Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has an article in the International version of Newsweek that hits the global warming alarmists right between the peepers with a solid super-dense logic brick. I’m gonna excerpt that piece heavily here, but do go and read it all. There’s much ammunition here to combat all the hyper rhetoric coming out of the pie holes of Lefty, global warming alarmists whack jobs. So, be my guest to lock & load and fire at will. We’ve got an economy and a way of life to save! On to the good Professor:

Judging from the media in recent months, the debate over global warming is now over. There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true. What of it? Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we’ve seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentators—and many scientists—seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes.

Oh, baby — I can almost hear ol’ Al Gore’s sphincter snappin’ shut so tight he’ll hit a two octave high “C” the next time he farts!

The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman’s forecast for next week.

Geez! I live out here in La La Land, where the weather is almost always pretty nice, and our weathermen can’t get it right, either. Where’s that sun today, boys? Yeah — but I’ll trust your brainiacs to tell me what’s gonna happen in 30 years.

A warmer climate could prove to be more beneficial than the one we have now. Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate. (…) Indeed, meteorological theory holds that, outside the tropics, weather in a warming world should be less variable, which might be a good thing.

Don’t we all just love Hawaii? It’s green, a lot of stuff grows all year. You live in tropical shirts and shorts — what’s not to like?

In many other respects, the ill effects of warming are overblown. Sea levels, for example, have been increasing since the end of the last ice age. When you look at recent centuries in perspective, ignoring short-term fluctuations, the rate of sea-level rise has been relatively uniform (less than a couple of millimeters a year). There’s even some evidence that the rate was higher in the first half of the twentieth century than in the second half. Overall, the risk of sea-level rise from global warming is less at almost any given location than that from other causes, such as tectonic motions of the earth’s surface.

There ya go. Any effect from rising temps will be minuscule compared to what is gonna happen to this place when the San Andreas goes all magnitude 8.5 on us.

But average temperatures rose only about 0.6 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era, and the change hasn’t been uniform—warming has largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between. Researchers have been unable to explain this discrepancy.

Ya don’t read that much in the papers or hear it on the evening news, now do ya? Anything else they aren’t telling us?

Ten years ago climate modelers also couldn’t account for the warming that occurred from about 1050 to 1300. They tried to expunge the medieval warm period from the observational record—an effort that is now generally discredited.

Oh, so that’s the way they play? If they see something in the climate record that doesn’t jibe with their preconceptions, then let’s just pretend that part of the record doesn’t exit. Is that what they teach as science there days? Just askin’.

Is there any point in pretending that CO2 increases will be catastrophic? Or could they be modest and on balance beneficial? India has warmed during the second half of the 20th century, and agricultural output has increased greatly. Infectious diseases like malaria are a matter not so much of temperature as poverty and public-health policies (like eliminating DDT). Exposure to cold is generally found to be both more dangerous and less comfortable.

Well, that all depends upon if one can make a buck, or a billion bucks, by scaring the living willies out of the common folk — and then tax the bejeesus out of ‘em to boot. If you can get the West to lay down and self destruct industrially, then you have the trifecta of choice for the energy traders, the Lefty politicians and the enviro-fanatics. Can you say win-win-win?

Moreover, actions taken thus far to reduce emissions have already had negative consequences without improving our ability to adapt to climate change. An emphasis on ethanol, for instance, has led to angry protests against corn-price increases in Mexico, and forest clearing and habitat destruction in Southeast Asia. Carbon caps are likely to lead to increased prices, as well as corruption associated with permit trading. (Enron was a leading lobbyist for Kyoto because it had hoped to capitalize on emissions trading.) The alleged solutions have more potential for catastrophe than the putative problem. The conclusion of the late climate scientist Roger Revelle—Al Gore’s supposed mentor—is worth pondering: the evidence for global warming thus far doesn’t warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate.

And no, Lindzen’s research is not from energy companies, it’s all U.S. government funded. I’m shocked that this is appearing in a version of Newsweek – wonder if it’ll make it into the U.S. version that’ll show up at my wife’s office. I’ll let ya know. Now, go read it all, print it out, and keep the info at hand. You never know when you’ll run into one of the global warming alarmists freaks — so hit ‘em between the eyes with this logic brick!

Technorati Tags: Richard S. Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, global warming, Al Gore, CO2 increases, climate change, Kyoto, Newsweek, global warming alarmists

This entry was posted on Sunday, April 8th, 2007 at 7:14 pm and is filed under Global Warming B.S.. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.  |   Print This Post  |   Email This Post

Recently Posted:

• “Young Mattie Fein” Political Ad — Hot Linkage & More . . .
• Just Bloggin’ Around: VJ Day Video, Ground Zero Mosque, Obaminations & More . . .
• We The People — An Open Letter To President Obama
• Remembering Annie & Some Hard-Life Lessons
• Obama’s Nightmare In The Gulf
• Obama’s Exectuive Order Banning Federal Funding of Abortion Proves To Be Just More B.S.
• American Women — Takin’ Names, Kickin’ Butt!
• Now Obama’s F’ing Up NASA!
• Happy 4th of July Y’all!
• VOTE!