Thursday, May 03, 2007

 

You Just Don't Expect This at The Nation

Alexander Cockburn has had all he can stand and he can't stand no more. The idea of global warming as groundless religion and carbon offsets as Catholic indulgences is not new, but there's no scorn like a liberal vexed by the utter gullability of other liberals. His outrage is rather refreshing and I agree with nearly every word this guys writes. Highlights:

In a couple of hundred years historians will be comparing the frenzies over our supposed human contribution to global warming to the tumults at the latter end of the tenth century as the Christian millennium approached. Then as now, the doomsters identified human sinfulness as the propulsive factor in the planet's rapid downward slide. Then as now, a buoyant market throve on fear. The Roman Catholic Church sold indulgences like checks. The sinners established a line of credit against bad behavior and could go on sinning. Today a world market in "carbon credits" is in formation. Those whose "carbon footprint" is small can sell their surplus carbon credits to others less virtuous than themselves.

The modern trade is as fantastical as the medieval one. There is still zero empirical evidence that anthropogenic production of carbon dioxide is making any measurable contribution to the world's present warming trend. The greenhouse fearmongers rely on unverified, crudely oversimplified models to finger mankind's sinful contribution--and carbon trafficking, just like the old indulgences, is powered by guilt, credulity, cynicism and greed.


[...]

It's a notorious inconvenience for the Greenhousers that data also show CO2 concentrations from the Eocene period, 20 million years before Henry Ford trundled out his first Model T, 300 to 400 percent higher than current concentrations. The Greenhousers deal with other difficulties, like the medieval warming period's higher-than-today temperatures, by straightforward chicanery, misrepresenting tree ring data (themselves an unreliable guide) and claiming the warming was a local European affair.

We're warmer now because today's world is in the thaw following the recent ice age. Ice ages correlate with changes in the solar heat we receive, all due to predictable changes in the Earth's elliptical orbit round the sun and in the Earth's tilt. As Hertzberg explains, the clinical heat effect of all of these variables was worked out in great detail between 1915 and 1940 by Milutin Milankovitch, a giant of twentieth-century astrophysics. In past post-glacial cycles, as now, the Earth's orbit and tilt give us more and longer summer days between the equinoxes.

Water covers 71 percent of Earth's surface. Compared with the atmosphere, there's 100 times more CO2 in the oceans, dissolved as carbonate. As the post-glacial thaw progresses the oceans warm up, and some of the dissolved carbon emits into the atmosphere, like fizz from soda. "The greenhouse global warming theory has it ass backwards," Hertzberg concludes. "It is the warming of the Earth that is causing the increase of carbon dioxide and not the reverse." In vivid confirmation of that conclusion, several new papers show that for the last 750,000 years, CO2 changes have always lagged behind global temperatures by 800 to 2,600 years.

Labels:


Comments:
"His outrage is rather refreshing"

No it isn't. It's rather stale, old, and his basic issues have been explained.

"I agree with nearly every word this guys writes"

BIG surprise!
 
Isn't it more like the practice of sin-eating than indulgences?
 
Andy, your loyalty to the sad religion of global warming is duely noted. I'll be ribbing you for it for the rest of our lives.

Both, I think, D, but since you forego energy use so that others can use a lot of energy, sin eating is not a perfect match. But neither is indulgances--although paying others so that you can feel good about your living what you claim is an evil life is pretty close.
 
Too bad none of us are going to live long enough to actually know for sure.
 
Mike, I know now, you and your ilk are either swept away or in denial of the flaws of the theory.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?