Couple notes before I introduce my main topic.
First, I use the term AGW, which stands for 'anthropogenic global warming'. This means that mankind either is the cause for global warming, or that mankind had a significant role in global warming. This is different than simply referring to CC or climate change, which is global warming regardless of the reasons.
Second, I quite agree that CC is happening. I believe CC is normal and to be expected. I do not know to what extent humans have played a role in that change. I also do not think any of us really know the answer to that question.
Therefore, I doubt AGW. That does not mean I do not believe it exists; rather it means I am agnostic on the subject. I do not think that there is a scientific consensus view agreeing with AGW, which is the main topic I am about to present.
Finally, I think that without a real consensus view on AGW, we ought not to be spending trillions of tax dollars and putting ourselves (the US, UK, and other industrial 1st-World nations) into a non-competitive role with regard to manufacturing and paying smaller countries while they continue to do what we are no longer allowed to do. We're hurting ourselves and for no good reason.
Now, having said that...
This is an article from Reason.org, one of my favorite think-tanks. It tends towards a libertarian viewpoint and I generally find myself in agreement with what I read there, despite the fact that I do not consider myself a true libertarian anymore.
http://reason.org/blog/show/peer-reviewed-journal-articles
The article that this blog entry links to is worth reading. It is a PDF file and frankly, it's a bit of a slog to read, but I feel it is worth it. In it, author Ken Green rebuts Senator Kerry's assertion that there is consensus amongst scientists about AGW, and he shows that the evidence supports the conclusion that not only is there no consensus, but that the recently released emails from CRU prove that some scientists conspired to manipulate the peer-review process itself to prevent opposing views from being published wherever possible.
Here is the link to that PDF file:
http://www.aei.org/docLib/EEO-No-6-Green-g.pdf
Please note that I am not claiming AGW does not exist. I'm claiming there is not the 'consensus view' that some have claimed exists. I am also claiming that certain CRU scientists attempted to suppress opposing viewpoints. That does not make their data right or wrong, nor does it make the data of their opponents right or wrong. It simply points out that they attempted to suppress any conclusion other than their own. This casts doubt on the 'consensus viewpoint'.
In the end, AGW may be real, or it may not be. But I do not think it is finished science. I realize that science is seldom based on unchallengeable, undeniable results, but I doubt that consensus exists, and therefore I think it unwise to proceed down the paths we are currently pursuing.
The part I find most amusing (and frustrating) about responses I have read in the press about those who make the claim I make (that AGW is not a consensus viewpoint and may not exist), is that they never defend that. Instead, they mew and cry that "of course global warming exists, it's proven science!" Well, yes, but that wasn't the question, was it? Obfuscation fools stupid people, but I'm not stupid. It makes me angry that they won't actually address the accusation, but keep playing stupid word games.
First, I use the term AGW, which stands for 'anthropogenic global warming'. This means that mankind either is the cause for global warming, or that mankind had a significant role in global warming. This is different than simply referring to CC or climate change, which is global warming regardless of the reasons.
Second, I quite agree that CC is happening. I believe CC is normal and to be expected. I do not know to what extent humans have played a role in that change. I also do not think any of us really know the answer to that question.
Therefore, I doubt AGW. That does not mean I do not believe it exists; rather it means I am agnostic on the subject. I do not think that there is a scientific consensus view agreeing with AGW, which is the main topic I am about to present.
Finally, I think that without a real consensus view on AGW, we ought not to be spending trillions of tax dollars and putting ourselves (the US, UK, and other industrial 1st-World nations) into a non-competitive role with regard to manufacturing and paying smaller countries while they continue to do what we are no longer allowed to do. We're hurting ourselves and for no good reason.
Now, having said that...
This is an article from Reason.org, one of my favorite think-tanks. It tends towards a libertarian viewpoint and I generally find myself in agreement with what I read there, despite the fact that I do not consider myself a true libertarian anymore.
http://reason.org/blog/show/peer-reviewed-journal-articles
Peer Reviewed Journal Articles Challenging the Climate Change Consensus
As the debate over climate change and the right policy approaches continues to reach hyperbolic levels, Ken Green has usually provided a sane and reasoned perespective. Ken is an analyst at the American Enterprise Institute who has the notable credentials of a Ph.D. in environmental science and being a former peer reviewer for the International Pannel on Climate Change (IPCC). So, he knows a little about climate science as well as the politics surrounding it.
The article that this blog entry links to is worth reading. It is a PDF file and frankly, it's a bit of a slog to read, but I feel it is worth it. In it, author Ken Green rebuts Senator Kerry's assertion that there is consensus amongst scientists about AGW, and he shows that the evidence supports the conclusion that not only is there no consensus, but that the recently released emails from CRU prove that some scientists conspired to manipulate the peer-review process itself to prevent opposing views from being published wherever possible.
Here is the link to that PDF file:
http://www.aei.org/docLib/EEO-No-6-Green-g.pdf
Please note that I am not claiming AGW does not exist. I'm claiming there is not the 'consensus view' that some have claimed exists. I am also claiming that certain CRU scientists attempted to suppress opposing viewpoints. That does not make their data right or wrong, nor does it make the data of their opponents right or wrong. It simply points out that they attempted to suppress any conclusion other than their own. This casts doubt on the 'consensus viewpoint'.
In the end, AGW may be real, or it may not be. But I do not think it is finished science. I realize that science is seldom based on unchallengeable, undeniable results, but I doubt that consensus exists, and therefore I think it unwise to proceed down the paths we are currently pursuing.
The part I find most amusing (and frustrating) about responses I have read in the press about those who make the claim I make (that AGW is not a consensus viewpoint and may not exist), is that they never defend that. Instead, they mew and cry that "of course global warming exists, it's proven science!" Well, yes, but that wasn't the question, was it? Obfuscation fools stupid people, but I'm not stupid. It makes me angry that they won't actually address the accusation, but keep playing stupid word games.