Monday, December 11, 2006

climate change update

Today's post highlights four articles on various aspects of climate change. Collectively they offer some hope and optimism that common sense may yet resist the overwhelming indoctrination of global warming dogma.

Solomon presents the send in his series of profiles of climate skeptics with the case of Christopher Landsea who resigned as lead author of the IPCC section on climate change and hurricanes after the IPCC pre-empted his report with a staged media event intended to capitalise on public sentiment in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Not only did the IPCC lose the services of a world-renowned expert, they compromised the integrity of the science they claimed to be using and they revealed much about their strategy relative to making a case for global warming irrespective of the facts. IN the IPCC world, the end does justify the means.

The second article is an update from Senator Inhofe that summarise the expected reduction in predicted climate changes contained within the upcoming fourth IPCC report due this Spring. For Inhofe, this is vindication of his stance on climate change and is presented, I suspect, as a media ploy to offset the expected shift within the Senate environment committee now that the Democrats will both control and direct its focus for the next couple of years. Its politics and highlights how the game is played in Washington but also has several good links.

The third article I want to point out today comes from a web-exclusive comment in Canada's Globe and Mail, which is a newspaper renowned for its promotion of the standard global warming dogma. Surprisingly, then the post is a general public primer on how carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and that those with environmental sensitivities could better expend their energies opposing real issues. Quite refreshing but still not enough to get me to subscribe.

And last, but not least, is the latest update on the World Climate Report website, which underscores the previous existence of extended warm periods prior to the present global warming scare. Present temperatures are neither unprecedented nor alarming when viewed in historical context. That's science. Everything else is ideology.

The biggest problem is convincing advocates of global warming that their perceptions are coloured by their ideology when they view themselves either as planetary saviours (and thus with the "correct" ideology) or as dispassionate scientists without any ideology ( but they do have views on the certitude of science, the infallibility of scientific method,religion, politics, cultural diversity, gender roles and a myriad of other constructs that form their ideology despite their lack of willingness to confront or acknowledge it).