Wednesday, June 24, 2009

The "Warm" has turned

Robert Tracinski and Tom Minchin point out how it looks like Australia might have finally come to its' senses regarding the whole Global Warming scam:
As the US Congress considers the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, the Australian Senate is on the verge of rejecting its own version of cap-and-trade. The story of this legislation's collapse offers advance notice for what might happen to similar legislation in the US—and to the whole global warming hysteria.

Since the Australian government first introduced its Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) legislation—the Australian version of cap-and-trade energy rationing—there has been a sharp shift in public opinion and political momentum against the global warming crusade. This is a story that offers hope to defenders of industrial civilization—and a warning to American environmentalists that the climate change they should be afraid of just might be a shift in the intellectual climate.
Tracinski and Minchin continue by pointing to that rarest of events. The conversion of a Global Warming advocate:
One of the most remarkable changes occurred on April 13, when leading global warming hysteric Paul Sheehan—who writes for the main Sydney newspaper, the Sydney Morning Herald, which has done as much to hype the threat of global warming as any Australian newspaper—reviewed Plimer's book and admitted he was taken aback. He describes Plimer, correctly, as "one of Australia's foremost Earth scientists," and praised the book as "brilliantly argued" and "the product of 40 years' research and breadth of scholarship."

What does Plimer's book say? Here is Sheehan's summary:

Much of what we have read about climate change, [Plimer] argues, is rubbish, especially the computer modeling on which much current scientific opinion is based, which he describes as "primitive."…

The Earth's climate is driven by the receipt and redistribution of solar energy. Despite this crucial relationship, the sun tends to be brushed aside as the most important driver of climate. Calculations on supercomputers are primitive compared with the complex dynamism of the Earth's climate and ignore the crucial relationship between climate and solar energy.

To reduce modern climate change to one variable, CO2, or a small proportion of one variable—human-induced CO2—is not science. To try to predict the future based on just one variable (CO2) in extraordinarily complex natural systems is folly.

I put in bold the part above, which is what I have been saying for years, yet the Religion of Global Warming parishioners cannot seem to refute it.

But I digress. Back to Tracinski and Minchin's story about how cap-and-trade is doing in the Australian Senate:
There are 7 other votes in the Senate: five Greens who say the scheme doesn't go far enough but who could be induced to go along; one independent, Nick Xenophon, who has pledged to vote against the bill unless the government waits till after Copenhagen; and one other, Senator Steve Fielding of the Family First Party, who has decided to investigate the whole thing first hand. Fielding could turn out to be the single deciding vote.

...Fielding went to the US to assess the American evidence for global warming at close quarters. As Melbourne's Age reported on June 4:

Senator Fielding said he was impressed by some of the data presented at the [US Heartland Institute's] climate change skeptics' conference: namely that, although carbon emissions had increased in the last 10 years, global temperature had not.

He said scientists at the conference had advanced other explanations, such as the relationship between solar activity and solar energy hitting the Earth to explain climate change.

Fielding has issued a challenge to the Obama White House to rebut the data. It will be a novel experience for them, as Fielding is an engineer and has an Australian's disregard for self-important government officials. Here is how The Age described his challenge:

Senator Fielding emailed graphs that claim the globe had not warmed for a decade to Joseph Aldy, US President Barack Obama's special assistant on energy and the environment, after a meeting on Thursday…. Senator Fielding said he found that Dr. Aldy and other Obama administration officials were not interested in discussing the legitimacy of climate science.

Telling an Australian you're not interested in the legitimacy of your position is a red rag to a bull. So here is what Fielding concluded:

Until recently I, like most Australians, simply accepted without question the notion that global warming was a result of increased carbon emissions. However, after speaking to a cross-section of noted scientists, including Ian Plimer, a professor at the University of Adelaide and author of Heaven and Earth, I quickly began to understand that the science on this issue was by no means conclusive….

As a federal senator, I would be derelict in my duty to the Australian people if I did not even consider whether or not the scientific assumptions underpinning this debate were in fact correct.
At least the Australians seem to be smart enough to recognize bull when they hear it, even if it took them awhile. In the meantime, the U.S. is stuck with Obama's Global Warming cultists running the show, who make policy on faith, not science. All we can do is hope the American people come to their senses before the fools in Washington throw another log on the true "warming" problem: the economic meltdown.


William R. Barker said...

Yeah, I read the same piece, Ed, and had the same reaction.

Still... we're dealing with a mixture of fanaticism and blind acceptance based upon either ideology, ego, or a combination of both.

Why do I say ego? Because in general the folks who have bought in to this whole global warming hysteria (er... now "climate change" hysteria) are the folks who consider themselves "wise" because they read the NYT and follow "fashionable" MSM propag... er... reporting.

Their egos are tied into not being... er... wrong about all they've signed on to. It's not that they'll stick to their guns to "protect" the NYT or other "man-made climate change" true believers - it's that they're trying not to admit they've been fooled.

This past Sunday, while doing my Father's Day rounds, I spent some post-drinking time at my buddy Phil's parent's home. Besides Phil's mom, dad, and kids (Phil's wife was sick, had stayed home) Phil's sisters were there.

Phil's two adult sisters are big libs, but bright, principled, and loyal to a fault.

At one point (while watching the semi-rained out U.S. open) we got on the subject of global warming.

When Phil, his dad, and I started making fun of "global warming," commenting upon the unseasonably cold weather we've been having here in the Northeast, the girls went straight to the usual...

"So...!?! You don't believe in global warming...?!? You don't believe the climate is changing...???

...strawman nonsense.

When we replied that Earth's weather - all 4.54 billion years worth - seemed to ALWAYS be in flux to one extent or another there was of course no rational reply.

When we pointed out the Little Ice Age (and past BIG ice ages, etc) the Grand Canyon, blah, blah, blah... well... to these two bright, well-educated young women we were just talking gibberish.


When we brought up solar activity...

(*SIGH*) (*SHRUG*)

My point...? Reasonable people have a long way to go if we want to convince unreasonable people of... er... a reality they're locked into opposition of.


EdMcGon said...

It is kinda sad, really.

I had the same conversation with AIP and Rodak over at Ragged Thots. I imagine it wasn't much different than the conversation you had with Phil's sisters.