Two More Glowarm Skeptics Speak Out

A reader sent two links to articles describing the global warming skepticism of two scientists -- one in Australia and one in the United States. The first article is written by Bob Carter, an environmental scientist at James Cook University who studies ancient climate change. He feels that heads of state are being misled by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other organizations:

It is past time for those who have deceived governments and misled the public regarding dangerous human-caused global warming to be called to account. Aided by hysterical posturing by green NGOs, their actions have led to the cornering of government on the issue and the likely implementation of futile emission policies that will impose direct extra costs on every household and enterprise in Australia to no identifiable benefit.

Carter says that "the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998."

The second article quotes Reid Bryson, known as the father of scientific climatology. Bryson considers global warming "a bunch of hooey":

The University of Wisconsin professor emeritus, who stands against the scientific consensus on this issue, is referred to as a global warming skeptic. But he is not skeptical that global warming exists, he is just doubtful that humans are the cause of it.

There is no question the earth has been warming. It is coming out of the "Little Ice Age," he said in an interview this week.

"However, there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We've been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It's been warming up for a long time," Bryson said.

The Little Ice Age was driven by volcanic activity. That settled down so it is getting warmer, he said.

Humans are polluting the air and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but the effect is tiny, Bryson said.

"It's like there is an elephant charging in and you worry about the fact that there is a fly sitting on its head. It's just a total misplacement of emphasis," he said. "It really isn't science because there's no really good scientific evidence."

Galen McKinley, an assistant professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences at UW-Madison disagrees with Bryson, but her analogies destroy her credibility:

"We understand very well the basic process of the greenhouse effect, which is that we know that the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases the heat trapped by the atmosphere. You put one dollar more in the bank and you have one dollar more there tomorrow. It's a very clear feedback," she said.

Well not neccesarily, not if you or someone else takes the dollar out of the bank. And I don't think she meant to reveal to us that putting more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is like money in the bank for her.

"If you saw smoke in your house, it would be irresponsible not to get your family out, right?"

Well no, not if you know the source of the smoke and know that it doesn't present an imminent danger to your family.

I predict that we will soon see a lot more articles on glowarm skepicism.  The media will soon become bored with shilling for the global warming alarmists and start seeing more interesting news in what the skeptics have to say.  When everyone is saying the same thing it is hardly news.  And scams don't usually hold together for very long.

---

Comments

Make a comment:

Name (required) Email (required, but not published) Website (optional) Comment (required)