Alaska have melted since 2003. They say that this has raised global sea levels about one-fifth of an inch in the past five years. Holy Shmoly! Grab the kids and run for higher ground!

Actually this is disappointing news. I had hoped that my children might get to enjoy my "waterfront" property in a few years. It is now about 20 miles from and 200 feet above the Gulf of Mexico. At the rate given above it will take about 60,000 years for the gulf to reach my property. Sorry about that kids. (Well, they probably won't mind since all their homes would be underwater long before my property becomes waterfront.)

---

Several months ago I posted an article titled, Relative Negative Effects of Energy Sources. In that article I postulated that the negative effects of various energy sources are about the same on the whole and in the long-term. I said this about the generation of electricity using solar panels:

The impact on the environment appears to be about zero, until you account for the manufacture and transportation of the panels. Think about the magnitude of an operation to keep all the homes and businesses in the world supplied with enough solar panels to supply their total power needs. And what about the batteries and their disposal issues?

I've reconsidered the first sentence above. There could be significant negative effects aside from the manufacture and transportation of the panels.

The glowarmists (yes, I believe it is an "ism") insist that the amount of "greenhouse" gases in the atmosphere must be significantly reduced if we are to avert a disaster in the next few decades. They base their claim on the fact that gases in the atmosphere trap heat from the sun's rays that are reflected from the earth's surface, much like greenhouses trap heat from the sun's rays.

(Most people agree that the greenhouse effect exists, but many disagree that human activity is a significant contributor or that it deserves the level of attention that the glowarmists want.)

My question is: If any increase in trapped heat from the sun is undesirable, and for some a pending crisis, why do we want to trap more of the sun's heat in solar panels? Eliminating the coal-fired and oil-fired power plants might indeed reduce the greenhouse effect, but replacing those plants with enough solar panels to generate the same amount of energy will likely trap the same amount of heat. The point of solar panels is to not reflect the sun's rays, but to absorb them and convert the sunlight into electricity. Unfortunately, the process of converting light into electricity wastes most of the energy as heat and that heat can raise the global average temperature.

How much? Who knows? I'm just saying that we should gather more data and gain more knowledge before we depress the world economy and slow the progress of developing nations as the glowarmists apparently want. Their agenda is rife with the potential for unintended consequences. Or are they unintended?

---

• <-- Previous page
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next page -->